How The Accused To Withdraw The Plea Of Guilty And Acceptance Of Punishment

As the core of the modern Law of Criminal Procedure is the principle of presumption of innocence,which is both a provision of the current Code of Criminal Procedure and a cornerstone of the modern system of rule of law in criminal procedure.Departing from the principle of presumption of innocence,criminal procedural activities will naturally tend to the concept of criminal procedure based on social experience that "existing criminal acts,followed by criminal procedural activities".The instrumental value of criminal procedure has been magnified,becoming a tool for serving the state in punishing crimes,making criminal proceedings have the color of detailed administrative criminalization activities,rather than having the nature of "litigation".Therefore,only by establishing the subject status of persons to be prosecuted in criminal proceedings on the basis of the principle of presumption of innocence and providing equal opportunities and basic guarantees for rational confrontation between them and the state prosecuting organs can the two basic objectives of the Criminal Procedure Law in combating crime and protecting human rights be realized.The plea leniency system has been systematically written into the Criminal Procedure Law and has become an important part of the Criminal Procedure Law.In judicial practice,this system is applied to a large number of criminal cases.Whether from the perspective of the legal system or judicial practice,the plea leniency system has naturally become the focus of research in the field of criminal procedure law.For a long time,efforts have been made to protect the rights of persons being prosecuted in the direction of improving China’s Criminal Procedure Law,and it is also the appeal of the vast number of scholars of criminal procedure law.Before and after the implementation of the plea leniency system,academic circles have put forward many suggestions on the protection of the rights of the person being prosecuted in plea cases,with particular emphasis on the voluntary guarantee for the person being prosecuted to admit guilt and accept punishment.In short,guaranteeing the voluntariness of the person being prosecuted is the basis for the legitimacy of the plea leniency system.At present,under the great attention of the Party Central Committee,through long-term pilot reforms and the improvement of judicial practice,a set of effective systems have been constructed in the plea leniency system for the voluntary guarantee of the prosecuted person,such as the defender and duty lawyer witness system,which has greatly guaranteed the voluntariness of the prosecuted person.It is worth affirming that,for example,the system of the presence of defenders and duty lawyers when signing the affidavit is conducive to the substantial protection of the right to defend the prosecuted person,which can be called a major breakthrough and bold attempt to protect the rights of the prosecuted person in criminal proceedings.However,whether from the analysis of the actual process of handling plea cases or from some hot cases exposed in judicial practice,there are still problems in the operation of the plea leniency system that the voluntariness of the prosecuted person has not been fully guaranteed,or the consequences of the failure to honor the lenient punishment.At this time,whether the person being prosecuted can freely withdraw his guilt and accept punishment is an important part of the measure of whether his voluntariness is fully guaranteed.The mature system is systematic,and the right of withdrawal,as the subordinate concept of voluntary guarantees,must clarify its relationship with other voluntary safeguard measures and form a positive interaction,not only to pay attention to the "head guarantee" of voluntary admission of guilt and punishment,but also to give full play to the role of the right of withdrawal.Existing studies generally believe that the right of withdrawal is a safeguard mechanism for the prosecution to voluntarily admit guilt and accept punishment.However,in practice,the right of withdrawal does not directly guarantee the person being prosecuted to voluntarily admit guilt and accept punishment,and this guarantee effect is to a large extent reflected in the role of relief and balance,that is,it can remedy the untrue confession of guilt of the person being prosecuted and balance the unequal interest structure between the prosecution and defense.In the current judicial practice,there are problems in the operation of the voluntary guarantee system of the prosecuted person,and it is urgent for the right of withdrawal to play its function,but there are also obstacles to the exercise of the right of withdrawal.After withdrawing the plea and accepting punishment,the person being prosecuted often faces a heavier penalty and often receives a more negative evaluation at the subjective level of the crime at trial.These precedents undoubtedly exacerbate the concerns of the prosecuted person in exercising the right of withdrawal and do not help to guarantee the voluntary nature of the plea.Therefore,it is imperative to build a more complete system for the exercise of the right of withdrawal.From the perspective of the specific design of the system,in pre-trial procedures,attention should be paid to ensuring the right of withdrawal of the person being prosecuted,strengthening the substantive and effective assistance of lawyers,standardizing the interpretation obligations of judicial personnel,and ensuring the free will of the person being prosecuted.At the trial stage,on the one hand,it is necessary to improve the mechanism for initiating the return of the procedure and the conditions for application,not only to pay attention to the implementation of the principle of presumption of innocence,but also to ensure the efficiency and value of criminal proceedings,so that the two can be taken into account;on the other hand,it is necessary to emphasize the invalidity of the "Plea Affidavit" and the loss of power of derived evidence,prevent the withdrawn confession(confession)from entering the trial procedure,and minimize its impact on the adjudicator’s psychological evidence,so as to ensure the procedural right of the prosecuted person to obtain a fair trial.In addition,it is also necessary to pay attention to the phenomenon of "technical plea and acceptance of punishment" that exists in practice,and the protection of the right to withdraw should also be treated dialectically,on the one hand,emphasizing its rights as the person being prosecuted,and at the same time,for the prosecuted person who has made a technical plea and accept punishment,the judicial organs should also prudently and reasonably use the voluntary authenticity review system and the counter-prosecution system in court trial to reasonably oppose the "false admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment".Improving the plea leniency system will be a long-term task.Through the reference of the experience of the pilot reform,the standardized summary of the handling process of the case,and the comparative demonstration of the corresponding theories,it is the direction of this article to carry out some beneficial practical explorations at the institutional level on how to protect the right of withdrawal of the prosecuted person.