Research On The Defendant’s Right Of Repentance From The Perspective Of Confession And Punishment

In the process of practice and theoretical exploration of the leniency system for pleading guilty,the academic community has made explanations on the basic concepts,principles,scope of application,and conditions of the system,providing assistance for the judicial authorities to apply the leniency system for pleading guilty,pleading guilty,and punishing in practice,while also largely resolving some judicial difficulties and contradictions.However,the new system is also brewing new contradictions.In the process of implementing the leniency system for pleading guilty and punishment,the procedures and norms for ensuring the implementation of the system still need to be further improved.With the continuous improvement of the level of rule of law in China,citizens’ awareness of the rule of law and rights has been continuously strengthened,and in the process of litigation,the accused has also shown a more active and active state.In the system of pleading guilty and lenient punishment,the former accused are more inclined to obey the sentencing suggestions and opinions of the procuratorial organ,and respect the court’s trial results.In recent years,either to protect their rights from infringement "Or for reasons such as obtaining a lighter sentence,it is increasingly common for the accused to withdraw their previous guilty statements,which is the case where the accused retracts.".Therefore,confirming the legitimacy of the accused’s right of estoppel and regulating the exercise of the accused’s right of estoppel have become an important part of improving the system of confession and leniency.However,due to the contradictory characteristics of the behavior of the accused pleading guilty and then reneging on his/her punishment,and the increased burden on the judicial authorities caused by the exercise of the right of estoppel by the accused,the system of the right of estoppel is full of complexity and uncertainty,so it has not received due attention in judicial practice,and relevant legal provisions also need to be specific and procedural.Based on this,it is necessary to discuss the establishment and exercise of the right of estoppel from the perspective of the lenient system of confession and punishment.When discussing the right of estoppel under the lenient system of confession and punishment,we should first study the basic theories of the right of estoppel of the accused,and distinguish and analyze the concept of the right of estoppel of the accused.The right of estoppel in the leniency system for pleading guilty and punishment refers to the right of the accused to express his or her estoppel against the previous pleading behavior after the accused and the defendant have signed a written statement of pleading guilty and punishment through negotiation,that is,the right of the accused to choose to plead guilty and then regret."Hu Yunteng: Understanding and Application of the System of Confession,Confession,Punishment,and Leniency," People’s Court Press,2018 edition,p.129.The content of the right of estoppel provided by China from the legislative level is reflected in Articles 51-53 of the Guiding Opinions on the Application of the System of Confession,Punishment,and Leniency(hereinafter referred to as the Guiding Opinions)issued by the "Two High and Three Ministries"."The Supreme People’s Procuratorate,the Supreme People’s Court,the Ministry of Public Security,the Ministry of National Security,and the Ministry of Justice: Guiding Opinions on the Application of the System of Condemnation,Confession,Punishment,and Leniency,issued on October 24,2019." Through analyzing the characteristics of the right of estoppel,it can be seen that the right of estoppel is a right exclusively owned by the accused and used by the accused to safeguard their own interests;The right of estoppel has limitations,and its scope of application should not be excessively expanded.It is only suitable for applications where the lenient system of confession and punishment guarantees the voluntary nature of the accused’s confession and punishment,otherwise it will lead to confusion in the judicial sequence;The right of estoppel can be seen as a remedy because it helps regulate the judicial behavior of judicial organs and serves as a way to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the accused.Due to the fact that the accused may exercise their right of estoppel at different stages of the proceedings,and the right of estoppel at different stages of the proceedings has different manifestations,it can be divided into different types of estoppel according to their different manifestations.The stages in which the accused exercises the right of estoppel can be divided into the investigation stage,the review and prosecution stage,and the trial stage.According to the different forms of expression and reasons for exercising the right of estoppel by the accused,different types of estoppel can be distinguished.The right of estoppel of the accused is like a double-edged sword.On the one hand,it can protect the rights of the accused,and on the other hand,due to the improper use of rights,it can also bring certain judicial risks.The dual nature of the accused’s right of estoppel is embodied in: on the one hand,the right of estoppel should be granted to the accused because of its own legitimacy.Affirming that the accused has the right of estoppel is an inevitable requirement to ensure the voluntary nature of the accused.The exercise of the right of estoppel is also an important embodiment of the exercise of the accused’s right to defense.The right of estoppel is the essence of consultative criminal justice and can protect the accused’s right to choose criminal procedures.On the other hand,the exercise of the right of estoppel by the accused may pose certain judicial risks.First,due to the consideration of the efficiency of the case trial,the court and the procuratorate are not willing to see the accused change their original position and exercise the right of estoppel.If the accused retracts,it is likely to face retaliatory prosecution and trial by the judicial authorities after the accused retracts.Secondly,after the accused retracts,The judicial authorities may improperly use the evidence from the previous stage due to the currently imperfect evidence rules.Once again,the abuse of the right of estoppel by the accused is more likely to lead to an increase in the judicial burden and a waste of judicial resources.The life of law lies in practice,and only in practice can a system be verified as scientific and its problems be discovered.Based on the analysis and research of 93 legal documents in J Province and combined with existing judicial practice data,with the continuous expansion of the total number of cases of pleading guilty and punishment,the number of cases of second instance appeals or exercising the right of estoppel is also increasing in reality.The reasons for the accused to retract are diverse,ranging from those who believe that the sentence is too heavy to retract,those who believe that the evidence is insufficient to retract,those who believe that the facts are unclear to retract,and those who retract without any reason.The ways in which the accused exercises his right to retract are also diverse,ranging from those who retract through written appeals to those who directly retract through oral action.In terms of the types of cases in which the accused retracts,economic cases are the main ones.The court of second instance handles the accused’s right to retract by way of appeal,maintaining the original judgment as the norm.Each system should be continuously improved and improved in practice,as should the system of pleading guilty and lenient punishment.At present,judicial authorities in various regions are also contributing to the improvement and development of the system in the process of applying the leniency system for confession of guilt.As a right of estoppel within the framework of the leniency system for confession of guilt,there are indeed some problems such as the unclear positioning of the right of estoppel,the incomplete procedural design of the system of estoppel,the insufficient application motivation of judicial authorities,and the abuse of the right of estoppel by the accused.In order to better achieve the implementation of the leniency system for confession of guilt Promote judicial justice,resolve social conflicts,promote social harmony,and achieve the separation of complexity and severity of cases."The goal of separating the fast and slow,rationally allocating judicial resources,and improving the efficiency of litigation and criminal governance is to establish and improve the system of the right of estoppel as soon as possible.In the face of the dual nature of the right of estoppel,it is necessary to establish and improve targeted regulations and systems,and on the one hand,use systems to ensure that the accused exercise the right of estoppel.",Allowing the accused to exercise the right of estoppel has legitimacy and legitimacy.On the other hand,legislation is adopted to regulate the exercise of the right of estoppel by the accused,so as to minimize the waste of judicial resources and potential damage to the rights of the accused caused by the accused’s estoppel.