Second, whether the guilty plea is an independent sentencing circumstances
Article 67, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the criminal law, respectively, "surrender", "quasi-surrender" and "confession". ". From the content point of view, the core content of the entity's surrender system is basically the issue of guilty plea. This makes the relationship between "guilty plea" and confession and self-surrender in the system of leniency of guilty pleas and penalties a new challenge in the pilot program. Although the Criminal Procedure Law (revised in 2018) has legislated the leniency system for guilty pleas and penalties, it has not yet clarified the connotations of guilty pleas and penalties, especially the relationship between guilty pleas and the system of self-surrender in criminal law. Under these new circumstances, the logical relationship between the plea of guilty and the system of surrender remains to be further clarified.
At present, the theoretical and practical departments have different views on whether the guilty plea is an independent sentencing circumstances. There is no lack of negative views that the plea of guilty and punishment contains a series of plea of guilty and punishment, is not a new independent sentencing circumstances. This would also mean that they overlap and there is a problem of double evaluation, which is detrimental to the fairness of the sentencing recommendation. At the same time, there are also views that, from the point of view of normative form, plea bargaining and surrender are two independent criminal law systems established by substantive and procedural law, respectively, and cannot replace each other. Plea bargaining should be a new independent sentencing circumstance in addition to surrender, confession and pleading guilty in court. However, pleading guilty and accepting punishment as an independent sentencing circumstance will inevitably lead to a series of chain reactions, particularly with regard to the revision of the provisions of the Criminal Law on self-surrender. In this regard, it should be seen that the plea of guilty and leniency is an important litigation system and procedures, the plea of guilty and leniency can not only be manifested in sentencing leniency. Should be in accordance with the provisions of the system of plea bargaining and lenient punishment, according to the law, for the following reasons: First, plea bargaining and surrender, confession in the sentencing aspects of the overlap and connection, but plea bargaining should be surrender, confession, plea of guilty, in addition to a new independent sentencing circumstances. In the surrender, confession, mitigation or reduction of the basis, should be given appropriate leniency, in order to truly reflect the incentive to plead guilty to punishment of the legislative intent of the proceedings, in order to truly promote their repentance. Secondly, the intention and connotation of the system of plea bargaining and leniency, not only has the entity effect, the procedural law meaning is more important, refers to the principle of due process of the law as the foundation, to promote the plea of guilty to serve the sentence, convinced, entity justice and procedural justice are closely integrated, constituting a complete and perfect justice and democratic procedures. Therefore, from the perspective of criminal integration, plea bargaining is not a "replica" of the surrender system. On this basis, the attributes of the independent sentencing circumstance of guilty pleas and penalties will eventually need to be clarified through the amendment of the criminal law. At present, through the judicial interpretation or guiding case system, etc. to explain.
Three, plea cases sentencing prediction of intelligent exploration
In order to implement the revised Criminal Procedure Law, in-depth promotion of sentencing recommendations to carry out effective work, April 28 this year, the national procuratorial organs, "sentencing recommendations accurate, standardized, intelligent" network training was held. Procuratorial organs at all levels are required to effectively raise awareness of the importance of sentencing recommendations, change the tendency of "focusing on conviction, not on sentencing", attach great importance to the significance and value of the right to make sentencing recommendations, and effectively assume the leading responsibility for the conviction of the alleged crime and the sentencing of the alleged crime and do a good job of making sentencing recommendations. It has further revised and improved sentencing standards, revised and improved procedural norms for sentencing recommendations, and taken a variety of measures to comprehensively enhance the capacity and level of prosecutors' sentencing recommendations. In particular, it is clearly required to give full play to the role of big data intelligent assistance systems. The in-depth combination and linkage of big data, intelligence and prosecutorial work can effectively enhance the precision and fairness of sentencing recommendations. Reference can be made to the study of the court system and experts and scholars to develop the sentencing assistance system, and in due course to organize the research and development of the sentencing recommendation assistance system that can be universally applied. This clearly puts forward the direction of exploration of intelligent reform of sentencing in cases of guilty pleas and punishments.
The separation of procedural complexity and simplicity between plea and non-punishment cases has been in place for a long time, and the Criminal Procedure Law (revised in 2018) has standardized and formalized it. In the context of the full implementation of the leniency system of plea bargaining, plea bargaining cases will become the most important case. Under the premise of voluntary guilty plea and punishment, the conviction is basically uncontroversial or has been resolved, and it is mainly confirmed through the procedure, making the sentencing negotiation a top priority. How to scientifically conduct sentencing negotiation, accurately propose sentencing recommendations and make them justified is the next case center. In the new round of changes, intelligent sentencing prediction has come into being and will become an important element of the plea and punishment case handling mechanism. At present, China's judicial organs are starting to explore intelligent prediction of sentencing justice from top to bottom, and some Internet enterprises are also synchronizing to promote the work. It is reported, by the guangdong Bowei Chuangyuan technology limited company research and development and design of the "small bag male" intelligent conviction and sentencing system, for plea bargaining cases, with strong intelligent accurate prediction of the sentencing function, can better promote the standardization of sentencing reform. The system is the first theoretical sentencing prediction and actual sentencing analysis "dual system" to realize accurate sentencing prediction. The sentencing prediction process realizes the real-time display of sentences and the push of laws, regulations, judicial interpretations and other legal basis and guiding cases, criminal trial references and other judicial views, highlighting the powerful sentencing prediction reasoning process. Sentencing standardization form presents the process of sentencing calculation, taking into full consideration the statutory circumstances, discretionary circumstances and the judge's (prosecutor's) discretion in a specific case, helping to standardize sentencing and sentencing recommendations. Moreover, it provides intelligent push and big data visualization and analysis of similar cases in the same region. At present, the "small package" intelligent conviction and sentencing system has been used in more than 200 courts and procuratorates across the country or on a trial basis, and the trial run has been effective.
Four, for the plea cases, the people's courts shall, in accordance with the law, generally adopt the charges and sentencing recommendations of the people's procuratorate, except in the following cases:
(a) the defendant's behavior does not constitute a crime or should not be held criminally responsible;
(b) the defendant pleads guilty to a charge and accepts punishment against his will;
(c) the defendant denies the facts of the alleged crime or the defendant denies the facts of the alleged crime or the defendant denies the facts of the alleged crime or the defendant denies the facts of the alleged crime. The defendant denies the facts of the crime charged;
(iv) The charges alleged in the indictment are inconsistent with the charges found in the trial;
(v) Other circumstances that may affect a fair trial.
Legal basis:
Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law For cases of guilty pleas, the people's courts shall, when passing judgment in accordance with the law, generally adopt the crimes charged by the people's procuratorate and the recommendations for sentencing, except in the following cases:
(1) the defendant's behavior does not constitute a crime or should not be be held criminally liable;
(2) the defendant pleads guilty and accepts punishment against his will;
(3) the defendant denies the facts of the alleged crime;
(4) the charges of the indictment are inconsistent with the charges found in the trial;
(5) other circumstances that may affect a fair trial.
Where the people's court, after trial, finds that the sentencing recommendation is manifestly inappropriate, or where the defendant or the defense raises objections to the sentencing recommendation, the people's procuratorate may adjust the sentencing recommendation. If the people's procuratorate does not adjust the sentencing recommendation or if the adjustment of the sentencing recommendation is still obviously inappropriate, the people's court shall make a judgment in accordance with the law.