Legal scholars suggest that prosecutors should extort confessions by procuratorial organs.

category:Society
 Legal scholars suggest that prosecutors should extort confessions by procuratorial organs.


(data map) After the eighteen Congress of the Communist Party of China, the reform of the supervision system, the major changes in the anti-corruption system in China, the continuous promotion of the reform of the judicial system, and the adjustment of the corresponding criminal procedure system, the criminal procedure law will be modified and connected with it. In April 25th, the draft amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law (hereinafter referred to as the draft) was referred to the second meeting of the thirteen NPC Standing Committee, to establish a criminal trial system for default, to improve the criminal case confession and punishment, and to increase the speed of the procedure. In April 26th, litigation jurist and lifelong professor Chen Guangzhong of China University of Political Science and Law said in an interview with the finance and economics reporter that the inspectors at all levels of the supervision committee had the right to investigate such crimes as illegal detention, extortion of confession by torture, illegal search and so on. It is suggested to be exercised by the procurators Procuratorate. At the same time, the leniency system should also adhere to the standard of proof. Who investigates the extortion of confession by the inspectors The draft makes adjustments to the Procuratorates investigative powers, and intends to delete the provisions of Procuratorates exercise of investigation power in cases of corruption and bribery, so as to retain part of the Procuratorates investigative power. The draft stipulates that the procuratorate can investigate the crime of illegal detention, extortion of confession by torture, illegal search and other crimes that infringe the rights of citizens and impair judicial justice during the legal supervision of the procuratorate in the legal supervision of the litigation activities. The most important part of the draft is to adjust the Procuratorates investigative power. The supervision law adopted in March of this year stipulates that the supervisory committee, in accordance with the supervision law and the relevant laws and regulations, performs supervision, investigation and disposal of illegal and duty crimes suspected of corruption and bribery, abuse of power, dereliction of duty, power rent-seeking, interest delivery, favoritism, malpractice and waste of state property. Chen Guangzhong said that after the adoption of the supervision law, the investigative power of the crime of duty has been transferred from the procuratorate to the supervisory committee, to solve the contradiction between the supervision law and the criminal law, and to perfect the connection with the supervision law. In the legal supervision of the litigation activities, the procuratorate reserves the right to detect the illegal detention, extortion of confession by torture, illegal search and other crimes that infringe the rights of citizens and impair judicial justice in the legal supervision of the litigation activities, which is equivalent to returning this part of the investigation right to the Procuratorate. The scope of the judicial staff referred to in the draft also drew attention. The ninety-fourth section of the criminal law defines the concept of judicial staff as staff with investigation, procuratorial, trial and supervisory duties. Those who are responsible for investigation shall include the personnel exercising the power of investigation according to law in the public security and procuratorial organs. Chen Guangzhong said. He believes that the staff of the Supervisory Commission at all levels may also use their functions and powers to commit crimes of illegal detention, torture, illegal search and other criminal acts that infringe on the rights of citizens and impair judicial justice. The definition of judicial staff means that the staff members of the Supervisory Commission have such criminal acts by the Supervisory Commission. Do a survey. In this regard, he suggested that the draft should be added to the procuratorate, which is more objective, neutral and consistent with the position of the procuratorate as a special legal supervision organ. The trial in default should also guarantee the defendants right to appeal The draft also provides for the specific procedure of trial by default, and stipulates that the defendant has the right to entrust defender, and the next of kin of the defendant can entrust a defender. If the defendant and his close relatives do not entrust a defender, the court shall notify the legal aid agency to appoint a lawyer to provide him with defense. Chen Guangzhong said that the establishment of the system of trial by default is a need to intensify the fight against corruption and seek foreign evasion, and to integrate with the international community. At present, China has encountered some resistance in pursuit of stolen goods abroad, such as how to prove that it is a criminal suspect and defendant who absconded to the outside world for corruption and bribery. In international cooperation with different countries, the evidence materials and judicial documents required by different countries are different. Some countries recognize that court decisions are formal judicial documents, which do not recognize the evidence provided by public security organs and procuratorates. In the past, there was no trial procedure in absentia in Chinas criminal procedure system, which brought difficulty to the extradition and repatriation of overseas fugitives. He told the finance and economics reporter that in 2005 China joined the United Nations Convention against corruption to play its role in combating corruption crimes in international cooperation in coordination with the implementation of the Convention. He had proposed the establishment of a system of trial by default, but the departments concerned thought it would affect the defendants right to defend it, so the criminal prosecution in 2012 The amendment of the litigation law only increased the confiscation procedure of the criminal suspect and defendants illegal gains from absconding and death cases. After the eighteen Party Congress, the pursuit of evasion increased gradually, and the trial by default system became more and more necessary. Chen Guangzhong held that the procedure of trial by default must be exercised cautiously. Not every suspect or defendant who fled to the outside world must apply the trial by default. It should also stipulate the specific procedures of the criminal suspects and the accused to abscond from the trial by default, according to the specific circumstances of the case, and to maximize the defense and property rights of the accused. Therefore, the case of trial by default should also guarantee the right of the defendant, such as the provision of the defense and the provision of legal aid, the trial should be opened, the close relatives have the right to participate in the trial, and it is necessary to give the defendants close relatives to the right of appeal. Leniency and leniency should adhere to the standard of proof. The draft stipulates that if the suspect voluntarily pleads guilty and agrees with the sentencing recommendations and procedures, he should sign a written confirmation of the crime of confession. On September 2016, the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress voted to pass the relevant decision, and authorized two high levels to carry out the trial of leniency system for criminal cases in 18 cities. The time limit for the pilot is two years. Chen Guangzhong said that the successful experience of summing up the lenient punishment system should be reproduced and promoted. But there are two points to note: first, how to fully protect the right of defense of suspects and defendants. The practice in the pilot is that the criminal suspects and the defendants voluntarily confess the crimes, have no objection to the facts of the crime, agree with the sentencing proposals of the procuratorial organs, and sign the written statement, which can be dealt with leniently in accordance with the law. However, some cases may not be true and voluntary confession by suspects or defendants, but do not exclude the possibility of wrongful cases. The admission of leniency and leniency is very important for the protection of the human rights of suspects and defendants. The two is the extent to which the standard of proof for leniency and leniency can be extended. At present, the applicable conditions of the speed and summary procedure must be in accordance with the facts of the case clearly and the evidence is fully sufficient, but this problem is avoided in the pilot of the plea leniency system. Some scholars refer to the practice of plea bargaining in the United States, and think that the standard of proof can be lenient, which is worth considering. Chen Guangzhong suggested that such cases should adhere to the standard of proof of clear facts of the case, reliable evidence and sufficient, so as to prevent the risk of miscarriage of justice. The source of this article is: Wang Lina, editor in charge of financial network: Zhang Xianchao _NN9310 But there are two points to note: first, how to fully protect the right of defense of suspects and defendants. The practice in the pilot is that the criminal suspects and the defendants voluntarily confess the crimes, have no objection to the facts of the crime, agree with the sentencing proposals of the procuratorial organs, and sign the written statement, which can be dealt with leniently in accordance with the law. However, some cases may not be true and voluntary confession by suspects or defendants, but do not exclude the possibility of wrongful cases. The admission of leniency and leniency is very important for the protection of the human rights of suspects and defendants. The two is the extent to which the standard of proof for leniency and leniency can be extended. At present, the applicable conditions of the speed and summary procedure must be in accordance with the facts of the case clearly and the evidence is fully sufficient, but this problem is avoided in the pilot of the plea leniency system. Some scholars refer to the practice of plea bargaining in the United States, and think that the standard of proof can be lenient, which is worth considering. Chen Guangzhong suggested that such cases should adhere to the standard of proof of clear facts of the case, reliable evidence and sufficient, so as to prevent the risk of miscarriage of justice.