Home >

Overhaul Of Criminal Procedure Law: Changing The Death Penalty To Review "A Solo" Situation

2011/9/20 10:35:00 46

??? 日本語 Fran?ais English 中文

Death Penalty Review Of Criminal Procedure Law "A Solo" Situation

How to make the death penalty review more pparent and fair and avoid false killing as far as possible is a hot topic in the field of legal theory and judicial practice in recent years. It is also an important part of the reform of judicial system and mechanism.

Death penalty review

The situation of "solo" by the court is expected to be changed.

The draft amendment to the criminal procedure law recently considered by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress stipulates that the Supreme People's court should review the case of death penalty, and interrogate the defendant and listen to the opinions of the defender.

In the process of reviewing death penalty cases, the Supreme People's Procuratorate may submit opinions to the Supreme People's court.

Chen Guangzhong, a famous jurist who took part in the amendment of the criminal procedure law, said in an interview with the Legal Daily reporters that the amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law draft made a modest lawsuit for the death penalty review. It changed from the closed mode with the color of strong administrative examination and approval to the participation of many parties, and the justification of the procedure was significantly improved, which is a great progress in criminal proceedings.

Interrogation of defendants is required in death penalty cases.

In March 2007, after the death penalty review power was returned to the Supreme People's court, the supreme law, the Supreme Procuratorate, the Ministry of public security and the Ministry of Justice jointly issued the opinions on Further Strictly handling cases according to law and ensuring the quality of death penalty cases.

According to the opinion, the supreme law should review the case of death penalty, and the defendant should be interrogated in principle.

The draft amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law stipulates that "the defendant should be interrogated" to avoid the exception of no interrogation.

Chen Guangzhong expressed support for this change.

He said, interrogation.

Death penalty cases

The defendant is very necessary. For the defendant who disagrees with the judgment or dissenting, it is self-evident to give him an opportunity to plead fully to the judge of the supreme judicial organ. The interrogation of the sentence also reflects the concern of procedure and humanity.

Some people have such questions: it is good to interrogate, but can we have the conditions?

Are there enough personnel in the supreme law to carry out this work?

Chen Guangzhong believes that most cases of death penalty interrogation of defendants do not have any problems. After all, the defendants in capital punishment cases are generally held at the municipal level detention centers, and after the death penalty review is returned to the supreme law, a number of corresponding preparations have been added accordingly.

However, for some remote areas, there is indeed a long way to go and a review of judges' nervousness. "I see that the supreme law is implementing remote video interrogation, and the effect is good, which can effectively alleviate this problem."

However, he also stressed that remote video interrogation should be applied to cases with clear facts and defendants' pleading guilty.

Doubt whether the counsel's opinion is heard or not.

The provisions of the death penalty case hearing the defenders' opinions in the amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law draft once excited many lawyers.

But after chewing the text carefully, some lawyers are not happy again. The draft amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law should "interrogate the accused and listen to the opinions of the defenders". Does the word "should" cover "listening to the opinions of the defenders"?

Chen Guangzhong believed that "ought to" cover the latter, that is, if the counsel puts forward his opinions, the judge must arrange his time to listen.

But he was worried that there would be differences in understanding in judicial practice.

He hoped that when the criminal procedure law was formally promulgated, the word "should" should be added before "hearing the opinions of the defenders" to make the legislation more precise and precise.

Lawyers also fear that the provisions of the criminal procedure law will end in writing.

judicial interpretation

China has already stipulated that the defender of the death penalty should listen to requests for advice, but the implementation is poor in practice.

"What about not executing?

How to sanction?

The draft of amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law is very limited and can only be expected to provide specific provisions for future judicial interpretations.

For example, if a judge does not listen to the opinions of the counsel, he or she should be criticized or disciplined, and if the circumstances and consequences are serious, he may be investigated for legal liability.

Chen Guangzhong said.

In the defense system of death penalty cases, Chen Guangzhong is more concerned about whether legal aid can cover the death penalty review.

The draft of the amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law stipulates that the suspect and defendant may be sentenced to life imprisonment and death penalty without entrusting defenders. The public security organs should notify the legal aid agencies to appoint counsel to provide them with defense.

The further expansion of legal aid coverage is a highlight of the amendment of the criminal procedure law.

However, the above statement still has doubts about whether the legal aid is covered by the death penalty review.

I think it is natural that legal aid should intervene in the death penalty review, and I hope it will be further clarified in the amendment.

Chen Guangzhong said.

The Supreme Procuratorate has the right to supervise the review of death sentences.

The first draft of the amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law bill provides that in the process of reviewing death sentences, the Supreme Procuratorate can give opinions to the supreme law.

This provision has aroused heated debate.

"Legal Daily" reporter noted that in addition to the praise, the public has 3 main questions: can we make comments, "can" wording is too weak, can we use "should"?

Is the provision too simple and how can the procuratorial organ intervene in supervision?

Will there be only supervision of "kill or kill" instead of "killing?"

In this regard, Chen Guangzhong explained that it can be monitored that the supervision of the death penalty review is the highest Procuratorate of a power.

In reality, it is not necessary to supervise every death penalty review, but to intervene in supervision if necessary.

Chen Guangzhong agreed with the article that it was too simple.

He said that since it is difficult for all parties to reach agreement on this issue, it is difficult to stipulate the provisions in detail. At least, we should add a sentence that "the supreme law should provide protection for the review of the death penalty for the Supreme Procuratorate". For example, the major and controversial cases in the death penalty cases should be promptly reported to the Supreme Procuratorate.

Chen Guangzhong warned that the Supreme Procuratorate supervision of death penalty review, prevention of "kill or kill" is important, more importantly, to avoid "should not kill," at least the latter should be placed in the same important position as the former, can not be neglected.

"The Supreme Procuratorate can further avoid the occurrence of wrongful punishment by monitoring the legality of the death penalty review procedure and whether the result is fair or not."

Chen Guangzhong thinks.

Protection of defendants' rights and interests in capital punishment cases

Chen Guangzhong told the "Legal Daily" reporter that the amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law draft was scheduled to start, but it did not involve the review of the death penalty at the beginning.

At that time, academics, including him, and some judicial practice circles strongly appealed on many occasions: the reform of death penalty review procedures must be written into the draft amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law.

"Almost until the final draft was finalized, the death penalty review appeared.

We just breathed a sigh of relief.

He revealed.

In his view, these years of death penalty review reform has accumulated rich experience, and now it is time to write the results into the criminal procedure law.

In addition to multiple intervention in the review of the death penalty, Chen Guangzhong believes that the draft of the amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law draft also helps to protect the rights and interests of the defendants in the death penalty case, "for the non approval of the death penalty, the supreme law can be returned to the retrial or by the trial."

He further explained that in the past judicial interpretation, the supreme law could not be changed to the death penalty review case. If the case was not approved, the task of changing the sentence was handed over to the provincial court. The provincial court may send it back to the central court for retrial. Even if some cases are doubtful or should not be reassessed, it may eventually be sentenced to death sentence with reprieve or life imprisonment, which is not conducive to the implementation of the principle of doubtful crime.

The draft of amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law stipulates that the supreme law can solve the problem directly after changing the sentence, which is of positive significance for the timely protection of the rights and interests of the accused.

"The contents of the amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law draft on the review of death sentences are generally affirmative, and there are still some areas to be improved."

Chen Guangzhong finally said.