Haste Makes Waste: Why China's New Plea Leniency System is Doomed to Fail

Q3 Social Sciences Asian Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2022-04-12 DOI:10.1017/asjcl.2022.8
Enshen Li
{"title":"Haste Makes Waste: Why China's New Plea Leniency System is Doomed to Fail","authors":"Enshen Li","doi":"10.1017/asjcl.2022.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2016, China introduced an ‘Admission of Guilt and Acceptance of Punishment’ system (known as ‘plea leniency’) premised primarily on the ideal of punishing crime efficiently while advancing the protection of human rights. In this article, I challenge this official rationale by critically examining the legitimacy of plea leniency as a rights-based approach to crime. Drawing on procedural justice theory, I use extant research data and online criminal judgments from the courts in Shanghai to unravel manifold mismatches between the plea leniency process and a procedurally just decision-making process that respects individual rights. My contention is that the operational dynamics of plea leniency is weighed heavily towards efficacy with little regard for the fundamental norms of due process and fairness in which the procedural legitimacy of this new form of summary dispositions is grounded. By tying the expedition of criminal proceedings to guilty pleas, plea leniency represents a discursive continuity of China's broader criminal justice culture, and as such, it fails in operating on a more just, respectful, and communicative basis to accommodate defendants’ interests which stand at the core of its operation.","PeriodicalId":39405,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Comparative Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2022.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract In 2016, China introduced an ‘Admission of Guilt and Acceptance of Punishment’ system (known as ‘plea leniency’) premised primarily on the ideal of punishing crime efficiently while advancing the protection of human rights. In this article, I challenge this official rationale by critically examining the legitimacy of plea leniency as a rights-based approach to crime. Drawing on procedural justice theory, I use extant research data and online criminal judgments from the courts in Shanghai to unravel manifold mismatches between the plea leniency process and a procedurally just decision-making process that respects individual rights. My contention is that the operational dynamics of plea leniency is weighed heavily towards efficacy with little regard for the fundamental norms of due process and fairness in which the procedural legitimacy of this new form of summary dispositions is grounded. By tying the expedition of criminal proceedings to guilty pleas, plea leniency represents a discursive continuity of China's broader criminal justice culture, and as such, it fails in operating on a more just, respectful, and communicative basis to accommodate defendants’ interests which stand at the core of its operation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欲速则不达:为什么中国新的认罪宽大制度注定要失败
摘要2016年,中国引入了“认罪认罚”制度(称为“认罪从宽”),其主要前提是在推进人权保护的同时有效惩罚犯罪。在这篇文章中,我通过批判性地审查认罪从宽作为一种基于权利的犯罪方法的合法性,对这一官方理由提出了质疑。根据程序正义理论,我利用现有的研究数据和上海法院的在线刑事判决,揭示了认罪认罚从宽程序与尊重个人权利的程序公正决策程序之间的多重不匹配。我的论点是,认罪从宽的运作动态在很大程度上取决于效力,而很少考虑正当程序和公平的基本规范,这种新形式的即决处置的程序合法性是基于这些规范的。通过将刑事诉讼的快速进行与认罪联系起来,认罪从宽代表了中国更广泛的刑事司法文化的话语延续,因此,它未能在更公正、尊重和沟通的基础上运作,以照顾作为其运作核心的被告利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Journal of Comparative Law
Asian Journal of Comparative Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Asian Journal of Comparative Law (AsJCL) is the leading forum for research and discussion of the law and legal systems of Asia. It embraces work that is theoretical, empirical, socio-legal, doctrinal or comparative that relates to one or more Asian legal systems, as well as work that compares one or more Asian legal systems with non-Asian systems. The Journal seeks articles which display an intimate knowledge of Asian legal systems, and thus provide a window into the way they work in practice. The AsJCL is an initiative of the Asian Law Institute (ASLI), an association established by thirteen leading law schools in Asia and with a rapidly expanding membership base across Asia and in other regions around the world.
期刊最新文献
International Sanctions and the Rule of Law How Can Malaysian Courts Consistently Perform Meaningful Constitutional Rights Review? Lessons from Past Cases and the Way Forward Confused Purposes and Inconsistent Adjudication: An Assessment of Bail Decisions in Delhi's Courts Soviet Legacy of Vietnam's Intellectual Property Law: Big Brother is (No Longer) Watching You – CORRIGENDUM Conceptualising State-Centric Mediation: An Analysis of China's Foreign Investment Complaints Mechanism – ERRATUM
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1