[author] Wu Yuhao
[content]
The effectiveness test of normalizing the lenient application of confession and punishment
Wu Yuhao
Assistant Professor at Peking University Law School
Abstract: After the revision of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2018, the application of the leniency system for admitting guilt and accepting punishment has entered a normalized phase. Existing discussions categorize the functions of this system into three dimensions: procedural, substantive, and restorative justice. Based on over two million verdict documents from six common types of cases adjudicated by China’s grassroots courts from 2016 to 2021, this paper assesses the individual and systemic effects of the leniency system for admitting guilt and accepting punishment. The empirical results show that first, in the procedural dimension, admitting guilt and accepting punishment significantly enhances the judicial efficiency of case handling, but there is still room for improvement in streamlining procedures and optimizing the allocation of judicial resources. Second, in the substantive dimension, defendants who admit guilt and accept punishment generally receive lenient treatment. The leniency system promotes a more lenient approach to sentencing for minor offenses without similarly affecting the sentencing of serious crimes, which aligns with the criminal policy of balancing leniency and severity. Finally, in the dimension of restorative justice, on the one hand, the proportion of victim compensation, victim forgiveness, and criminal reconciliation in cases of admitting guilt and accepting punishment is significantly higher than that in cases without such admissions. On the other hand, the overall situation of victim rights protection in some criminal cases has not significantly improved. The protection of victim rights should still be a focus in the further development of the leniency system for admitting guilt and accepting punishment.
The establishment of the leniency system for confession and punishment is of milestone significance in the field of criminal justice in China. In 2018, the Criminal Procedure Law officially transformed the leniency system for confessing guilt and accepting punishment from a regional judicial pilot to a national judicial system. The relevant policy documents have endowed the leniency system for confessing guilt and accepting punishment with an important historical mission. Whether it is the policy positioning of "improving judicial efficiency" and "optimizing the allocation of judicial resources", or the functional expressions of "implementing the criminal policy of balancing leniency and severity" and "maintaining social stability", it reflects that the leniency system for confessing guilt and accepting punishment will have a profound impact on China's criminal justice from multiple aspects such as procedures and entities.
A noteworthy phenomenon is that within a few years after the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Law, cases of confession and punishment have begun to occupy an absolute majority in China's criminal justice system. According to statistics, in recent years, the application rate of the leniency system for confession and punishment in China has remained stable at over 85%. Therefore, an urgent question that needs to be answered is whether this institutional change, as expected, has truly achieved the important mission of optimizing the allocation of judicial resources, implementing the criminal policy of balancing leniency and severity, and promoting social stability with the normalization of the leniency system for confession and punishment after 2018?
Answering the above questions is of great significance for the improvement of the leniency system for confession and punishment in the future. Only when it is scientifically evaluated that the leniency system for confession and punishment has achieved the expected goals mentioned above, can there be a solid empirical basis for the promotion and application of this system. On the contrary, if it is found that the leniency system for confessing guilt and accepting punishment has not played its expected role in some dimensions, then these areas should become the key focus of improving the leniency system for confessing guilt and accepting punishment in the future.
1. Differential changes in the leniency rate of confession and punishment
Official data shows that since 2020, the application rate of leniency for confession and punishment in China has remained above 85%. However, the above data is based on all criminal cases as statistical objects. In the composition of criminal cases in China, minor crimes represented by dangerous driving crimes account for a considerable proportion, and the vast majority of dangerous driving cases are subject to the leniency system for confession and punishment. It can be seen that the widespread application of the leniency system for confessing guilt and accepting punishment in minor crimes is an important reason for the high level of leniency in confessing guilt and accepting punishment in China. So, what is the application of the leniency system for confession and punishment in some traditional charges, especially in some serious violent crimes?
To answer this question. The author took six types of criminal cases published online from 2016 to 2021 as the research object, and separately calculated the proportion of cases in which leniency for confession and punishment was applied in each type of criminal case from 2016 to 2021. Before the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2018, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate had already carried out pilot work on the leniency system for confessing guilt and accepting punishment in 18 pilot cities. Therefore, in the process of statistics, the author will separately count these 18 pilot cities and other regions. We can draw the following conclusions from Table 1:
On the one hand, as expected, the 2018 amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law greatly promoted the widespread application of the leniency system for confession and punishment in China's criminal justice field. Due to the lack of clear regulations on the application of leniency for confession and punishment in non pilot areas before 2018, the proportion of leniency for confession and punishment in these areas is almost zero. However, this proportion has significantly increased year by year since 2018. At the same time, the gap between non pilot cities and pilot cities in the application of leniency for confession and punishment has rapidly narrowed, and ultimately achieved a reversal. There is only a certain gap in the leniency rate of confession and punishment between the two types of cities in 2019. However, in 2020, just over a year after the promulgation of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2018, the proportion of leniency for confession and punishment in non pilot cities significantly approached or even exceeded that of pilot cities, which was consistently reflected in all six charges.
On the other hand, the leniency system for pleading guilty and accepting punishment shows significant differences in the application ratio of different charges. In cases of theft, fraud, intentional injury, and traffic accidents, as of 2021, the proportion of leniency for pleading guilty and accepting punishment has reached over 60%, with some charges approaching 80%. This shows that leniency for pleading guilty and accepting punishment has been widely applied to charges that may result in imprisonment of up to three years. However, in robbery and rape cases, the proportion of leniency for confession and punishment has never exceeded 50%. Among them, the proportion of leniency for confession and punishment in rape cases is significantly lower, only 10% to 15%. From this, it can be seen that even in the context of the widespread application of the leniency system for pleading guilty and accepting punishment nationwide, judicial authorities are still cautious in applying leniency for serious crimes with a statutory starting range of imprisonment of more than three years.