Bindingness or Determinacy: Pre-determination Effect and Occurrence Mechanism of Sentencing Recommendations — An Empirical Examination Based on Drunk Driving Cases
Lin Xifen, Li Zheng
KoGuan School of Law, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China
Abstract：The Sentencing Recommendation System is at the core of the operation of the Plea Leniency System. The Criminal Procedure Law (2018) stipulates that for a case where the defendant admits guilt and accepts punishment, when the people’s court makes a judgment in accordance with the law, it should generally adopt the sentencing recommendations made by the people’s procuratorate. The Guiding Opinions issued in 2019 stipulate that in cases involving the admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment, procuratorates shall generally offer determinate sentencing recommendations. In practice, the phenomenon of the high adoption rate of sentencing recommendations has been widely mentioned, and it is generally believed in doctrine that the procuratorate is dominating the court’s sentencing decisions. For this reason, it is important to empirically test whether sentencing recommendations have a pre-determination effect on judges’ sentencing decisions, whether the phenomenon of prosecutorial justice exists in China, and if so, what is the mechanism. In this way, the current operational status of criminal justice and the relationship between prosecution and court in China can be diagnosed.Through normative analysis, this study summarizes the characteristics of sentencing recommendation system as bindingness and determinacy, and proposes two theoretical hypotheses: “pre-determination effect based on bindingness” and “pre-determination effect based on determinacy”. The two theoretical hypotheses were tested through 32,916 judgments of drunk driving cases as samples, using methods of event study, one-way ANOVA, propensity score matching, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The raw data confirmed the pre-determination effect of sentencing recommendations, and the mechanism of pre-determination effect of sentencing is analysed.The empirical study found that the pre-determination effect of the procuratorial organs’ sentencing recommendations exist objectively. However, in terms of mechanism, on the one hand, there is little correlation between the high rate of adoption of sentencing recommendations by courts and the bindingness of sentencing recommendations. Judges’ adoption of sentencing recommendations was extremely high both before and after 2018, and the high rate of adoption was not a product of the 2018 Criminal Procedure Law’s “generally should be adopted” provision. On the other hand, with controlling other confounding factors, there was a significant difference between the impact of generalized and range sentencing recommendations on judges’ sentencing decisions, as well as a significant difference between the impact of range and determinate sentencing recommendations on judges’ sentencing decisions. This suggests that the court’s sentencing decision is significantly influenced by the determinacy of the sentencing recommendation. The reason why the procuratorate could have a pre-determination effect on the judge’s sentencing decision through the determinacy of the sentencing recommendation may be due to the fact that the prosecution and the court organs have gradually reached a sentencing consensus on a certain type of case during the interaction in practice, and the sentencing recommendation of determinate sentence put forward by the procuratorate plays the role of the “anchoring effect”. Based on the sentencing consensus, the procuratorial organs have gradually compressed the sentencing decision space of judges by improving the determinacy of sentencing recommendations, which accelerates the formation of the Chinese “prosecutorial adjudication”.
林喜芬, 李铮. 强制性抑或确定性：量刑建议的预决效应与发生机理[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2026, 56(3): 19-35.
Lin Xifen, Li Zheng. Bindingness or Determinacy: Pre-determination Effect and Occurrence Mechanism of Sentencing Recommendations — An Empirical Examination Based on Drunk Driving Cases. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2026, 56(3): 19-35.
1 林钰雄：《刑事诉讼法》（上），台北：新学林出版股份有限公司，2023年。 2 董坤：《认罪认罚案件量刑建议精准化与法院采纳》，《国家检察官学院学报》 2020年第3期，第28-38页。 3 李振杰：《困境与出路：认罪认罚从宽制度下的量刑建议精准化》，《华东政法大学学报》2021年第1期，第139-152页。 4 孙皓：《量刑建议的“高采纳率”误区》，《中外法学》2021年第6期，第1503-1522页。 5 左卫民：《量刑建议的实践机制：实证研究与理论反思》，《当代法学》2020年第4期，第47-54页。 6 林喜芬：《论量刑建议制度的规范结构与模式——从〈刑事诉讼法〉到〈指导意见〉》，《中国刑事法杂志》2020年第1期，第3-16页。 7 白建军：《基于法官集体经验的量刑预测研究》，《法学研究》2016年第6期，第140-154，206页。 8 白建军：《刑罚轻重的量化分析》，《中国社会科学》2001年第6期，第114-125页。 9 章桦、李晓霞：《醉酒型危险驾驶罪量刑特征及量刑模型构建实证研究——基于全国4 782份随机抽样判决书》，《中国刑事法杂志》2014年第5期，第99-108页。 10 文姬：《醉酒型危险驾驶罪量刑影响因素实证研究》，《法学研究》2016年第1期，第165-186页。 11 常翔宇：《量刑规范化改革实现了罪名从5个到23个的跨越》，《中国审判》2021年第14期，第50-53页。 12 Lin X. & Ma Y.， “Sentencing recommendations， anchoring effect and fairness in criminal justice—an empirical study based on a sample of 520 sentences in K City，” Social Sciences in China， Vol. 39， No. 3 （2018）， pp. 149-170. 13 Tversky A. & Kahneman D.， “Judgment under uncertainty： heuristics and biases，” Science， Vol. 185， No. 4157 （1974）， pp. 1124-1131. 14 Epley N. & Gilovich T.， “Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic： differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors，” Psychological Science， Vol. 12， No. 5 （2001）， pp. 391-396. 15 Fitzmaurice C. & Pease K.， The Psychology of Judicial Sentencing， Manchester： Manchester University Press， 1986. 16 Englich B. & Mussweiler T.， “Sentencing under uncertainty： anchoring effects in the courtroom，” Journal of Applied Social Psychology， Vol. 31， No. 7 （2001）， pp. 1535-1551. 17 Fari?a F.， Arce R. & Novo M.， “Anchoring in judicial decision-making，” Psychology in Spain， Vol. 7， No. 1 （2003）， pp. 56-65. 18 van Exel N. J. A.， Brouwer W. B. F. & van den Berg B. et al.， “With a little help from an anchor： discussion and evidence of anchoring effects in contingent valuation，” The Journal of Socio-Economics， Vol. 35， No. 5 （2006）， pp. 836-853. 19 Langer M.， “Rethinking plea bargaining： the practice and reform of prosecutorial adjudication in American criminal procedure，” American Journal of Criminal Law， Vol. 33， No. 3 （2006）， pp. 223-299.
2026, Vol. 56 
