|
|
|
| The New Amendment of the Criminal Procedure Law: Toward Perfection of the Public Prosecution System |
| Chen Guangzhong |
| Procedural Law Research Institute, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the public prosecution system reform under the forthcoming fourth amendment to China’s Criminal Procedure Law (CPL). Drawing upon historical evolution, comparative perspectives, and empirical evidence, it aims at proposing a systematic blueprint for improving the prosecutorial mechanism in China. The author identifies three institutional areas where long-standing problems have emerged through decades of judicial practice: the system of supplementary investigation (or supplementary inquiry), the system of leniency for confession and plea (RNR), and the system of non-prosecution. The study argues that any reform of the public prosecution regime must adhere to three fundamental procedural principles—protection of human rights, legality of procedure, and primacy of justice—to achieve a dynamic balance between state prosecution power and individual rights.Methodologically, the paper adopts a historical, comparative and empirical approach. Historically, it traces the legislative evolution of the CPL since 1979, identifying three major trends in prosecutorial reform: a shift from “punishment‐oriented” to “punishment & protection”, a structural transition from the inquisitorial to a hybrid model emphasizing adversarial elements, and a progression from “cooperation over restriction” to “enhanced procedural supervision”. In comparative analysis, the author contrasts China’s institutional design with that of Germany, France, Canada, and the United States, highlighting the hybrid configuration of Chinese prosecutorial and investigative powers, which necessitates a unique design for supplementary investigation procedures. Empirically, the study synthesizes normative documents and prosecutorial practice data to provide targeted legislative recommendations.The paper’s innovations are concentrated in three major domains:1. Reforming the supplementary investigation system. The study emphasizes clarifying the division of authority among public security organs, procuratorates, and supervisory commissions, while introducing a “legal checklist” that specifies situations where cases should not be returned for reinvestigation. It proposes institutionalizing this list within the CPL to curb abuse of discretionary power and to mandate written investigation outlines with explicit evidentiary objectives. A “joint meeting and evaluation mechanism” between police and prosecutors is recommended to visualize and assess the results of supplementary investigation. For corruption cases investigated by supervisory commissions, the author suggests codifying prosecutors’ supervisory authority over evidence legality and guaranteeing defense counsel’s participation during supplementary inquiry—thus bridging the procedural gap between supervision and prosecution.2. Expanding and refining the non-prosecution system. The paper advocates extending conditional non-prosecution beyond juvenile offenders to include adult offenders in minor cases, thereby creating a dual-structure mechanism. It calls for loosening the limitations on applicable offenses and penalties, and for strengthening the supervision and education components through community-based electronic monitoring. Additionally, the study introduces a victim participation framework that institutionalizes three mechanisms: (a) mandatory response to victims’ opinions before a non-prosecution decision, (b) legal aid access for victims lacking professional representation, and (c) judicial review rights if prosecutors violate procedural duties. These measures aim at enhancing transparency, accountability, and restorative justice within prosecutorial discretion.3. Improving the leniency for confession and plea (RNR) system. The author underscores the necessity of strengthening legal aid in serious felony cases. It is proposed that defendants facing potential imprisonment of over three years must be provided with mandatory legal assistance. To enhance the fairness and credibility of sentencing recommendations, the paper advocates establishing an interactive negotiation mechanism between prosecution and defense, requiring prosecutors to hold public consultation sessions before finalizing sentencing proposals and prohibiting arbitrary adjustments afterward. Furthermore, the paper proposes empowering duty lawyers with full access to case files, visitation rights, and written opinion submissions, ensuring their substantive participation rather than a merely symbolic role.In essence, this paper’s originality lies in embedding a prosecutorial reform within the broader context of China’s supervisory system transformation and judicial modernization. It not only diagnoses procedural weaknesses but also provides legislatively operable solutions for the 2024 amendment. The proposed model envisions a modern prosecutorial framework that integrates procedural legality, substantive justice, and institutional efficiency, allowing the procuratorate to function as both a “quality inspector” and “filter” of the criminal justice process. The ultimate objective is to ensure that every criminal case in China is prosecuted or dismissed under a transparent, fair, and human-rights–oriented legal regime.
|
|
Received: 21 February 2025
|
|
|
|
1 卞建林、张可：《构建中国式认罪协商制度：认罪认罚从宽制度的反思与重构》，《政法论坛》2024年第4期，第13-26页。
2 熊秋红：《论公诉与自诉的关系》，《中国刑事法杂志》2021年第1期，第17-38页。
3 陈光中、曾新华：《中国刑事诉讼法立法四十年》，《法学》2018年第7期，第24-42页。
4 孙远：《非法证据排除的裁判方法》，《当代法学》2021年第5期，第51-63页。
5 卫跃宁：《监察法与刑事诉讼法管辖衔接研究》，《法学杂志》2022年第4期，第93-108页。
6 胡铭：《审判中心与被害人权利保障中的利益衡量》，《政法论坛》2018年第1期，第63-74页。
7 汪建成：《〈刑事诉讼法〉的核心观念及认同》，《中国社会科学》2014年第2期，第130-147页。
8 陈光中：《动态平衡诉讼观之我见》，《中国检察官》2018年第13期，第4-5页。
9 罗欣、万春、史卫忠等：《检察机关补充侦查权的运行与完善》，《人民检察》2018年第21期，第41-48页。
10 黄烨：《论补充侦查制度》，《中国刑事法杂志》2005年第4期，第62-66页。
11 徐航：《退回补充侦查制度的实证分析——以审查起诉环节为视角的观察》，《中国刑事法杂志》2007年第3期，第104-112页。
12 张建伟：《比较法视野下检察机关的主导作用》，《国家检察官学院学报》2022年第1期，第56-79页。
13 徐汉明：《国家监察权的属性探究》，《法学评论》2018年第1期，第9-25页。
14 黎敏：《论宪法政治与监察官的政治伦理》，《政法论坛》2024年第1期，第102-119页。
15 秦前红：《检察侦查权的制度逻辑与时代走向》，《政法论丛》2023年第4期，第36-48页。
16 吴宏耀、范仲瑾：《检察机关补充侦查权的规范化运用》，《人民检察》2018年第14期，第51-55页。
17 朱孝清：《刑事诉讼法与监察法衔接中的若干争议问题》，《中国刑事法杂志》2021年第1期，第3-16页。
18 谢小剑：《法教义学视角下退回补充调查的诉讼阶段定位》，《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2023年第3期，第129-139页。
19 自正法：《附条件不起诉运作的实证考察与优化路径》，《理论探索》2020年第6期，第111-119页。
20 何挺：《附条件不起诉扩大适用于成年人案件的新思考》，《中国刑事法杂志》2019年第4期，第46-59页。
21 兰耀军：《刑事起诉阶段听取被害人及其诉讼代理人意见的理论探讨》，《西南大学学报（社会科学版）》2008年第1期，第100-105页。
22 梁芙蓉：《附条件不起诉听取被害人意见的功能、嬗变与体系化》，《华东政法大学学报》2018年第1期，第186-192页。
23 汪海燕：《重罪案件适用认罪认罚从宽程序问题研究》，《中外法学》2020年第5期，第1187-1210页。
24 周新：《重罪案件适用认罪认罚从宽制度研究》，《比较法研究》2021年第4期，第38-52页。
25 杨帆：《认罪自愿性的边界与保障》，《法学杂志》2019年第10期，第14-23页。
26 陈光中、路旸：《我国逮捕与羁押制度改革若干问题探讨》，《中国法学》2023年第5期，第5-26页。
27 孙长永、郭航：《被追诉人认罪认罚自愿性再审视》，《河南社会科学》2024年第1期，第52-63页。
28 陈卫东、安娜：《认罪认罚从宽制度下律师的地位与作用——以三个诉讼阶段为研究视角》，《浙江工商大学学报》2020年第6期，第71-85页。
29 刘玲：《我国刑事法律援助案件质量评估标准研究》，《中国刑事司法》2024年第2期，第158-168页。
30 闫召华：《“实质错误”论：认罪认罚案件抗诉的功能澄清与标准优化》，《中国刑事法杂志》2024年第1期，第144-159页。 |
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 55 
