|
|
|
| Empirical Study on the Reform of Criminal Second Instance Protest System: Based on the Analysis of 15,256 Judicial Documents |
| Lu Yang1, Cao Li2 |
1.Institute of Procedural Law Studies, China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 100084, China
2.School of Criminal Justice, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100084, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract This study focuses on the “precision in criminal appeals by protest” reform initiated by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and seeks to uncover, through large-scale empirical analysis, the actual effects and limitations of this normative reform in institutional practices. Drawing on 15,256 criminal appeal judgments from 2018 to 2023, the study employs descriptive statistics and regression analysis to examine the factors associated with the success of prosecutorial appeals. Key factors are further identified to assess both the strengths and weaknesses of the reform.In terms of scholarly significance, the study directly responds to long-standing critiques in the academic community that the appeal by protest system tends to “emphasize substantive issues over procedural ones”, “focus on serious crimes while neglecting minor ones” and “favor appeals unfavorable to defendants”. By adopting a large-sample empirical approach, the study tests whether the precision reform has corrected these institutional tendencies. Through systematic analysis of over 15,000 judgments, the study reveals the operational logic and actual outcomes of the reform: the procuratorate has made notable progress in both its willingness to appeal (dare to appeal) and its accuracy (appeal with precision); the problem of privileging substance over procedure has been partially alleviated; new evidence and new facts have played a more decisive role in supporting successful appeals; and follow-up appeals in plea-bargaining cases have effectively curbed improper appeals, thereby strengthening the supervisory function of law. Nevertheless, challenges remain: the “relay-style appeals” between higher and lower procuratorates have not achieved the desired effect; appeals favorable to defendants remain limited in both the number and success rate; the success rate of appeals in duty-related crimes and minor offenses is still relatively low; and the heavy caseload burden on judges has had an undue impact on the success of appeals.The innovations of this study lie in three main aspects. First, through large-sample quantitative analysis, it empirically reveals the relationships between different factors (such as offense and sentencing variables, reasons for appeal, and other procedural factors) and the likelihood of appeal success. Second, based on these findings, it provides a systematic empirical evaluation of the reform’s effectiveness, testing the procuratorate’s improvements in both willingness and accuracy, while also demonstrating the reform’s role in alleviating the tendency to prioritize substance over procedure, strengthening the use of new evidence, and restraining improper appeals in plea-bargaining cases. Third, the study proposes a series of targeted reform measures to address the remaining problems, including improving the coordination mechanism between higher and lower procuratorates, establishing special procedures for appeals favorable to defendants, optimizing the appeal system for minor offenses and duty-related crimes, and strengthening the evidentiary supplementation mechanism.In conclusion, this research not only provides empirical evidence on the effects of reform in the criminal appeal by protest system, but also offers policy insights for future improvements. Specifically, while advancing the goal of precision, equal attention must be given to institutionalizing procedural oversight, so as to prevent the system from evolving into a tool focusing excessively on the uniformity of conviction and sentencing at the expense of judicial independence and procedural justice. Only by striking this balance can the criminal appeal by protest system achieve healthier and more sustainable development between precision and fairness.
|
|
Received: 21 February 2025
|
|
|
|
1 McCombs M. E.， Shaw D. L. & Weaver D. H.， “New directions in agenda-setting theory and research，” Mass Communication and Society， Vol. 17， No. 6 （2014）， pp. 781-802.
2 胡铭、钱文杰：《侦查与调查：职务犯罪追诉的模式演进及制度完善》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2019年第5期，第97-113页。
3 Daughety A. F.， Reinganum J. F.， “Appealing judgments，” The Rand Journal of Economics， Vol. 31， No. 3 （2000）， pp. 502-525.
4 元明、张建忠、张萍等：《充分发挥刑事抗诉监督作用 有效强化刑事审判监督职能——最高人民检察院第四十五批指导性案例解读》，《人民检察》2023年第13期，第48-51页。
5 King N. J. & Heise M.， “Appeals by the prosecution，” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies， Vol. 15， No. 3 （2018）， pp. 482-538.
6 吴光升：《认罪认罚案件量刑建议对量刑类二审抗诉的约束力》，《中国刑事法杂志》2023年第5期，第141-158页。
7 陈淑银：《当前刑事抗诉工作中如何把握“抗诉标准”》，《中国检察官》2014年第23期，第47-50页。
8 韩成军：《检察机关抗诉权及其优化配置》，《中州学刊》2012年第3期，第79-84页。
9 黄继平、唐军成、肖军：《实证分析视野下提高刑事审判监督质效的路径》，《人民检察》2021年第16期，第10-13页。
10 陈瑞华：《诉讼监督制度改革的若干思路》，《国家检察官学院学报》2009年第3期，第36-43页。
11 李崇涛：《论二审检察院能否新增抗诉请求及其合理控制》，《交大法学》2020年第3期，第159-173页。
12 潘基俊：《诉判一致案件抗诉的可行性之探析》，《政法学刊》2016年第5期，第85-90页。
13 元明：《刑事抗诉工作的定位与强化》，《人民检察》2021年第Z1期，第132-134页。
14 熊秋红：《审判中心视野下的律师有效辩护》，《当代法学》2017年第6期，第14-24页。
15 谢登科：《论认罪认罚案件被告人上诉权及其限定》，《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》2022年第5期，第79-91页。
16 汪澜、邱素芳：《法官工作量测量——计量模型与四川经验》，《上海交通大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2019年第6期，第61-73页。
17 曹建明：《关于人民检察院规范司法行为工作情况的报告（摘要）》，2014年10月31日，https：//www.spp.gov.cn/spp/ztk/2014/2014nzch/sfgfh/gcbs/201412/t20141225_86413.shtml，2026年6月23日。
18 曹东：《中国特色刑事指控体系研究》，《法学评论》2021年第4期，第98-108页。
19 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。
20 赵鹏：《刑事二审抗诉的合力与制度配置——基于法律文书的观察和分析》，《中国刑事法杂志》2011年第12期，第73-81页。
21 姜保忠：《论检察机关支持抗诉意见书的法律地位与法律适用》，《河南社会科学》2017年第5期，第64-69页。
22 施鹏鹏：《论检察机关“仅为被告人利益之抗诉”及其效力——兼与刘计划教授商榷》，《中国刑事法杂志》2023年第3期，第106-123页。
23 王守安：《谈诉讼裁量——以刑事诉讼为视角》，《河南社会科学》2011年第2期，第15-22页。
24 卫跃宁、王玮玮：《监察与刑事诉讼证据衔接问题研究》，《海南大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2024年第5期，第161-171页。
25 路旸：《嵌入型治理：检力下沉基层社会的新模式》，《江西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2024年第4期，第41-53页。
26 闵春雷、王从光：《以事实为面向：中国刑事指控体系建构的新思路》，《吉林大学社会科学学报》2022年第3期，第19-32，234页。
27 熊秋红：《最高检首批刑事抗诉指导性案例评析》，《中国检察官》2023年第18期，第18-22页。 |
|
|
|
2026, Vol. 56 
