Abstract: As the fourth amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law is underway, four issues relating to the system of leniency for pleading guilty and accepting punishments must be clarified if this important system established and improved by the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee is to achieve significant and effective development and realize its original objectives. From a global perspective, the Chinese system of leniency for pleading guilty and accepting punishments and the plea bargaining system in other countries share common goals in the system objectives and have homogeneity in the implementation mechanism and principles of operation; however, there are significant differences between the two in judicial concepts, value orientations, and system construction, with the former having distinct advantages. From the perspective of judicial discretion, the understanding of "leniency" should be reflected on and reshaped. From the perspective of fundamental principles of litigation, although the right to retraction has certain legitimacy, it should also be restricted to prevent abuse. The method of restricting the right to retraction through the limitation of appeal rights must be controlled within reasonable limits. The optimal path for restricting the right to retraction should be explored. From the perspective of the criminal defense "barrel theory," the main bodies of the system's operation should be changed from three parties, namely the public security organ, the procuratorate, and the court, to four parties, namely the public security organ, the procuratorate, the court, and the defense.

Key Words: the system of leniency for pleading guilty and accepting punishments; plea bargaining; right to retraction; right of protest; right to defense

Author: Liu Chenqi, assistant research fellow, CASS Institute of Law;

Source: 5 (2024) China Journal of Applied Jurisprudence