This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 02 November 2014, At: 04:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social Sciences in ChinaPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rssc20

Revival and Development of theCriminal Reconciliation System in ChinaLi Zheng aa China University of Political Science and LawPublished online: 02 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Li Zheng (2012) Revival and Development of the Criminal Reconciliation Systemin China, Social Sciences in China, 33:4, 168-178, DOI: 10.1080/02529203.2012.731811

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02529203.2012.731811

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Social Sciences in ChinaVol. XXXIII, No. 4, November 2012, 168-178

ISSN 0252-9203© 2012 Social Sciences in China PressDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02529203.2012.731811http://www.tandfonline.com

SPECIAL ISSUE: FOCUSING ON THE REVISION OF CHINA’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW IN 2012

Revival and Development of the Criminal Reconciliation System in ChinaLi Zheng

China University of Political Science and Law

随着和谐社会治国方针的提出与宽严相济刑事政策的深化，中国刑事和解制度呈

现出不断拓展的态势。2012年新《刑事诉讼法》以“特别程序”编的形式，专章规定

了“刑事和解”，第一次在《刑事诉讼法》中全面确立了中国式的刑事和解制度。但就

目前立法来看，刑事和解程序设置还相对粗放，也存在诸多争议。刑事和解未来发展

方向应当强化规则性完善与制度性建设。

关键词：刑事和解 2012年刑事诉讼法 调解 加害人 被害人

With the adoption of the governance policy of a harmonious society and with the further strengthening of the criminal policy of mitigating severity with leniency, China’s criminal reconciliation system is undergoing rapid development. In the 2012 Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, criminal reconciliation is stipulated in a separate chapter under “Special Procedures,” thereby comprehensively establishing for the first time a criminal reconciliation system with Chinese characteristics in the Criminal Procedure Law. However, China’s legislation on criminal reconciliation remains relatively broad-brush and controversial. Improved regulation and system construction now point the way for future development.

Keywords: criminal reconciliation, 2012 Criminal Procedure Law, mediation, offender, victim

On March 14, 2012, the 5th Session of the Eleventh National People’s Congress passed the Decision of the National People’s Congress on Amending the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. The amended law provides for criminal reconciliation in a separate chapter under “Special Procedures.” This represents the first ever comprehensive establishment in China’s Criminal Procedure Law of a criminal reconciliation system

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Li Zheng 169

with Chinese characteristics. On the one hand, this legislative measure represents a legal response that meets the legal needs of the socio-economic transformation China is currently undergoing; and on the other, it is to a certain extent the result of repeated spontaneous and bottom-up experiments in judicial practice. At the same time, it particularly represents the revival and development of the traditional Chinese emphasis on “harmony.”

I. The Revival of Criminal Reconciliation in China

1. The rise of criminal reconciliation in the people’s justice system during the period of the New Democratic Revolution

The relevant sources show that criminal reconciliation in the people’s justice system in China can be traced directly back to the Supplementary Regulations on Litigation Handling for All Levels of the Judiciary, Shandong Province, and the Provisional Regulations on the Organization of People’s Mediation Committees of Shandong Province (both of which were passed and promulgated on April 18, 1941, and effective as of that date). These regulations introduced the concept of criminal reconciliation for the first time. Thereafter the Regulations on Mediation in Civil and Criminal Cases in the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region, promulgated on June 11, 1943, became the most influential legislative document on criminal reconciliation in the establishment of a legal system in the Revolutionary Base Areas; it stipulated in Article 2 that “all civil dispute cases should be subject to mediation and all criminal cases, with the exception of the following, are also open to mediation.” The Year-end Report of the Border Region Government issued on January 6, 1944 also highlighted the importance of criminal reconciliation.1 Soon afterwards, the district commissioners, county heads, court presidents and county-level judicial authorities were all instructed by the border region government to adopt Ma Xiwu’s judicial method and employ civil mediation as much as possible.2 As can be seen, criminal reconciliation has been incorporated into the core concepts, values and practice of the people’s justice system from the very beginning.

The criminal reconciliation then practiced by local judicial departments exhibited the following characteristics. Firstly, it was applied extensively. Although criminal reconciliation at that time was applicable, in principle, only to minor criminal cases and those involving infringement on the legal interests of the individual, it was used more extensively in practice. Secondly, criminal reconciliation had quite a high settlement rate. According to Ma Xiwu, the settlement rate for minor criminal cases was 0.4 percent in 1942; the rate went up to 5.6 percent in 1943 and reached 12 percent in 1944. Thirdly, reconciliation in minor criminal cases was basically equivalent to civil mediation in terms of efficacy and style. There are no separate regulations with regard to criminal reconciliation or mediation in the aforementioned documents; rather, criminal reconciliation is treated in the same way as civil mediation within

1　Zhang Xipo, Ma Xiwu’s Judicial Method, p. 55.2　Ibid.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

170 Social Sciences in China

the same legal document. The result of mediation was, likewise, as legally effective and enforceable as a court ruling.

2. The retreat of criminal reconciliation after the founding of the People’s Republic of China

Since the People’s Republic of China was founded, China has been pushing ahead with efforts to modernize its legal system. During this process, criminal reconciliation as a legal practice began to fade out. The trial reforms started at the end of the 1980s, the 1996 revision of the Criminal Procedure Law and research on procedural jurisprudence were all part of the effort, in terms of ideas, to establish and develop a more detailed, precise and complex system of legal procedure and action to achieve substantive and procedural justice. The Criminal Procedure Law of this period as well as a series of judicial interpretations aimed at establishing court rules and rules of evidence was based on the concepts and modes of litigation of developed countries, whose system of criminal procedure was believed to point the way for the construction of the Chinese system. These models, however, ran contrary to the spirit of criminal reconciliation. Consequently, time-honored experience and ways of handling criminal reconciliation naturally fell out of sight. Amidst slogans like “improve socialist democracy and the socialist legal system” and “strike hard,” criminal reconciliation gradually retreated from the stage and became lost to history.

3. The revival of criminal reconciliation in the 21st century: a strong return(1) New opportunities for developmentWith the advent of the 21st century, the rising number of disputes in China and the shortage

of judicial supply made it increasingly necessary to resort to traditional values to resolve social conflicts. Thus, there was a resurgence of criminal reconciliation, which enjoyed new opportunities for development in the following four respects.

Firstly, criminal reconciliation was made an important government policy. In August 2000, the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the General Office of the State Council forwarded Opinions of the Central Committee for Comprehensive Management of Public Security on Further Strengthening the Investigation and Handling of Contradictions and Disputes, which made it clear that the handling of contradictions and disputes should follow the following principles: “focusing on prevention, relying on education and guidance, following legal procedures and avoiding intensifying conflicts,” to ensure that contradictions were resolved at the grass-roots level. In June 2002, the Sixth Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China passed the Decisions of the CPC Central Committee on Major Issues Regarding the Building of a Harmonious Socialist Society, which also stated that “mediation is to be encouraged; civil mediation, administrative mediation and judicial mediation are to be combined effectively; laws, policies, economic policies, education, negotiation and guidance are to be integrated to ensure that contradictions are resolved at the grass-roots level.” It could be said that at the policy level, the government showed renewed interest in the role of reconciliation and mediation in resolving social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Li Zheng 171

contradictions and disputes, providing a firm base for their future development.Secondly, the mechanism of civil mediation is being standardized and incorporated into the

legal system. In the past ten years, the Chinese government has come to realize the “inherent problems” with civil mediation and has begun to take targeted measures to incorporate it into the country’s legal system. In September 2002, Some Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Trying Civil Cases Involving People’s Mediation Agreements was passed by China’s Supreme People’s Court, clarifying the nature and effect of People’s Mediation Agreements in the form of a judicial interpretation. In August 2010, the 16th Session of the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China passed the People’s Mediation Law of the People’s Republic of China, which gave an all-encompassing and systematic definition to people’s mediation. It could be said that in legislative terms, the institutional personnel, procedural design and legal efficacy of mechanisms for civil dispute mediation have become fully standardized.

Thirdly, the linkup between reconciliation, mediation and litigation is achieved. In July 2009, China’s Supreme People’s Court promulgated Several Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Establishing a Sound Conflict and Dispute Resolution Mechanism that Connects Litigation and Non-litigation. This standardized a mechanism for connecting various forms of mediation with litigation and one for connecting various forms of arbitration with litigation, enlarged the scope for application of a contractually binding settlement agreement and gave the parties involved in a dispute leave to apply to the People’s Court to have a settlement agreement recognized and performed. The People’s Mediation Law of the People’s Republic of China passed in August 2010 became the first law in China to lay down clear rules concerning the connection between mediation and litigation.

Fourthly, reconciliation and mediation have had a striking effect in practice. In recent years, they have played an important role in resolving social contradictions. Statistics from the Ministry of Justice show that there are presently 4,940,000 people’s mediators working in China and that the people’s mediation organizations handle several million dispute cases each year. In 2009 alone, they handled 7,676,000 cases, with a success rate of 96 percent. Among them, the number of cases where the parties concerned went back on the agreement and sought legal redress accounted for only seven in a thousand, and in nine out of ten such cases,3 the original settlement agreement was supported by the court.

(2) Active exploration on the part of the judiciaryAt present, with the increased interest in the resolution of social contradictions in criminal

trials from both practitioners and theoreticians, judicial organs in various localities are embarking on research endeavors focused on criminal reconciliation in light of their own situations.

3　“A Milestone in the Development of the People’s Mediation System––Deputy Attorney General Hao Chiyong Answers Reporter’s Questions on the Promulgation of the People’s Mediation Law of the PRC,” Legal Daily, September 7, 2010.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

172 Social Sciences in China

In terms of theoretical norms, Procedures in the Handling of Assault Causing Minor Injury (for Trial Implementation), promulgated in 2002 by the Chaoyang District Procuratorate, Beijing, is considered to be China’s first normative legal document on criminal reconciliation. Although it does not use the term “criminal reconciliation,” both academics and the press were of one accord in using “criminal reconciliation” with reference to the practice clarified in the document. Thereafter, criminal reconciliation was further defined in Articles 12 and 26 of Several Opinions of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China on Implementing the Criminal Policy of Tempering Justice with Mercy in Procuratorial Work, as well as in Item 6 under Article 4 of Opinions of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China on Prompt Handling of Minor Criminal Cases in Accordance with the Law. Thus, the term “criminal reconciliation” was officially confirmed by the relevant normative documents.

From the point of view of judicial practice, criminal reconciliation has also proved highly effective. The Procuratorate of Lanzhou, Gansu Province, for example, has boldly explored new paths in dispute resolution to optimize outcomes rather than following the law mechanically, an approach that has seen quite a few cases settled successfully. A case in point is the success of exploration by the Qilihe Procuratorate, which has experimented with using restorative justice, establishing Rules on the Application of Criminal Reconciliation to Minor Criminal Cases and using criminal reconciliation in cases of juvenile delinquency. This kind of judicial practice helps avoid the lasting enmities that can follow a court case and has been well received by the parties involved and the general public.

II. The Establishment and Development of Criminal Reconciliation in the Criminal Procedure Law of 2012

On the basis of a series of theoretical and practical explorations, the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China organized a group of experts to conduct in-depth studies on the establishment of a criminal reconciliation mechanism in China. The results of this research were formulated in the Criminal Procedure Law of 2012. In general, the development of criminal reconciliation in the revised Criminal Procedure Law can be seen in the following respects.

1. The scope of applicationIn defining the scope of application for criminal reconciliation, Article 277 of the Criminal

Procedure Law of 2012, taking into consideration different theories and opinions, states that: “Where the suspect or defendant voluntarily and genuinely expresses his or her remorse and obtains the forgiveness of the victim by means of compensation or an apology or some other means to the victim, and the victim voluntarily agrees to reconcile, the two parties may reconcile in any of the following public prosecution cases: (1) cases of a crime caused by a civil dispute and falling under Chapters 4 and 5 of the Special Provisions of the Criminal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Li Zheng 173

Law, and for which a term of imprisonment of less than three years may be passed; and (2) cases of a crime of negligence for which a term of imprisonment of less than seven years may be passed, except for crimes of breach of official duty. Where the suspect or defendant has committed an intentional crime within the past five years, the procedures provided in this chapter do not apply.” The purpose of this legislation is to effectively resolve contradictions and disputes through appropriately expanding the scope of application of criminal reconciliation to include certain public prosecution cases.

We believe that since, from the theoretical point of view, criminal reconciliation involves both the victim and the offender, the parties concerned have the right to reach an agreement involving compensation for mental suffering and economic losses, the offering of a formal apology, etc., whether the offense be a minor or a major one. Therefore, the application scope of victim-offender reconciliation cannot and should not be defined. But due to the fact that China’s criminal reconciliation mechanism is still being trialed and that there are problems on which a consensus has yet to be reached by theoreticians, practitioners and people from all walks of society, the practice of putting limits to reconciliation fits in with the present state of China’s judicial practice. Of course, the criminal reconciliation system should be subject to continuous revision and improvement based on actual practice and future development.

2. The roles of public security authorities, People’s Procuratorates and People’s Courts in criminal reconciliation

When it comes to the roles of public security authorities, People’s Procuratorates and People’s Courts in criminal reconciliation, the 2012 Criminal Procedure Law states in Article 278, “Where both parties agree to reconcile, the public security authority, the People’s Procuratorate and the People’s Court should hear the opinions of the parties and other relevant persons, review the voluntariness and legality of the reconciliation, and direct the formulation of a reconciliation agreement.” By specifying the roles of public security authorities, People’s Procuratorates and People’s Courts in criminal reconciliation on the basis of the actual implementation of the criminal reconciliation mechanism, this article provides the legal basis for these bodies to perform their duties in cases where criminal reconciliation can be applied. These duties include: (1) hearing the views of the parties involved and other relevant persons to make sure both parties truly intend to reconcile; (2) reviewing the voluntariness and legality of the reconciliation to rule out the possibility that some offenders may try to avoid legal action by resorting to “reconciliation”; (3) directing the formulation of a reconciliation agreement. In the reviewing process, decisions have to be made as to whether both parties voluntarily agree to reconcile; whether one party has been forced or tricked into reconciliation through violence, threats, fraud or other illegal means; whether the reconciliation will be legal; whether the reconciliation will harm national, collective and public interests or violate the legal rights of others; and whether the reconciliation is in compliance with social morality.

3. The handling of cases involving criminal reconciliationOn the handling of cases where criminal reconciliation has been agreed upon, Article 279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

174 Social Sciences in China

in the Criminal Procedure Law of 2012 stipulates that “In cases for which a reconciliation agreement is reached, the public security authority may suggest that the People’s Procuratorate treat the defendant with leniency. The People’s Procuratorate may then suggest that the People’s Court give a lenient punishment; for minor offences that do not require a punishment, the People’s Procuratorate may decide not to prosecute. The People’s Court may treat the defendant with leniency in accordance with the law.” That is to say, once a reconciliation agreement is reached, the public security and judicial departments should act on the criminal policy of tempering justice with mercy and take the reconciliation into consideration when examining the circumstances of the crime. For example, in deciding whether to approve an arrest in a case where the parties have reached a reconciliation agreement, the People’s Procuratorate should consider the reconciliation as an important factor in establishing whether an arrest is necessary, and should generally not approve the arrest. Likewise, when considering a prosecution in cases where the parties have come to a reconciliation agreement, the People’s Procuratorate should normally decide not to prosecute, taking reconciliation as an important factor to be considered when assessing the applicable law: “Where the circumstances of a person’s crime are minor, according to criminal law, a penal sentence is not required or exemption from a penal sentence may be granted.” When the crime is a serious one and public prosecution is necessary, the People’s Procuratorate should also take reconciliation as an important circumstance to be considered in arriving at a sentence and should suggest to the People’s Court that it treat the defendant with leniency in accordance with the law.

4. Items yet to be covered In the Criminal Procedure Law of 2012, there are only three articles concerning criminal

reconciliation; this is too broad and simplistic. Some important aspects of criminal reconciliation are left undefined or unclarified. Firstly, the parties who can reach reconciliation are not specified. Normally reconciliation can be reached by the parties involved or their legal representatives, but in cases where the parties are minors or may not be able to participate in the consultation in person, their near relatives or lawyers or other authorized persons can reach reconciliation on their behalf. Secondly, the issues that can be agreed upon for reconciliation are not defined. Issues falling in the range of individual rights, such as compensation for mental suffering and/or economic losses, restitution and a formal apology, can be covered by reconciliation, but the facts and evidence of the case and decisions concerning whether it constitutes a crime, how to apply the law and how to mete out punishment are the functions and powers of the public security authorities and judicial departments and are not negotiable. Thirdly, the types of reconciliation that are available are not mentioned. In practice, the parties can have such government-recognized agencies or organizations as administrative organs, public security and judicial departments, villagers’ committees, residents’ committees, people’s mediation committees or their work units preside over the reconciliation, or they can reach reconciliation in private. Fourthly, the issue of compensation is not addressed sufficiently. Measures should be taken to prevent offenders from buying their way out of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Li Zheng 175

punishment or victims from making unreasonable claims, and we should make a stand against the unjust application of the law in cases where there is a great gap between the economic background of the offender and that of the victim.

III. Debates over China’s Present Criminal Reconciliation

1. Does criminal reconciliation run contrary to the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime and the principle of suiting the liability and the punishment to the crime?

This is the principal reason that some scholars question the criminal reconciliation system. They hold that criminal reconciliation violates the basic principles of criminal law, namely, the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime, the principal of suiting the liability and the punishment to the crime and the principle of equality before the criminal law.4 Does criminal reconciliation, then, really run contrary to the basic principles of criminal law?

We believe that it does not. First of all, China’s present criminal law offers some legal basis for the implementation of criminal reconciliation. Article 172 of the 1996 Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that “A People’s Court may conduct mediation in a case of private prosecution; the private prosecutor may arrange a settlement with the defendant or withdraw his prosecution before a judgment is pronounced.” Article 200 of The Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China states that “Criminal mediation should be conducted only when the mediation is sought by both parties voluntarily and on a legal basis and when the mediation will not endanger national or collective interests as well as the legitimate rights and interests of others.” Article 4 of the Regulations of the Supreme People’s Court on the Scope of Civil Suit Collateral to Criminal Proceedings stipulates “In a case where the offender has compensated the victim for material losses, the People’s Court may take the compensation into consideration when arriving at a sentence.” These regulations undoubtedly provide some legal basis for the implementation of criminal reconciliation. At present criminal reconciliation is largely practiced in accordance with the Criminal Law, the Criminal Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations. This exercise in leniency does not transgress the law.

2. Does criminal reconciliation equate to buying your way out of punishment?Since criminal reconciliation inevitably involves economic compensation, some people

hold that reconciliation actually means swapping money for punishment and that the amount paid determines the degree of leniency shown by the judicial departments. This view, however, is based on a misinterpretation of the 2012 Criminal Procedure Law with regard to the criminal reconciliation mechanism and a misunderstanding of the purpose and intention of its establishment. Reconciliation basically means that on a basis of equality and

4　Li Xiang, “Contradictions in Substantive Law Regarding Criminal Reconciliation,” p. 385.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

176 Social Sciences in China

voluntary participation, through dialogue and consultation between the suspect or defendant and the victim, the two parties involved reach reconciliation, with the former obtaining the latter’s forgiveness by means of a formal apology, sincere remorse and/or compensation. The fundamental objective of the reconciliation mechanism is to restore social relationships that have been damaged by a crime and maintain social harmony through non-criminal penalties or penalty mitigation. Where a reconciliation agreement is reached, economic compensation is simply the natural result of the offender’s remorse and apology; it cannot make a condition for a lesser punishment. Genuine remorse, seen as a sign of the lessening of the offender’s subjective malice, can reduce contradictions and eliminate factors of disharmony. Lenient treatment can be beneficial in such cases.

3. Does criminal reconciliation settle civil compensation liabilities? We hold that the reconciliation stipulated in the 2012 Criminal Procedure Law refers

to the settlement through reconciliation of civil rather than criminal compensation liabilities. However, despite regional differences in actual implementation, China’s criminal reconciliation as practiced is usually accompanied by the decision of specialized state organs to terminate criminal proceedings against the offender or to mitigate the offender’s criminal responsibility. This is done either procedurally or substantively. Procedurally, the Procuratorate may (1) decide not to initiate a prosecution, (2) suggest to the public security authorities that the case be withdrawn, (3) suggest to the People’s Court that it apply summary procedure to reduce or mitigate punishment, or (4) have the private prosecutor withdraw the prosecution. Substantively, the relevant organs may (1) impose a criminal penalty, but in reduced or mitigated form, (2) impose non-criminal penalties in the form of a reprimand, a pledge of repentance, a formal apology, compensation or an administrative penalty or demerit imposed by a competent administrative department, (3) pronounce the offender guilty, but exempt the offender from criminal punishment when the crime is a minor one for which criminal punishment is not required, (4) give a suspended sentence.

As can be seen from the aforementioned procedures and results, China’s criminal reconciliation is predominantly reconciliation with regard to civil compensation liabilities in which forgiveness is the main goal, rather than reconciliation with regard to criminal liabilities. Although negotiations on reconciliation may touch on criminal liabilities, when it comes to the pressing of criminal charges, the victim can only make a request to that effect. In other words, a reconciliation with regard to criminal liabilities between the parties involved will not necessarily be legally effective; it is still subject to the discretion of the special state organs implementing the statutory procedures and substantive laws and regulations within the scope of their legal authority.

IV. Areas in Need of Further Development

The present legislative provisions in China regarding criminal reconciliation are still too

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Li Zheng 177

general and simplistic; enrichment and improvement of these provisions will become the goal of the future development of China’s criminal reconciliation system.

Firstly, criminal reconciliation should be raised to the level of a principle of criminal procedure. It should run through some important stages of criminal procedure, taking different forms at different stages. Once a reconciliation agreement is reached, the whole criminal procedure may be brought to a halt at that stage. Future legislation should therefore make criminal reconciliation a principle of criminal procedure. The Expert Draft for Re-amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and Its Annotations, the result of research presided over by Professor Chen Guangzhong on the re-amendment of China’s Criminal Procedure Law, has already made criminal reconciliation a principle of that law. It states in Article 20 that “In cases where a reconciliation agreement is reached by the suspect or defendant with the victim or the victim’s near relatives, the People’s Court, the People’s Procuratorate and the public security authorities should give appropriate consideration to the parties’ intentions to reconcile and decide, in accordance with the law, not to press criminal charges against the suspect or to reduce or mitigate punishment or even exempt the defendant from punishment depending on the circumstances of the crime.”5

Secondly, the procedure of criminal reconciliation needs to be refined. We propose that the public security and judicial authorities should lay out practical and unified regulations regarding the procedure for criminal reconciliation and detailed rules for its implementation, detailing the scope of application, specific compensation criteria and specific case-handling procedure, as well as making clear such matters as who should be present when the decision not to prosecute is announced and what form the announcement should take, making the regulations on criminal reconciliation scientific, standardized and operable with a view to preventing any arbitrariness that may appear in case handling in practice.

Thirdly, the case-handling process should be made public. The handling of criminal reconciliation should be transparent and the case-handling process and its result should be made public. In cases where an arrest or prosecution is dropped, a detailed written explanatory statement should be prepared to prevent any injustices that might arise from the increasing number of cases in which criminal reconciliation leads to a reduced or mitigated punishment. This will curb abuse of power and rampant corruption.

Fourthly, a mechanism for oversight and restraint needs to be established. First, a system for examination of case filing should be put in place. In criminal cases where criminal reconciliation is applied, case materials should be submitted to the Procuratorate for their examination and oversight. Second, a review and reconsideration system is needed. In cases where there are objections to non-prosecution or withdrawal of prosecution, an application may be filed for a review or reconsideration of the decision. Third, a system for raising protests should be established. When the Procuratorate objects to the application of criminal

5　Chen Guangzhong, ed., Expert Draft for Re-amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and Its Annotations, p. 8.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

178 Social Sciences in China

reconciliation by a judicial body, it may use a procuratorial proposal or protest as a means of oversight.

Finally, an auxiliary system for criminal reconciliation has to be established. First, the Procuratorate’s discretionary power of non-prosecution should be expanded so that, depending on the circumstances of the crime, the Procurator may decide not to prosecute. Second, the right to propose a sentence has to be given greater force. Judicial departments should jointly issue judicial interpretations which make the suspect’s entering into a reconciliation agreement a circumstance to be taken into account in reducing or mitigating punishment or granting exemption from punishment. Third, public welfare organizations and aid funds should be established and state subsidies should be provided to help defendants whose poor financial situation makes them unable to pay compensation to the victim despite their desire for reconciliation, thus preventing them from obtaining the victim’s forgiveness and depriving them of the chance for reconciliation. To ensure equality in criminal reconciliation, an appropriate subsidy from the state may be necessary.

Notes on Contributor

Li Zheng is Associate Professor at the Procedural Law Research Institution of the China University of Political Science and Law. His main research interest is criminal procedure law. His representative work is: Beyond Facts: The Postmodern Philosophy of Evidence in Multi-perspectives (超越事实

——多重视角的后现代证据哲学, Beijing: Law Press · China, 2007). E-mail: zaj0507@163.com.

References

“A Milestone in the Development of the People’s Mediation System—Deputy Attorney General Hao Chiyong Answering Reporter’s Questions on the Promulgation of the People’s Mediation Law of the PRC” (人民调解发展制度的里程碑——司法部副部长郝赤勇就人民调解法颁布答记者问). Legal Daily (法制日报), September 7, 2010.

Chen, Guangzhong, ed. Expert Draft for Re-amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and Its Annotations (中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法再修改专家建议稿与论证). Beijing: China Legal Publishing House, 2006.

Li, Xiang. “Contradictions in Substantive Law Regarding Criminal Reconciliation” (刑事和解制度的

实体法冲突). In Criminal Reconciliation in the Context of the Harmonious Society (和谐社会语境

下的刑事和解), eds. Huang Jingping and Zhen Zhen. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2007.Zhang, Xipo. Ma Xiwu’s Judicial Method (马锡五审判方式). Beijing: Law Press · China, 1983.

—Translated by Cheng Yanqin and Xu HongzhenRevised by Sally Borthwick

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14