Abstract:The primary subject of the sentencing procedural reform is to establish an appropriate sentencing procedural model to coordinate the relationship between conviction and sentencing proceedings reasonably. Although the newly established reform program by the Supreme People's Court can be feasibly implemented in the guilty plea cases, it would meet some difficulties in both summary cases and general procedures and even face some theoretical disputes and real risks. Through the experimental exploration of the grassroots courts, a model named "centralized sentencing model", basing on the mass—appearance of prosecutors, has gradually taken shape in summary proceedings. In this model, after the indictment which confirms the defendant has constituted a crime, the court hears a number of cases prosecuted by prosecutors in a continuous sentencing hearing and gives their sentencing decisions respectively. In cases where the defendant pleas not guilty, the viewpoints for the establishment of an "independent sentencing procedure" are came out and supported by some law experts and the judiciary. This model means that the court trial shall be divided into two relatively independent stages, that is, conviction and the sentencing hearing. The court should firstly settle down whether the accused has constituted a crime or not through investigation and court debates. After the declaration of conviction, the court will organize a special sentencing proceeding. By listening to the views of both defense lawyers and prosecutors and reviewing the statutory and discretionary sentencing circumstances, the court then makes the final decisions on the sentencing issue of the accused. In cases where the defendant voluntarily pleas guilty, the "flexible alternating sentencing model" still leaves some spaces for further improvement. So the sentencing procedural reform is far from maturity. The policy—makers of the reform should not be complacent and conservative. For these self—engendered reform experiences, the reformers should not blindly adopt the attitude of rejection, but instead should face up to the reasonableness of their existence and assess their effectiveness, so as to make them play a greater role in the formation of a new system.

Practice and Inspiration of Plea Bargaining in German

The Turn to Confession Bargaining in German Criminal Procedure: Causes and Comparisons with American Plea Bargaining

Plea Bargain:History and Present

Vergleich und berlegungen zum chinesischen und deutschen Verstndnis des Begriffs Nebenpflicht

COMPARISON OF PLEA BARGAINING IN THE UNITED STATES WITH “SPECIAL LINE” IN THE DRAFT BOOK OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (KUHAP) IN INDONESIA

Implementation of Plea Bargaining in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System

A Comparative Study of the Application of the Doctrine of Prosecuting Discretion in Japan,Germany and China

On Prisoner's Dilemma and Game of Plea in Criminal Proceedings——In the View of the Plea Bargain

The Proposed Plea Bargaining in Ethiopia: How it Fares with Fundamental Principles of Criminal law and Procedure

Plea-Bargaining Law: the Impact of Innocence, Trial Penalty, and Conviction Probability on Plea Outcomes

The System Design and Judicial Practice of Criminal and Victim Conciliation

Plea bargaining when juror effort is costly

To Waive or Not to Waive: The Right to Trial and Plea Bargaining

Comparison of the Principles of Prosecution and Prosecution Suspension between Germany and Japan

Negotiated Agreements as an Alternative to Criminal Trials: Policy Lessons from the Hungarian Example

Developing a model of guilty plea decision-making: Fuzzy-trace theory, gist, and categorical boundaries.

Models of Sentencing Procedural Reform

Plea bargaining as a human rights question

On The Crime of Failure to Give Assistance in German Criminal Law

An Unjust Bargain: Plea Bargains and Waiver of the Right to Appeal

Study on Pragmatic Cooperative Principles of Jury Instructions in Hong Kong