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.

Controlling Criminal Procedural Violation by Criminal Procedural Sanction

On the Procedural Sanction of the Criminal Actions

A Jurisprudential Analysis on Procedural Sanction System

Legal Liability of Violation of Obligation on Administrative Law: Between Administrative Punishment and Penalty——Analysis on Article 7 (2) of Administrative Punishment Law

An Empirical Study on Operation of Chinese Criminal Procedure Law

Review and Reflection on the Research of Criminal Procedure

A Preliminary Research on Failure of Criminal Procedure

On Procedural Defense

The Basic Logic of Constructing Legal Procedures

The Criminal Policy under the Circumstance of the Contemporary Rule of Law

On Discretionary Mechanism of Penalty for Minor Offenders

Models of Sentencing Procedural Reform

On the Independence of Sentencing Process

Judicial Review of the Balance Between Crime and Punishment

Consequence and Discretionary Action of Sentencing ——the Prohibition of Consequential Responsibility, Double Evaluation and Indirect Punishment

Discussion on the System of Sentencing Proposal

Caution on Excessive Pursuit of the Efficiency of Criminal Procedure

An empirical analysis of criminal sanctions against exam cheating in China

Reconsideration of Penalization for a Preparation from the Angle of the Criminal Norms Science

Frontiers of the Civil Procedural Law Theory

Criminal Methodology and Judicial Logic