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.

Judicial Review of the Balance Between Crime and Punishment

District Circuit Court: An Approach of Realism——An Analysis Based on Death Penalty Review Process

Judicial Application of Restrictive Commutation of Death Penalty with Suspension: Comment on No. 12 Guiding Case of the Supreme People's Court

From Special Mitigation to Unconstitutional Censorship: Taking Xu Ting Case as an Example

On the Independence of Sentencing Process

Models of Sentencing Procedural Reform

On Discretionary Mechanism of Penalty for Minor Offenders

Mean of Declaratory Sentence of Crime without Statutory Sentencing Factors and Its Significance

Sentencing Disparities in Corruption Cases in China

On the Sentencing Discretion of Punishment Aimed at Prevention

Study on the Sociological Model of Conviction and Sentencing

On the Investigation of Sentencing Information

Regulating judicial discretion on administrative penalty under clean government building

Criminalization and Decriminalization in Judicature

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

A Quantitative Analysis Of Crime and Penalty

A Discussion on Criminal Judges' Interpretation of Criminal Law

Study on Criminal Jurisprudence: Western Countries' Experience and China's Reality

The Legal Structure and Practical Dilemma of the Establishment of the "Review System"

Retrospection and Reflection on the Criminal Judicial Reform in Recent Years

Review and Reflection on the Research of Criminal Procedure