The defendant can plead not guilty, and the defender can plead guilty?

Subjectivity of law: the defendant thinks that the defender is incompetent and can refuse the defender's defense. Entrusting a defender to defend himself is a right of the defendant in the lawsuit. It is the duty of the defender to accept the entrustment according to law and defend the defendant in the trial. If the defendant thinks that the defender's defense is unfavorable to him or against his will, he has the right to refuse the defender's defense and defend himself. Or the defendant thinks that he is guilty and fully recognizes the accusation of the prosecutor. There is no need for the defender to defend himself. He can also refuse the defender to continue his defense halfway. If the defendant thinks that the defender's defense is unconvincing or disagrees with the defender's defense opinion, he may refuse to defend and entrust another defender to defend himself. This is a right given to the defendant by law in litigation, and the law also allows it. If the defendant fails to entrust a defender and the people's court appoints a defender for him, and the defendant resolutely refuses the defender appointed by the people's court to defend him, and insists on exercising the right of defense, the people's court may allow it and shall record it. The defendant is a deaf, blind, dumb or intermittent mental patient and a mental patient who cannot fully recognize his behavior; Minors at the time of hearing; For a person who may be sentenced to death, the people's court has appointed a defender for him. If the defendant has justified reasons to refuse the defender appointed by the people's court to defend himself, the people's court shall allow it, but if the defendant needs to appoint another defender, the people's court shall appoint another defender for him. If the defendant refuses the defender to defend in court and requests to entrust another defender or appoint a lawyer, the collegial panel shall allow it. After the defendant refuses the defender's defense, if there is no defender, he shall announce an adjournment; If there are defenders, the trial can continue. In the case of multiple defendants, if some defendants refuse to be defended by defenders, and there is no defender, the defendant can be dealt with separately according to the circumstances of the case, and the trials of other defendants will continue. During the court hearing, if the defender refuses to defend the defendant, he shall be allowed; Whether to continue the trial, refer to the above provisions. If he refuses to defend, he shall entrust other defenders or appoint lawyers. From the date when the case is adjourned to 15, the defender will prepare his defense unless the resources of the defendant and his defender shorten the time. Legal objectivity: 1. Did the defendant plead not guilty? Does the defender refuse to defend? According to China's criminal procedure law and relevant regulations, the defendant's not pleading guilty is not among the legal reasons why the defender refuses to defend him. Second, will refusing to plead guilty increase the punishment? In judicial practice, prosecutors and judges believe that the defendant's refutation of the accusation belongs to "refusing to plead guilty" and giving him a heavier punishment, which does not conform to the principle of distinguishing litigation functions, and runs counter to the principles of separation of prosecution from trial, protection of defense rights and neutrality of judges. The viewpoint and practice of "refusing to plead guilty, hell to pay" is the application of the criminal policy of "confessing leniency and resisting severity" in the trial field in the early days of the founding of the People's Republic of China, which has its rationality in a specific historical stage. However, with the consolidation of political power and the gradual advancement of legal system construction, the criminal policy that emerged in an extraordinary period and reflected strong political needs has lost its legitimacy. In order to implement the Constitution's stipulation of "ruling the country according to law and building a socialist country ruled by law", judicial personnel should treat the defendant's "not pleading guilty" carefully from the perspective of procedural value and human rights protection, and should not regard the defendant's defense behavior as "refusing to plead guilty" and then "hell to pay". Refuse to plead guilty; Hell to pay; Division of litigation functions; Political Thinking Both the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law of our country have established that public security organs, procuratorial organs and courts should follow the principle of "division of responsibilities, mutual cooperation and mutual restraint" in handling criminal cases, so as to ensure accurate and effective law enforcement. According to this principle, the roles and functions of procuratorial organs and courts in criminal proceedings are different. Procuratorial organs are responsible for "prosecuting, approving arrests, and directly accepting the investigation and prosecution of cases", and courts are responsible for trials, that is, separation of prosecution and trial. However, in practice, influenced by the concept of emphasizing the prosecution of crimes, the situation that the procuratorial organs and the courts "cooperate more than enough" still occurs from time to time, and even "cooperate with each other" rather than "restrict each other", and * * * is committed to pursuing the "flow operation" of the defendant's confession. For example, in practice, many prosecutors and judges hold the view of sentencing: if the defendant defends the facts accused by the prosecutor and the evidence presented, many prosecutors will think that the defendant "refuses to plead guilty" and often suggest that the court apply heavier punishment to him; On the contrary, if the defendant admits the alleged behavior and rarely confronts the prosecutor, the prosecutor thinks that he has a "good attitude of pleading guilty" and suggests that the court decide to give a lighter punishment. Judges often take the prosecutor's advice. The view that the defendant can be given a lighter punishment when he pleads guilty has been recognized in the eighth amendment to the Criminal Law. However, the law does not clearly stipulate whether the defendant can be severely punished when he does not plead guilty. Under the procedural principle of separation of prosecution and trial and mutual restriction, judges and prosecutors have different litigation functions and roles, and their understanding of the defendant's litigation behavior may be different. However, both the judge and the prosecutor hold the same view that the defendant and the prosecutor should be severely punished if they plead guilty. Does this view conform to their respective litigation roles? Is it in line with the procedural principle of separation and mutual restraint between prosecution and trial? From another point of view, this involves the protection of the defendant's litigation rights and is worth studying.