We don't deny that this understanding has some truth. Apart from the fact that the parties are unable to take care of themselves due to illness, are pregnant or nursing their own babies, and the compulsory measures need to be changed at the expiration of the detention period, a considerable number of cases that can be released on bail pending trial are not particularly serious. This has also led to most of the parties will shirk. Since I can get bail pending trial, it shows that the circumstances involved in my case are not serious and there should be no problem.
It is necessary to throw cold water on many parties here, because when Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates the statutory situation of obtaining a bail pending trial, the detailed statement in the second paragraph is that "it may be sentenced to more than fixed-term imprisonment, and taking a bail pending trial will not cause social danger". Many parties understand that the term "may be sentenced to more than fixed-term imprisonment" in this clause is based on the situation that the sentence is less than three years or even suspended. However, this is only a summary of the general situation in judicial practice, and there is no clear legal basis, which can not withstand inversion.
For example, there was a health care product fraud case in Jiangsu Province before. Among the defendants, one of the company's logistics personnel (an aunt in her fifties) was released on bail by the public security organs during the investigation stage, and several transcripts were made in the middle. Later, the first trial was sentenced to eight years in prison, and the aunt fainted in court.
Criminal cases involve the life, freedom and property of the parties, which is a major event for every family. As lawyers, we have met many parties with heavier sentences in the process of dealing with fraud cases, but there has never been such a strong reaction. Why did the judgment in this case cause such a big blow to the parties?
Personally, I think the main reason is that the client has been released on bail before, and he never thought that he was released on bail. How did he get such a heavy sentence? This also lies in the lawyer's failure to properly communicate with the client, give a risk warning, and report good news instead of bad news. Perhaps some lawyers themselves are superstitious about bail pending trial and fail to fully clarify the facts accused by the prosecution and the criminal penalties that the parties may face on this basis.