Many parties like to "take it for granted", which I think is a very dangerous thing. For example, some parties think that they will be all right after bail, and they can completely let themselves go. Then they receive a phone call every few months saying that the case has gone to the procuratorate and let the past make a record. The whole person is stupid.
But lawyers won't be surprised, because although some evidence can't be collected within 7 days or 31 days, it doesn't mean that it can't be collected all the time. As for the recent case of "Bye-bye to the world", there is also a sentence in the report of the procuratorate: "At the same time, guide the investigation organs to supplement investigation and evidence collection." As you can see from the side, at least not all cases are decided at the moment when the procuratorate does not approve the arrest.
Recently, I even heard from my peers that there was such a situation. In a certain case, the prosecutor suggested a suspended sentence, but the judge refused to adopt it. Generally speaking, there is no problem in cases of confession and punishment, such as qualitative aspects and procedures. If there are no special circumstances (obviously inappropriate sentencing suggestions), all cases of confession and punishment should adopt the sentencing suggestions of the procuratorate. But I signed a confession and punishment statement before, so I don't need a lawyer at the trial stage? There is also a case in which a judge did not adopt the prosecutor's sentencing suggestion. The judge believes that the parties have only one mitigating circumstance, and if 71% of the criminal responsibility is reduced, the sentencing is extremely light, which does not meet the requirements of sentencing standardization. I also checked the city's courts and the judgments of the court in recent years, and found that the final judgment of the case (reducing 51%) was a relatively light punishment within a reasonable range. In addition, the judge has a precedent of not adopting the prosecutor's sentencing suggestion in intellectual property cases, and has also been commended by the National Copyright Administration for cracking down on intellectual property crimes.
after the verdict of this case, I went to meet the client. At that time, I felt a little heavy, but the client told me that he was satisfied with the result and would not appeal. He also asked me if the family of XXX had approached me. XXX was his roommate and wanted to hire a lawyer. He recommended me.
I have told you before that we must look at the problem from a developmental perspective. A case is like this now, and it may not be like this in a few days, nor may it be like this in a few months or years. Criminal cases are just like TV plays, and there will be different pictures at different time points. If the parties or their families have been looking at criminal cases with a fixed eye, then sometimes there will be cases where the public security law has seen the tenth episode and the parties and their families are still watching the second episode.
the evidence situation will change, and so will the "normative" situation.
We are lawyers, and there must be many other lawyers in our circle of friends. Therefore, whenever there is a "heavy rule", opening a circle of friends is basically the rule all the way, and everyone's enthusiasm for learning is very high. Every time the new regulations are introduced, in addition to studying the full text, some lawyers will also look for authoritative interpretations, and some lawyers even sign up for courses on the new regulations. Why is this happening? Because the law is "new" most of the time, the introduction of heavy provisions will cover the old provisions, or supplement or modify them, and will play its role.
The lawyers in the above article believe that the reason why their clients were advised to be given a suspended sentence but could not be given a suspended sentence in the end has a lot to do with the Guiding Opinions on Sentencing for Common Crimes in the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Supreme People's Court (Trial), which came into effect on July 1, 2121. If this explanation is strictly followed, then it is really impossible to postpone the sentence.
Of course, according to the Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of National Security and Ministry of Justice on Applying the System of Pleading Guilty and Admitting Punishment, if the sentencing proposal is not "obviously inappropriate", it should be adopted. But the problem is that the current judicial interpretation does not have a clear provision for "obviously improper". Then, as a referee, you can use the Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Sentencing of Common Crimes (Trial) as a basis to examine whether it is "obviously inappropriate" or you can evaluate it freely.