Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship 2012 Justice and Efficiency: An Empirical Study on Simplified Procedure for Guilty Plea Cases Bensen Li Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/etd Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Li, Bensen, "Justice and Efficiency: An Empirical Study on Simplifiedocedur Pr e for Guilty Plea Cases" (2012). Theses and Dissertations. 70. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/etd/70 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUSTICE AND EFFICIENCY: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR GUILTY PLEA CASES Bensen Li Submitted to the faculty of Indiana University Maurer School of Law in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Juridical Science May 2012 Accepted by the faculty, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Juridical Science. Doctoral Committee Ethan Michelson Joseph Hoffmann Donald Gjerdingen Date of Dissertation Defense – December 19, 2011 ii Copyright © 2012 Bensen Li iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My academic in the S.J.D. program debts so many: First, I would like to thank my dissertation committee members Ethan Michelson, Joseph Hoffmann, and Donald Gjerdingen. Throughout the program, the committee has provided excellent and insightful suggestions to improve my research on the simplified procedure for guilty plea cases in China. I am particularly grateful to the committee chair Professor Ethan Michelson for being an outstanding advisor. Without his tremendous help and support, my research would never come to fruition. I have learned so much from Professor Michelson and I am very happy and lucky to have worked with him on this project. Professor Joseph Hoffmann has given me enormous support and counsel in my studying in the L.L.M. and S.J.D. programs. As I faced difficulties and challenges, Professor Hoffmann has encouraged me both academically and personally with his inspiring ideas and kind concerns. Professor Donald Gerdingen also has given me invaluable suggestions and comments on the proposal and the defense of the dissertation. The three committee members have all impressed and inspired me in my pursuit of academics, and I admire them immensely for the commitment they have shown. Second, I would like to thank Ms. Lesley, who has given me much help in both my studying and living in Bloomington. I greatly appreciate her generous support and kind concern in my visiting scholar program, L.L.M. thesis program, and S.J.D. program at the Indiana University School of Law (Bloomington). I am deeply indebted to her for her great support. Third, in the survey conducted in China, I have received great support from my colleagues and friends, including Yuening Wei, Qiong Wong, Qintang Yang, Qintian Xu, iv and Yuanyi Zhang. Their assistance in the survey has made it possible for me to see how the legal actors perceive the simplified procedure. I highly appreciate their help and work in the survey for my research. Fourth, I would like to thank Ms. Lara Gose for providing me excellent editing support. Her wonderful administrative and detailed editing work has made my program go smoothly. She deserves this special recognition and respect. Finally, I especially want to thank my wife, Yue Sang, for her unfailing kindness, support, and encouragement, and for my daughter, Zeyu Li, an undergraduate in Berkeley and my pride in my life. v Bensen Li JUSTICE AND EFFICIENCY: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR GUILTY PLEA CASES This study explores the simplified procedure for guilty plea cases emerged in the context of the rise of crime in China. It examines the effect of the simplified procedure and the relevance of the concept of guilty plea in practice, seeking to answer the questions such as: how efficient was it in process durations in the simplified procedure? Is there any difference for guilty plea cases in sentencing between simplified procedure and regular procedure cases? What is the core problem in considerations and relationship between justice and efficiency in the simplified procedure? To answer these questions, the empirical study is developed on the basis of relevant case summaries collected from the database of Chinalawinfo and surveys carried out in Beijing, Shanghai, Zhejiang, and Hunan in China. Three basic ideas come out from it: First, the duration of process in the simplified procedure changes little, particularly in trial stage. Second, there is no substantial difference for guilty plea cases in sentencing between simplified procedure and regular procedure cases. Third, the simplified procedure without the support of the public defense system would be deemed defective. Under these findings, it appears better to improve the presence of defense to ultimately overcome the ineffectiveness or problems in the implementation of the simplified procedure. - 1 - Justice and Efficiency An Empirical Study on Simplified Procedure for Guilty Plea Cases I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... - 5 - A. Background ................................................................................................................................... - 5 - B. Purpose and scope ......................................................................................................................... - 7 - II. Overview of simplified procedure ............................................................................................. - 7 - A. Defining simplified procedure ...................................................................................................... - 7 - B. Literature review ............................................................................................................................. 14 1. Research on simplified procedure ............................................................................................... 14 2. My research contribution ............................................................................................................ 23 III. Data and Methodology ................................................................................................................. 24 A. Case summaries .............................................................................................................................. 24 1. Resource ...................................................................................................................................... 24 2. Case selection.............................................................................................................................. 26 3. Variables Definition .................................................................................................................... 27 B. Survey ............................................................................................................................................. 32 1. Survey process ............................................................................................................................ 32 2. Content of the survey .................................................................................................................. 35 3. Survey summary ......................................................................................................................... 36 IV. Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 38 A. Findings from case summaries ........................................................................................................ 38 1. Effect of simplified procedure .................................................................................................... 38 2. Effect of presence of defense ...................................................................................................... 39 3. Effect of prior criminal record .................................................................................................... 41 4. Effect of joint crime .................................................................................................................... 42 5. Effect of People’s Assessor ........................................................................................................ 43 6. Determinants of preliminary investigation duration ................................................................... 44 7. Determinants of prosecution duration ........................................................................................ 45 8. Determinants of trial duration .................................................................................................... 46 - 2 - 9. Determinants of total duration .................................................................................................... 47 10. Determinants of prison sentence ............................................................................................