During the 2018 revision of the Criminal Procedure Law, China introduced the trial in absentia procedure into its criminal justice system. Concurrently, the concept of the “right to dissent”, outlined in Article 295 of the revised Criminal Procedure Law, was enshrined. This right stands as a pivotal component of defendants’ recourse within Chinese criminal trial in absentia scenarios, serving as an indispensable safeguard for defendants’ litigation rights. However, the current legal stipulations concerning the right to dissent are notably concise. The exercise of this right by defendants neither necessitates justification nor is bound by a definitive timeframe. This deviation not only contravenes the legislative ethos underpinning the establishment of the right to dissent, but also poses impediments to the preservation of judicial stability. Consequently, a recalibration of the underlying rationale is imperative, entailing a systematic analysis of extant issues and predicaments to formulate proposals for enhancing the system further. Such endeavors aim to facilitate the continuous amelioration and judicious application of this aspect of the legal framework.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xinyu Yuan (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: