Reshaping the Connotation and Criteria for Procedural Non-Prosecution
As the criminal legislative process accelerates,the importance of procedural non-prosecution becomes increasingly prominent.How to achieve diversified crime governance through procedural non-prosecution while maintaining substantive criminalization has become a key research topic.Existing studies have failed to adequately address the conceptual consensus issue of what is procedural non-prosecution,leading to unclear theoretical foundations,ambiguous scope of application,and insufficient systemic coordination.In response to this,it is necessary to analyze the conceptual differences between"non-prosecution"and"procedural non-prosecution"as well as between"substantive non-prosecution"and"procedural non-prosecution"in a hierarchical manner to highlight the independence of procedural non-prosecution.The essential attribute of procedural non-prosecution manifests as the termination of legal proceedings due to discretionary procedural acts,resulting in the defendant being legally innocent.This is fundamentally different from substantive non-prosecution,which arises from reasons such as crime prevention,restoration of legal interests,insufficient evidence,or lack of procedural prerequisites,as these lack the characteristic of individual interest assessment associated with procedural non-prosecution.Building upon this foundation,it is important to further clarify the criteria for determining procedural non-prosecution and to address the issue of balancing different interests.This involves establishing standards for the cumulative application of different non-prosecution circumstances and for assessing conflicts between non-prosecution and prosecution circumstances.
procedural non-prosecutionbalancing of interestssubstantive judgementright of non-prosecutionjudgement standard
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
