The Proper Orientation of China’s Lawyer on Duty System—Discussion on the Leniency System of Pleading Guilty and Accepting Penalty

In order to cooperate with the trial of quick judgment procedure and the leniency system of pleading guilty and accepting penalty, the lawyer on duty system came into being. Through comparison, it can be found that after the introduction of the duty lawyer system, China has carried out a local reform of defending humanization. The litigation rights enjoyed by the duty lawyer far exceed the setting of the country of origin. And the purpose of this transformation is to expect that it will shoulder the important task of safeguarding the criminal suspect or defendant to obtain the effective legal help and prevent the risk of unjust and wrong cases easily caused by the leniency system of confession and punishment. However, the legal status, working style and compensation method of the duty lawyer decide that it cannot guarantee the voluntariness of the defendant and the suspect in plea cases, which will endanger the legitimacy of the leniency system and the minimum procedural justice. Justice cannot ignore the cost, but it is empty talk that the low cost and wide coverage of on-duty lawyers can guarantee effective legal assistance for defendants and suspects in the cases of confession... Justice is the soul and life of justice; the necessary cost of safeguarding justice can never be saved. It is suggested that the suspect and defendant in the cases of guilty plea and punishment should be provided with a mandatory designated defense system instead of the system arrangement provided by the duty lawyer in the current judicial interpretation, so as to ensure the justice of the procedure and the justice of the judiciary, and restore the basic attributes of on-duty lawyers only providing timely, preliminary, and extensive legal services.