{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01646090534979424, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.744094488188976, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the Standard of Proof in the Case of Leniency in Admitting Guilt and Accepting Punishment

The standard of proof is the core issue in the field of proof, and it is also the final criterion for the adjudicator to determine the facts of the case. The standard of criminal proof is related to the defendant’s most basic rights such as personal, property and even life. In order to relieve the pressure of the current shortage of judicial resources in our country, the leniency system of plea guilty and accepting punishment was generated. The research on the standard of proof in the plea case has become a major difficulty in the legal circle of our country. The analysis of its institutional value and judicial practice demand shows that the single standard of proof in the plea case can no longer meet the needs of the perfect development of criminal proceedings in our country. Therefore, some scholars propose to lower the standard of proof in cases of guilty plea and punishment, so as to truly achieve the purpose of improving the efficiency of litigation (reduction theory), but other scholars believe that lowering the standard of proof is not desirable, and this will lead to a resurgence of investigation-centrism and confession-centrism (insist theory). Behind this disagreement is the trade-off between fairness and efficiency. In response to this issue, the author points out her point of view by analyzing the theories put forward by scholars.