Commutation during the Reprieve Period for a Suspended Death Sentence” is expected before the end of 2020.15 In response to criticism of disparities in sentencing outcomes, from Chinese legal scholars, there have been efforts to constrain judicial discretion, and the potential for outside interference, through developing sentencing guidelines, Guiding Cases and judicial interpretations. In 1999, the courts issued guidance to mitigate the sentences in homicide cases where the victim was also at fault or when related to conflict with family or neighbours. 2014 SPC Sentencing Guidelines for Common Crimes include several offences for which the upper range of sentencing is the death penalty, however the guidelines do not offer specific guidance for sentencing of life imprisonment or the death penalty. The overall approach to using sentencing guidelines in China is to set a starting point for sentencing for an offence which can be adjusted by the court to reflect relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. Leaving the death penalty out of national sentencing guidelines gives the courts more latitude to respond to changing political objectives. Aggravating factors for specific offences are set out in the criminal law and include social harm as well as prior convictions. Statutory mitigating factors include the expression of remorse, the restitution of property and compensation. Cooperation with the criminal justice system should also be taken into consideration, including confession, meritorious service following arrest such as self-surrender and providing information to assist in investigation of other crimes, and reconciliation with the victim or victim’s family. Chinese legal scholars have criticised the weight placed on the social impact of the crime at the expense of greater attention to the offender’s intent or risk to society. There is little opportunity for the court to consider the whole of the defendant’s life in order to make an individualised sentencing decision. Nevertheless, some courts have considered discretionary mitigating circumstances, such as poverty, in cases of those accused of transporting drugs. The demands of victims’ families are also a key factor in sentencing in homicide cases (see Chapter 6). Greater transparency on sentencing decision making would facilitate the SPC review and the defence participation in the review. Chinese legal scholars have criticised the weight placed on the social impact of the crime at the expense of greater attention to the offender’s intent or risk to society. While the increased use of the suspended death sentence in China has undoubtedly contributed to a reduction in the number of executions its use raises two areas of concerns. First, suspended death sentences are subject to less rigorous review procedures than death sentences with immediate execution. There are risks that the sentence is associated with unsafe convictions. Research indicates that about 95% of the suspended death sentences are commuted leaving 5%, perhaps several hundred, of those sentenced facing execution. It is not clear what review procedures are in place. Second, the use of the suspended death sentence does not challenge the death penalty as a punishment. 15 Supreme People’s Court Monitor. ‘Supreme People’s Court’s 2020 judicial interpretation agenda.’ 2 April 2020. https://supremepeoplescourtmonitor.com/2020/04/02/supreme-peoples-courts-2020-judicial-interpretation-agenda/ 15