Abstract: To align with structural shifts in criminal offending,the leniency system for guilty pleas and acceptance of punishment should be further optimized and institutionally refined during the upcoming fourth amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law.Against the backdrop of a sustained rise in minor offenses and correspondingly lenient sentencing,discretionary non-prosecution—embodying values such as procedural efficiency,avoidance of stigmatizing labels,and restoration of social relations—demonstrates distinct advantages in addressing minor offense cases.Given the mutual reinforcement between discretionary non-prosecution and the guilty plea leniency system,the operational effectiveness of the former in handling minor guilty plea cases warrants further enhancement.In light of prevalent practical challenges—including ambiguous provisions in normative documents,imbalances between prosecutorial power and rights protection,and misconceptions about discretionary non-prosecution—the application of this mechanism to minor guilty plea cases can be systematically regulated through three dimensions:scope definition,procedural design,and power constraint.Normatively,guided by the criminal policy of tempering justice with mercy,a necessity-of-prosecution review should be institutionalized to promptly divert cases deemed "unnecessary for prosecution" out of the criminal process,with unified standards established through guiding cases.Procedurally,internal approval workflows for discretionary non-prosecution should be streamlined,while external mechanisms for referring cases back to administrative authorities and for prosecution-defense negotiation should be strengthened.In terms of oversight,a neutral judicial body should be designated to conduct independent judicial review of procuratorial decisions on non-prosecution,with clear procedural safeguards codified in law.

Key words: discretionary non-prosecution, guilty plea and acceptance of punishment, minor offense cases, the accused person, lawyer