Perspective | After voluntarily turning oneself in, the first statement was not entirely truthful—how can one strive for self-surrender?
Published:
2025-12-24
In the realm of criminal defense, self-surrender is one of the few legally recognized circumstances that can directly influence the sentencing scale: According to judicial interpretations, in most cases, it can lead to a reduction of up to 40% from the base sentence; in cases involving minor offenses, it may even result in exemption from punishment. Self-surrender is not merely about increasing or reducing the length of imprisonment—it also reflects the leniency and benevolence of the law toward those who recognize their mistakes and turn back from the wrong path. On the chessboard of criminal defense, self-surrender is both an opening move and a decisive one. As countless cases have demonstrated, a well-crafted defense based on self-surrender can completely alter a defendant’s life trajectory, both inside and outside prison walls. However, in judicial practice in China, an unwritten convention has emerged: If, after voluntarily surrendering, a defendant fails to truthfully disclose all the facts of the crime during their initial statement, their act will not be considered self-surrender. Yet given the wide variety of practical cases, mechanically adhering to this judicial convention could lead to disproportionately harsh criminal sentences. Therefore, if a defense attorney, after reviewing the case files, discovers that the defendant, after voluntarily surrendering, did not fully and truthfully disclose all the facts of the crime during their first statement, securing recognition of self-surrender for the defendant becomes one of the key priorities in the subsequent defense strategy.
In the realm of criminal defense, self-surrender is one of the few legally recognized circumstances that can directly influence the sentencing outcome: According to judicial interpretations, in most cases, it can lead to a reduction of up to 40% from the base sentence, and in cases of minor offenses, it may even result in exemption from punishment altogether. Self-surrender is not merely about increasing or reducing the length of imprisonment; rather, it reflects the leniency and benevolence of the law toward those who recognize their mistakes and choose to turn back from the wrong path. On the chessboard of criminal defense, self-surrender is both an opening move and a decisive strategic move. As countless cases have demonstrated, a well-crafted defense based on self-surrender can completely alter a defendant’s life trajectory—both inside and outside prison walls. However, in judicial practice in China, an unwritten convention has emerged: If, after voluntarily turning oneself in, a defendant’s initial statement fails to truthfully disclose all the facts of the crime, the defendant will not be considered to have made a valid self-surrender. Yet given the wide variety of practical cases, mechanically adhering to this judicial convention could lead to disproportionately harsh criminal sentences. Therefore, once a defense attorney reviews the case files and discovers that, after voluntarily turning himself in, the defendant’s first statement did not fully and truthfully disclose all the criminal facts, securing recognition of self-surrender for the defendant becomes one of the key priorities in the subsequent defense strategy.
In a murder case handled by the author of this article, although Party A voluntarily turned himself in after the crime occurred, it was only during his third statement that he fully confessed to the facts of his crime. When filing the indictment, the prosecutor argued that since Party A’s first statement upon surrendering did not truthfully disclose all the details of his crime, his act did not constitute voluntary surrender.
After the suspect turns himself in but fails to promptly confess the facts of the crime, and the procuratorial authorities do not recognize the suspect as having surrendered voluntarily, this article argues that the defense counsel can primarily examine the suspect’s confession from the following three aspects in order to secure recognition of voluntary surrender for the suspect.
I. Examine whether the facts not promptly disclosed by the parties constitute “major criminal facts.”
The Supreme People's Court’s “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in Handling Self-Surrender and Meritorious Service” clearly stipulates: “To truthfully confess one’s own crimes refers to the suspect, after voluntarily turning himself in, truthfully disclosing his own…” Major criminal facts “Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the facts omitted in the defendant’s initial statement qualify as ‘key criminal facts.’ This requires defense counsel to comprehensively analyze all evidence in the case, scrutinize the elements constituting the alleged crime, and evaluate the defendant’s initial statement from both a holistic and a partial perspective.”
In this case, considering the overall facts of the crime, it is possible to abstractly quantify the entire set of facts and further subdivide them at the level of sentencing factors. In this case, after Mr. A voluntarily turned himself in, his initial statement already covered most of the criminal facts, including the three key elements that serve as the basis for conviction and sentencing. Although he did not promptly disclose the fourth sentencing factor, this quantitative approach clearly demonstrates that, following his initial appearance, he truthfully confessed to the major criminal facts and thus should be recognized as having surrendered himself.
Considering the single criminal fact at issue, we can examine which sentencing factors played a pivotal role in this case. Even if, after the suspect’s surrender, he failed to confess to a particular act during either his first or second statement, the key act in this case—namely, the killing of the victim—remains the primary criminal fact. And this very act was truthfully confessed by the suspect during his very first statement.
II. Whether the judicial authorities had already obtained knowledge of the criminal facts when examining the statements.
The "Opinions of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Handling Specific Issues Relating to Surrender and Meritorious Service" clearly stipulates that if a criminal suspect voluntarily turns himself in but fails to disclose his principal criminal facts at the time of surrender, yet proactively confesses these facts before the judicial authorities become aware of them, such confession shall be deemed a truthful statement of his crimes. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the judicial authorities had already obtained knowledge of the relevant facts prior to the suspect’s voluntary confession. This “knowledge” must be supported by sufficient evidence on file; where necessary, an application should be made to the investigative authorities for a statement clarifying the situation.
In this case, even if it is determined that Party A truthfully confessed to a certain act only in his third statement, at that point, there was no evidence on record indicating that the investigative authorities had already been aware of this act.
3. Examine whether the statements made by the parties have helped conserve judicial resources and reflect a remorseful attitude.
The original intention behind establishing the self-surrender system is twofold: first, to encourage criminals to voluntarily turn themselves in, thereby reducing investigation costs and time consumption; and second, to... Penal prevention The concentrated manifestation of this function lies in the following: On the one hand, after a criminal voluntarily turns himself in and truthfully confesses the facts of the crime, the judicial authorities can directly reduce their efforts in areas such as apprehending suspects, collecting evidence, and tracing leads—especially in complex cases, where self-surrender can help break through bottlenecks swiftly and prevent wasteful use of resources. On the other hand, when a criminal proactively turns himself in and accepts punishment, it demonstrates that he or she genuinely acknowledges guilt and repents, is willing to accept penal sanctions and undergo educational rehabilitation, thereby reducing subjective maliciousness and the likelihood of reoffending. As a result, the educational and rehabilitative functions of punishment can be brought into play earlier and achieve greater effectiveness. Therefore, in cases where there is controversy over whether a self-surrender qualifies as such, we should examine whether the individual has indeed saved judicial resources and improved investigative efficiency throughout the entire course of the case investigation; whether the individual has genuinely acknowledged guilt and repented from the heart. If these criteria are met, the individual should be recognized as having made a valid self-surrender, and such recognition should not significantly contravene the original legislative intent behind the self-surrender system.
In this case, objectively speaking, when Mr. A made his full confession, the investigative activities conducted by the public security authorities were still ongoing. Various investigative actions—such as questioning witnesses and conducting autopsies on the body—were all in progress. Some of these investigative activities did not conclude until several months after Mr. A’s confession. Moreover, it was nearly half a year after Mr. A turned himself in that the public security authorities completed their investigation and forwarded the case for review and prosecution. Although Mr. A’s confession regarding a particular act was somewhat delayed, it clearly did not waste any investigative resources. Subjectively, from the moment Mr. A turned himself in, he consistently cooperated with the investigation and confessed to his own crimes. Even before the public security authorities had yet identified a suspect, Mr. A voluntarily turned himself in. After turning himself in, his confessions became progressively more comprehensive and detailed, fully reflecting his consistent, step-by-step, and sincere attitude of admitting guilt and showing remorse. Therefore, recognizing Mr. A as having surrendered himself does not run counter to the original intent behind the establishment of the self-surrender system.
IV. Conclusion
Since The Commentary on the Tang Code Since the principle of "pardoning the crime committed by those who voluntarily surrender before it is discovered" was established, the system of voluntary surrender has consistently borne a dual mission: From a judicial perspective, it serves as an important pathway for overcoming evidentiary challenges and conserving investigative resources; from a humanistic perspective, it represents a “window of opportunity” that the law offers to those who have strayed onto the wrong path—a window that encourages timely repentance far more than it harshly condemns momentary lapses. At the heart of voluntary surrender lies the sincere alignment with the law, rather than demanding absolute perfection in the confession. It is precisely this value orientation of tolerance and guidance that ensures even those whose initial statements contain errors still have the chance to find a starting point for redemption within the legal framework. In the case handled by the author of this article, although the prosecutor initially refused to recognize the defendant’s conduct as voluntary surrender at the time of prosecution, after courtroom debate and the presentation of defense arguments, the prosecutor agreed on the spot to acknowledge Defendant A’s voluntary surrender.
Key words:
Related News
Zhongcheng Qingtai Jinan Region
Address: Floor 55-57, Jinan China Resources Center, 11111 Jingshi Road, Lixia District, Jinan City, Shandong Province
