Is it a legal provision in China to be lenient if you confess and strict if you resist?

Literally understood, "confession with leniency but resistance with severity" has two policy meanings: "confession" means that the suspect answers the interrogator's questions truthfully. If you take the initiative to confess, you will be treated leniently: "Resisting" means not answering the interrogation truthfully. If you resist and do not explain, you will be severely punished.

But in fact, this slogan is not consistent with current legal provisions and legal concepts. According to the "principle of legal punishment" established in the criminal law, the punishment a person receives for a crime can only be consistent with the facts of his crime. A confession or resistance in the face of investigations and investigations by judges is not a fact of the crime, nor does it certainly constitute a crime. Reasons for lenient or severe punishment. Article 67 of the "Criminal Law" stipulates: "Anyone who voluntarily surrenders to the police after committing a crime and truthfully confesses his crime is surrendering. Criminals who surrender may be given a lighter or reduced punishment." It can be seen from this provision that for those who surrender, It’s just that “the punishment may be given lightly or mitigated”, but the implication is that the punishment may not be given lightly or mitigated. In other words, confession does not necessarily mean leniency. According to legal provisions and modern judicial concepts, if the suspect only "resists" without saying anything and there are no other statutory circumstances that impose severe or aggravating punishment, the "resisting" person cannot be "severely" punished. The slogan "Leniency for confessions but severity for confessions" has its own specific historical background. At a time when relevant basic laws such as the Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law were not yet complete, this slogan had a positive effect in combating crime, especially "counterrevolutionary crimes." At that time, the new regime had just been established, there were many crimes, and social security was still unstable. The policy of "lenity for those who confess but severity for those who confess" was implemented for criminal suspects, which was conducive to the disintegration of criminal organizations and the rapid detection and crackdown on crimes. But now, the historical background of the policy of "lenity for confession but severity for confession" has gone far away. In contemporary society that emphasizes the rule of law, the principles of procedural legitimacy and respect for the legitimate rights of criminal suspects have made this slogan obsolete. The concept of modern rule of law recognizes the basic human rights of everyone, including criminal suspects and defendants. One of the important concepts is that "people shall not be forced to testify against themselves." The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights signed by our country in 1998 " also stipulates: "No one shall be forced to testify against himself." This concept is actually very simple - everyone has a psychological tendency to protect themselves. Even if they have committed a crime, they will unconsciously conceal it or refuse to tell it - this is the nature of human self-preservation, and the judiciary should respect this natural human right. Speaking of this issue, we have to mention the famous "Miranda Rule". Its core content means that investigators must inform the suspect of "the right to remain silent." Now, the "right to silence" of suspects and defendants has been recognized by the laws of many countries. The essence of the right to silence is to respect people’s right not to incriminate themselves.