During Li Ning's detention for more than four years, my lawyer and I repeatedly submitted applications for bail pending trial to the procuratorate and the court, but they all fell into the sea and never received any reply. The Supreme People's Procuratorate's Opinions on Giving Full Play to Procuratorial Functions to Guarantee and Promote Scientific and Technological Innovation clearly stipulates: "For researchers involved in key scientific research units and key positions in major scientific research projects, compulsory measures such as detention and arrest should be avoided as far as possible." Li Ning is a scientific researcher who is over 500 years old. He is involved in economic cases, has no criminal record and will not cause social danger. Especially from the evidence presented by the prosecutor of the court of first instance and Li Ning's defense lawyers Yuan and Xing, Li Ning should be innocent. After the adjournment of the first instance, neither the procuratorate nor the court continued the investigation. In the past three years, no one has tried Li Ning. Li Ning's personal belongings, vouchers and computers of the company involved seized by the procuratorate have been returned, and the bank funds of the company involved frozen by the procuratorate and the court have also been thawed. At this stage, it is even more cruel and unnatural to refuse bail pending trial and not appeal.

I can't find the official data of the bail pending trial rate in China. However, in judicial practice, unless a lighter sentence or suspended sentence has been confirmed, it is difficult to be granted bail pending trial. As a reference, the pretrial detention rate in China is at least 90%, that in Britain is about 5%, that in Italy is 15%, that in Finland is 6%, and that in Japan is 19.8%. It can be seen that in China, detention is the principle, and bail pending trial is the exception. Different from the international norm that "detention is the exception".

Although the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that "if a person is detained before the judgment, one day of detention will be reduced to one day of fixed-term imprisonment". In fact, this is also extremely unfair to criminal suspects. First of all, there is the possibility of innocence and misdemeanor in any case. For example, Li Ning, guilty or not, has been detained for more than four years. For Li Ning and his family, it is tantamount to being sentenced to more than four years in prison. The freedom lost and the injury suffered in these four years are irreparable. Secondly, the conditions in detention centers are much worse than those in prisons. Family members are not allowed to meet, nor can they apply for medical parole. In real cases, there are not a few people who just want to serve their sentences in prison as soon as possible in order to leave the detention center as soon as possible and give up their complaints. Third, if the sentence is not enough, or if it is just a simple innocent case, the parties can't stand the endless punitive detention and are easily forced to reach a compromise with the procuratorate or the court. In reality, it is also common to "report the expenses for several years" after several years in prison. The high detention rate, in addition to bringing great pain to the parties and their families, undoubtedly requires taxpayers to pay for the huge detention cost and the once innocent state compensation expenditure.