Research On Crimes Of Evidence

The existence of social conflictions makes lawsuits indispensable to modern jural society. Generally speaking, the functions of lawsuits are as follows: settle social disputes, fulfill legal provisions, realize judicial justice, formulate and make up substantive laws, and spread the spirits of law. The above functions of lawsuits cannot be realized without evidence. Evidence is the gist of instituting proceedings, the only means to testify the facts of cases, the weapon to impel criminals to plead guilty, the basis of judicial justice, and an important guarantee which protects people's legitimate interests against illegal infringement and prevents the occurrences of framed-up and wrong cases/unjust cases.It is the decisive status of evidence in the proceedings that places a premium on the breeding of illegal acts on evidence. What the social harmfulness of illegal acts on evidence is: going against the requirements of legal justice, infringing on the basic human rights of citizens, increasing the costs of justice, leading the participants of proceedings to lose confidence in judicial justice and making against the formation of people's belief in law. Accordingly, illegal acts on evidence are prohibited by laws of countries all over the world. Violations of law are naturally followed by punishments and legal responsibilities, which is the logic results of law. Criminal responsibility is the most strict legal responsibility. The criminal responsibility of illegal acts on evidence concerns the issue of criminalizing illegal acts on evidence. Consequently, the power of state to punish will expend at will, if the scope of criminalization is too wide and criminal law extensive. But if the scope of criminalization is too narrow and criminal law windy, the consequence must be the arbitrary expansion of personal desires and the breeding of crimes. Criminalization must be consistent with the principle of necessity and the principle of feasibility. As far as the criminalization of illegal acts on evidence is concerned, crimes on evidence can only be those acts which frequently occur in judicial practice with serious social harmful results.Thus, crimes on evidence involved in this paper refer to those acts concerning evidences, which hamper normal lawsuits activities of judicial organizations, have serious social harmfulness and run counter to the provisions of criminal law, such as destruction of evidence, suppressing evidence, fabrication of evidence, impairing testifying and illegal obtainment of evidence. We should distinguish it from crime of impairing the administration of justice in order to understand crime on evidence properly. We can not view them equally, although both of them are category accusations and most of accurate charges involved in them are the same and beyond that, the commission of crimes may both hamper normal/regular activities of judicial organizations. Differences between the two are as follows: First, crime on evidence is a theoretical category accusation, but crime of impairing the administration of justice is a category accusation in criminal legislation. Second, some individual charges among crimes on evidence do not fall into crimes of impairing the administration of justice, and some individual charges among crimes of impairing the administration of justice not belong to crimes on evidence. Third, crimes on evidence infringe upon regular litigious activities of judicial organizations through commission of crimes circumfuses with evidence, and embody their social harmfulness by means of destruction of evidence, suppressing evidence, fabrication of evidence, impairing testifying and illegal obtainment of evidence; but crimes of impairing the administration of justice infringe upon regular litigious activities of judicial organizations, not only through making an issue of evidence, but also through other means. Crimes on evidence invade personal rights of citizens as well as judicial order. For instance, crime of extorting a confession by torture and cri...