Litigation Cognition, Proof And Truth

Cognitions and propositions may be true or false. In the article, "truth" represents "trueness", which means cognitions and propositions conform to the objects they reveal, characterize or express. When the concept of "truth" represents true cognitions and theories, we should not confuse the concepts of "truth" and "trueness"."Trueness" is objective. It exists and has certain meaning ,which can't be changed by any individual's own will. Therefore, trueness is objective trueness. But cognitions or propositions will be true or false. If it conforms to the objects it reveals or characterizes, it is true , and the trueness is objective trueness.Cognitions have different degrees. When "truth" represents true cognitions and theories, "truth" also has different degrees, such as absolute truth and relative truth. Nevertheless, the existing of degrees for cognitions does not mean "trueness" also has levels of degrees, or else an array of contradictions which can not be overcome will be confronted and brought about. Trueness is exactly trueness and falseness is precisely falseness.Truth should be pursued in litigations especially criminal litigations. Mostly the truth can be pursued.In litigations, if the cognitions for the objective facts and the judicial subjects' cognizance of the reality——they are also the cognitions for theobjective facts——do not conform to the objective facts, they are false, orvice versa.In specific cases, although the judicial subjects sometimes can absolutely confirm a cognition for objective facts is false through falsification supported by practice, the objective facts and the trueness of cognitions can not be absolutely ascertained since the objective facts do not recur, regardless of lawsuit proof or testification by practice. Consequently, trueness should not be regarded as cognizance standard. The only suitable criterion is the belief on the factuality of the litigation cognizance in the innermost of the judicial subject.For criminal judgment, it is a reasonable selection to take "beyond reasonable doubt" as the standard of guilty verdict.