Research On Criminal Proof Standard

Criminal Proof Standard is a very important and complicated problem in criminal evidence science. The research on Criminal Proof Standard in China mainly focuses on philosophical level, which can't meet the need of the justice practice. The article has five chapters except the foreword:Chapter 1 reviews the criminal proof standard in continental law system. During the period between the judgment of God and the system of legal evidence, there was no clear criminal proof standard. During the period of the system of legal evidence, criminal proof standard was formalized, the epistemology basis of which should be the original experimentalism and the scholasticism. Formalized proof standard has two traits: (1) Its legal regulations are mechanical; (2) It is flexible in practical application. The criminal proof standard in discretional evaluation of evidence system is inner conviction, which came into being in France in 1791. French Criminal Procedure Act of 1795 and 1808 explained the proof standard in detail. Whereafter, many European continental countries adopted this proof standard. The first reason of its birth is that the discretional evaluation of evidence system was the refill of the defective the system of legal evidence. But at the first, on one hand, the discretional evaluation of evidence system was too subjective during great revolution. On the other hand inner conviction standard had the function of justifying the verdicts in the countries of the continental law system who traditionally guarded against the abusing of judicial powers. As to the origin of the expression of the inner conviction standard, there are two viewpoints: One is that the didacticism movement believed in the single consistency and the complete absolutism. The other is that acceding the system of legal evidence results in the chronic thought of complete proof. However, the inner conviction standard which established in the French Great Revolution more embodied a kind of idea. With the revolution passion withering and the setback appearing during its judicial practice, many countries adjusted the inner standard and took on different features, but these countries all insisted on the basic spirit of inner conviction standard. Although, the continental countries have distinction in the practical adoption of inner conviction, we still can find that the common ground is that the individual belief is regarded, which show that the judge has great status and heavy duties. At the same time, discretional evaluation of evidence system has an objective trend, that is to say, the individual belief should establish on the basis of the clear subjective evidences. The inner conviction standard require both the judge's subjective conviction from conscience and the clear objective basis (by the discreet reasoning, inducing the evidences and debating should show the definitude), so the inner conviction standard has a conflict between the subjective and the objective, in the other word, the conflict between the more correctly fact-finding and the restriction of the judge's subjective liberty will exist in a long time. And that conflict will promote the development the inner conviction standard in theory and the practice.Chapter 2 reviews the criminal proof standard in the Anglo-American law system. During the jury of presentation, the status of the jury and Christianism was something weak, the system of legal evidence and the formalized proof standard didn't come into being in Britain and the proof standard at that time was not clear. During 1400s and 1500s, the jury of presentation system changed and "the satisfying inwit" etc. initial proof standard. In 1900s, judges and lawyers began to pay attention to the "doubt" which reasonably appear in the jury. At the end of 1900s, the proof standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" was adopted in the judicial practice. In 1935, the proof standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" was formally recognized in U.K. In 1880s, U.S. The supreme court recognized that proof standard was the elementary requirement of the criminal procedure by a case. In 1970, the supreme court emphasized the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" as a due procedure in the constitution. There are two important reasons for the origin of the birth and establishment of the proof standard of "beyond reasonable doubt": (1) The jury system in the Anglo-American law system requires the judge give the judicial directions as to fact-finding; (2) the epistemologies in region and philosophy. The meaning of the proof standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" includes: (1) It is impossible to prove facts to absolute certainty; (2) The topmost certainty in practice is "moral certainty" and it is a kind of certainty in which there is no reason to doubt. However, with the development of the society, the understanding of the judicial practice changed as to the standard meaning of "beyond reasonable doubt". In U.S, as to the understanding of the "moral certainty" has left its past objective concept and became dangerous. Therefore the countries of the Anglo-American law system in practice have recognized the danger of the word "moral certainty", but now the fact is that no better expression has be found to be the refill. As to the understanding of "beyond reasonable doubt ", on one hand, excluding the "single probable doubt" and "single conferring", the focus is how to describe the extent of the "doubt", on the other hand, debating evidence adequately the evidence is required. But it is not required to "show doubt by material convictive language and help others understand". In the jury system of the Anglo-American law system, according some relevant materials, we can find that there are two traits in adopting the proof standard of "beyond reasonable doubt": (1) As to the problems whether it is necessary to define the proof standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" and how to define are disputed; (2) As to the result of the proof standard, the common ground of the jury is regarded. But there are some conflicts in its meaning in judicial pratice such as lack of maneuverability. Of course, facing the practical challenges, the countries of the Anglo-American law system are looking for the countermeasures. There are three obvious methods: (1) Designing the model of the directions on "beyond reasonable doubt" by integrating all points of view; (2) Not fix the expression the directions on "beyond reasonable doubt"; (3) Express the standard from two sides: "beyond reasonable doubt" and "sure of guilty". Chapter 3 reviews the criminal proof standard in China. There was no clear proof standard in the slavery society in China. In feudality society, the standard was not clear, but in Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynasty, analogous regulations of proof standard could be found. In the end of Qing dynasty, there are a lot of regulations on modern proof standard in draft law. In 1935 Kuomintang government regulate discretional evaluation of evidence system. In 2003, Taiwan amended it: it regulated the conviction by estimating evidence and proof standard. In 1979, the criminal procedure act in PRC regulated the criminal proof standard of "the facts of a case are clear, the evidence is reliable and sufficient". The reasons for its birth include: the neoteric law and the law of the revolution base area period emphasized the "irrefutable" and "sufficient" evidence and "clear case facts", traditional objective epistemology and optimism. In epistemology, the reasons that China doesn't adopt the proof standard of the "inner conviction" of Soviet Russia include:(1) The standard of "inner conviction" will result in subjective judgment of the judge;(2) The standard of "inner conviction" is contrary to the regulation that the Chinese judicial organs should be led by CCP and exert the powers independently; (3) The standard of "inner conviction" is contrary to the experience in history. The legal expression of the criminal proof standard has 3 traits: express by objective approach, integrate fact standard into evidence standard and the broad applicability. But it has four bugs: (1) logic structure lacks of preciseness; (2) The meaning of the concept lacks of definitude; (3) The expression lacks of the subjectivity of proof; (3) The thought of its meaning lacking guidance. In the practical application of the criminal proof standard, there are 4 traits: (1) The co-existence of Over-discretional evaluation of evidence and the restriction of the power; (2) General judgment of proof standard and lack of rational thought and reasoning; (3) Verification proof is the elementary method of judging proof standard; (4) The confession of the defendant is the core of the proof standard.Chapter 4 discusses the problems of the reconstruction of the legal expression of the criminal proof standard and its application in practice. As to some amendments of the current criminal proof standard, the requirement of the standard "certainty and no doubt" is simple and it has rich intension. The integration of the application "confirmationism" and "falsificationism" help to validate and manipulate. Therefore, we can regard it as the criminal proof standard in China. The application of the standard of "certainty and no doubt" require to master the requirements of the crime and pay attention to the two sides from the whole. This article discusses how to apply the standard by mastering the requirements of the crime and judging the standard from the two side.Chapter 5 discusses the criminal proof standard of the death penalty case, including the reconstruction of the legal expression and the application in the practice. Now the criminal proof standard of the death penalty case is the same as that of the common criminal case, which doesn't embody its special importance. And the proof standard of the death penalty emphasizes the affirmation, which will not do good to guide the mastering of the death penalty facts. There are some outstanding problems in practice: (1) As to the holistic mastering of the proof standard of the death penalty case, there is no particularity in it; (2) As to the mastering of the proof standard of the death penalty case, the validity of the evidences is often ignored and the high facticity of the mastering of the evidences is absent; (3) As to the judgment of the proof standard of the death penalty case, there are some political factors; (4) As to the application of the proof standard of the death penalty case, there are the dissimilation of the proof standard; (5) As to the process of the mastering of the proof standard of the death penalty case, the explain is not particular. Because the case of the death penalty has its particularity, it is necessary to establish the proof standard of "certainty, no doubt and comprehensive exclude the other possibility". In practice, to compared with the common criminal cases, the mastering of the criminal proof standard of the death penalty case should pay more attention to the following points: (1) The demand for the evidence system is more comprehensive; (2) The demand for the confirmation of the case facts is more authentic; (3) The demand for the structure of the evidence system is stronger. (4) The demand for the subjective belief is more confirmed. As to the macroscopical mastering of the proof standard of the death penalty, we should pay attention to the following points: (1) If there are some problems in the evidence, which will fluctuate the base of the crime and can't reach the proof standard of "certainty and no doubt", verdict of not guilty should be concluded; (2) If there are some problems in the evidence, but the problems can't fluctuate the base of the crime and it can't reach the proof standard of "certainty, no doubt and comprehensive exclude the other possibility" an eclectic verdict should be concluded; (3) The primary crime facts and sentencing facts are authentic, the proof of the particular death penalty crime can reach the standard of "certainty, no doubt and comprehensive exclude the other possibility", lack of some secondary criminal evidences will not affect the death sentence.