Study On The Theory Of Stardands Of Proof

Standards of proof is the core problem in judicial proceedings and also an important theoretical and practical problem in the lawsuit system and evidence system. This article aims at improvement of standards of proof in China on the base of giving interpretation to standards of proof, describing the way the standards coming into truth, comparing and analyzing standards of the two law departments and questioning the value of our standards of proof. The article consists of four parts.Part one: Concept of standards of proof and its way of coming into truth.The standard of proof means the degree that the truth of the case is proved by all the litigation participants using proof and complying with law. The standards of proof showes the limitation which law gives to the relation of cognition between the litigation participants and litigation objects. The standards point to the power of proof. It is the basic work to judge the evidence in judicial proceedings. In litigation law, once the probative force reaches to some degree, it means the burden of proof has been completed; In substantive law, under the same probative force, the standard of proof determines the handling of the rights of the litigant parties.Proof and experiences are the foundations with which the standard of proof comes into truth. It comes into truth by the way of logic proof and experience proof.Part Two: The standard of proof of the two law departments.The two law departments use pluralist standards of proof, that is to say, the criminal and civil standard of proof are different. The countries of common Law system use "beyond reasonable doubf" as standard of proof in criminal proceeding anduse "a preponderant probabilities of proof in civil cases. The countries of Continental system use that "judge is convinced beyond doubt" as standard in criminal cases, and "the highest preponderant probablities" as standards in civil cases. Both "beyond reasonable doubt" and "be convinced beyond adoubt" are built up on the base of litigation rationalism and both are objective and preponderant standards. It askes the judges and jury to rely on the conscience reasonableness intellect N reason and expereence to assess the proof and determine the facts. With the help of a series of corresponding systems (such as system of advocacy> seperation system of trial and decision) The parties hunt for "the highest probabilities" in judicial proceedings.Part Three: Analyse the standards of proof in our country.1, Traditional views on standard of proof in our country: One: "the fact of the cases being clear and evidence being sufficient" is a lgeislative standard. Second: "subjective truth" is jurisprudential standard. 2, Analyse the defects of the tradional standards of our country. 3, Analyse the new views on standards of proof in our country. Because of the defects of traditional standards, scholars have begun studying and introducing the western standards, and put forward standards: "beyond reasonable doubt", "beyond the reasonable probabilities", "beyond the reasonable probabilities, "be convinced to be true" and so on. Due to the ideological obstacle and custom of law language, All these views are questioned.Part Four: Put forward some presumption to improve our standards.First: Put forward the idea to build up our standards- "legal truth". Second: Put forward the rules to build up our standards: differential treatment rule, subject standards with object standards rule, ideal standards with practical standards rule.Third: Concrete presumption. Our standards should be a system including the whole standard and subjective objective,procedure standards.