Criticism Of "Be Disconfirmed According Laws"

The third item of article 162 in Criminal Procedure Law (hereinafter referred to as the CPL.162.3) is: "Once there is no sufficient evidence to convict a man of crime, an acquittal resulted in lacking of evidence and the accusation being disconfirmed should be brought in." However, the fifth item of article 176 in given by the People's Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as the ISll.176.5) is:"Once in part of a case, facts are clear and evidence is sufficient, a definite verdict should be announced, either guilty or not; the left part of the case, whose facts are unclear and evidence is insufficient, should be disconfirmed according to laws." Apparently, the two items have contradiction which results in different sentences of same case, causing the necessity of censoring these items by the decision theory. The author divid the decision theory into pure decision theory and decision related theory and use them to analyze the two items step by step.Actually, the ISII.176.5 is a item that interpret the CPL.162.3, so it should be classified as a instance that deserves an acquittal under the species of sentence. The essence of the two items' conflict is that once a case is partially fact unclear and evidence insufficient, whether the part with fact unclear and evidence insufficient should be the object of the final definite verdict.Solving that problem may require the decision related theory, which includes principles called "separation of accusation and trial", "accusation should be heard", "non bis in idem", "the identity of accusation and trial", etc. Under the regulation of these principles, the entire procedure without procedural barriers goes from prosecution to verdict announcement with same object. This shows that the ISII.176.5 situation should be treated differently:if the part with fact clear and evidence sufficient and the part with fact unclear and evidence insufficient have identity in accusation, the final verdict may only about former, and the latter can only be disconfirmed in the grounds of the decision; if the two parts have no identity in accusation, the final verdict should give acquittal to the latter as definite as sentences for the former.The current ISII.176.5 needs to be criticized severely since it obeys lots of principles that a basic modern criminal procedure law system requires. However, through the glimpse of the fallacy, we can be reminded that the decision theory should be considered in the interpretation of decision part of the CPL.