A Research On The Standards For Evidences Under Criminal Suit

In a criminal suit activity, the evidence has always been the fundamental and nuclear problem. In a certain sense, the whole criminal suit act is generally carried through the collection of evidences as well as the examination and recognition, and the theory of evidence has been drawing more and more scholar's attention. And, the significance of evidence standards in the evidence theory and evidence activity is obvious. It is not only a fundamental problem in the evidence jurisprudence but is closely connected with criminal suit practice. Public security organs'exercising the right of investigation, the procuratorial organs'exercising their supervisory authority, the parties'right of appeal, as well as the lawyers'acting litigation, all these activities can not separate from the evidence standards. Although our Criminal Suit Law has prescribed the corresponding evidence standards of every criminal suit procedures, such as filing criminal suit, investigation, preparations for a lawsuit, filing indictment and sentencing, the existing evidence standards is still imperfect and has some places unfit to the criminal suit practice. The central topic of this thesis is listed as follows: the standard of criminal evidence is the basic issues in research on evidence jurisprudence and litigation practice. The author takes practice as the standing point to prove the responsible subject and the object, and carries a research on the evidence standards in our nation's criminal suit, when combining with some relative theories and foreign judicial cases, to explore its characteristics, and analyze the existing problem, as well as propose the solutions so as to construct and improve the system of criminal evidence standards in our country.This thesis is divided into four parts, epigraph and conclusion.Epigraph: briefly expresses the author's ideas and the basic framework in this thesis.Part-1: Standards for criminal evidence and the implications of some relative conceptions. The author puts forward the concept of the criminal evidence standards with the combination of a variety of ideas. Namely: as for the evidence object, such as the fact of the case, etc. the subjects assuming the evidence responsibility exert the evidence to reflect the connotation of the degree of evidence act from every aspects such as applicative scope of criminal evidence standards, functional effects, including content, and practical significance, and explore the concrete characteristics and the innate laws which affect its setup, the subjective and objective factors as well as the litigation tasks and the value target factors of different levels. In the mean time, the author gives an analysis of the connotation of criminal evidence responsibility and criminal evidence object that closely related to the criminal evidence standard, which reflects the basic viewpoints and some controversies coming from both domestic and foreign theoretical circle.Part-2: Analysis on evidence standards for accusing party under criminal suit.On the basis of some theories of phasic theory and materialistic epistemology, the author puts forward the progressive features the prosecution evidence standards demonstrated when it is put into practice. Besides, the author combines the foreign examples of justice cases and domestic practical criminal suit issues to inspect the evidence standards of various stages of litigation, including filing for investigation, examination and arrest, preparations for a lawsuit, filed indictment and conviction. The author discusses from its literal expression to analyze the inherent requirement, from the stage of the proceedings to see how to grasp its contents, from the practice of litigation to explore the possibility of improvement or perfection, according to which he presents his personal suggestions. And for the implementation of criminal facts have been identified, the evidence is reliable and sufficient—the evidence standard of indictment given by the procuratorial organs, the author proposes that it is necessary to grasp from four aspects—evidence chain, inner-heart confirmation, forecasting of the possibility and improvement of the system. In particular, the standard of conviction for the exclusion of the reasonable doubt has been comprehensively explored from the aspects of both the realistic significance and the problems to which we should pay attention in practice, from which the author suggests that we can absorb the useful achievement of foreign theories and practices and bring the exclusion of the reasonable doubt into our country's system of evidence standards. With the guidance of the statutory rules of evidence, we should take efforts to meet the statutory requirements of the facts are clear, the evidence is reliable and sufficient.Part-3: Analysis on evidence standards for pleading party under criminal suit.From the perspective of the presumption of innocence principle, the author combines the concept of evidence responsibility to put forward that different proof capability of the responsible subjects and the nature of the burden of proof result in the different evidence standards applicable to both sides in both requirements and contents. It is pointed out that, our nation's theory of criminal suit and legislation has only made corresponding regulations on evidence standard of the prosecution, while for the defense, there is still no specific regulations .At the same time, he presents his personal opinions about the construction of defense (the defendant) roving standard with combination of practice of criminal suit and foreign judicial cases—we can learn from the evidence standard of probability dominant in the civil proceedings to build a kind of advanced by moral evidence standard in our litigation. It is obvious that the advanced by moral evidence standard is lower when compared to the exclusion of the reasonable doubt standard. The raising of the defense evidence standards should be grasped from 3 aspects—the affirmative defense, the evidence-rebuttal defense, and the questioned defense.Part-4: Analysis on evidence standards for different objects'under the criminal suit.Through the analysis on the characteristics of evidence objects'different evidence standards and foreign judicial cases, the author combines related theories to analyze and commentate these different evidence standards to which the objects need to reach, including the facts of criminal constitute, criminal punishment cases, the facts of procedural law, and the facts of judicial notice and presumption in a criminal suit. It is pointed out that, in criminal suit, we should adopt different evidence standards for different evidence targets. Some criminal cases involving personal freedom, rights of property and life rights need most stringent evidence standard--conviction standard. For the plot beneficial to the defendant in a sentence, we can set a lower evidence standard, on the contrary, a higher standard. However, some of the facts do not need to be proved, or they are applicable to a very low evidence standard. Simultaneously, the author advocates that in the current legislation, it is necessary to regulate the presumption of innocence, the defendant mentally normal presumption, the presumption of resistance is illegal and the responsibility of the matter does not exist and informed presumption.Conclusion:In view of the previous analysis, the author points out that, under the current situation of the scarcity of criminal justice resources in China, we can not see in isolation the issues of remodeling criminal evidence standard whose identify and perfection should be taken into consideration with the combination of other evidence system reforms. It is not feasible to blindly raise and lower the standards. Under the premise of the limitation of justice resources, the high litigation standards are bound to require relatively higher justice costs and occupy relatively more justice resources, which is not suitable to our national conditions and the judicial reality. Nevertheless, if we learn from some Western systems, for instance, endowing the accused the Right to Silence, establishing strict"exclusion of illegal evidence"rules, lowering the evidence standard in some slight cases, the defendant's entity right won't be affected even when a wrong case happens, while the judiciary can also grasp this chance to achieve optimal allocation of resources so as to strengthen the fight against serious crime.So, we should consider our criminal evidence standards objectively and realistically and gradually and progressively perfect our system of criminal evidence standards so as to put it into full play in the criminal suit.