Criminal Prove The Standards Of Doctrine And Legislation

The testifying of criminal processing procedure is the activity of the special organizations to discover the fact of the testifying object according to the evidence. The testifying criterion of it is the different testifying degree that is needed for the three special organizations (public security and procurator organs and courts) to reach a conclusion on the different testifying object. Of which the core content is the one to one correspondence of the testifying object and the testifying degree.In the criminal processing procedural academic circles, to establish the testifying criterion, there are three different theories: the Objective Truth; the Law Truth; and the Mixture of the two formers. Today's hot argument about the testifying criterion, to a great extent, is contacted with them. The author think: there is no substantial difference among them, they are the same theory: truth; they can not be regarded as the criterion directly, because testifying criterion is to solve what testifying degree it is needed, otherwise, the truth only reflects the nature of the testifying degree. The truth should be the aim, not the criterion of the justice testifying. The Law truth that does not emphasis the objective character, comparative to the Objective truth, has some progress in recognition, because the truth in criminal processing procedure can only be "the truth in the faith" or "convincing to be the truth". The truth indeed is a conception that has not only objective character but also subjective character. To solve the question of testifying criterion, not staying in the layer of the truth, we should turn to try to describe the testifying degree with really different degree, which is not easy to do.The legislation of testifying criterion mostly deal with what degree should be reached to testify the special testifying object and how to describe it. The degree to make a sentence should be reached as high as possible. But, the author think, the different descriptions, such as "convincing in the faith", "beyond the reasonable doubt", "clear facts and true and enough evidence", "beyond the other possible", despite of their description's difference, actually are the same and highest testifying degree. Each description has its good or bad aspect. Comparatively, the description of "beyond the other possible" should be adopted for our legislation, despite that the description of "beyond the reasonable doubt" which the author think is the most accurate one, after all, legislation in our country, the items should not ignore the influence of our traditional culture. What worthy to point out is that the description of "beyond the other possible" is also of some extent flexibility, so it is not necessary to continue to differentiate different degree of it.