The Legitimacy Of Criminal Compulsory Measures System

Innocence Reasoning is one of the basic principles widely-recognized in current word. It claims in essence that a defendant, before legally confirmed is innocent and only after a citizen has been confirmed guilty, can him be deprived of or restricted from civil right so as to prevent the state from random impinging on civil right. Compulsory Measure, however, is used to deprive a citizen of his right or restrict him from his right prior to his legally-confirmed guilt. Is there any contradictory to the principle of Innocence Reasoning? If not, where is the justification for compulsory deprivation or restriction of people's right? If there is justification, why the state set down laws to strictly regulate the application prerequisite,procedure and term to limit the use of it. In response to these questions, the law and regulation is believed to be the basis, which is concluded from the perspective of Actuality law. Legislative Organ can apply legislative power to confirm the compulsory measure in effect or establish compulsory measure harmful to the protection of human right. It is obvious that the basis for argumentation for compulsory measure is not justifiable. This passage attempts to detect the justice of compulsory measure out of Actuality law.