"evidence" Is The Sole Criterion Of Litigation Proof

I, the author of this thesis, address myself to the standard of proof in thecriminal and civil suit, which is one fundamental theory and critical issue in thesystem of evidence. Objective reality theory is the dominant one, but the risingtheory of the law reality is recognized by degrees.Consequently, the controversiesalso come up.This thesis involves the following three domains:Ⅰ. The first part of this thesis discusses the standard of proof's the function(leading the parties to prove what they declaim and also the regulations of ajudge's judgment of a case), the evenness and the cognition. It also differentiatesand analyses the definitions.Ⅱ. The second part of this thesis oppugns the popular theory of law reality inthe theoretical and practical fields. This part points out the theory blurs theregulation function of law, confuses the substantiality and the procedure,misconstrues materialism epistemology, and the harm to the judicatory practice.Ⅲ. The third and the dominant part of this thesis aims to recompose thestandard of proof scientifically. To avoid the Handan walking in this thesis, Idiscard the transversely comparing the existing theories but review the relatedtheories for and aft, considering all the systems of the God's instructing evidence,legal evidence and discretional evaluation of evidence having the requirementthat the evidences should be conclusive and can clarify the facts in a case.However, the system of the God's instructing evidence lacked the system ofattributing the dubious deeds to not being guilty, and the judge tends to fall intothe modality of the evidences under the legal evidence system. And when a deedwas dubious, a juridical man would tum to God for instructions to make ajudgment or to making an inquisition by torture to take the evidence for ajudgment in a criminal procedure, and the system didn't allot the burden of proofscientifically or rightly.This thesis has the review that the standard of proof's essence is to take andhave the conclusive evidence. This part says that the truth should be defined andregulated by law and the cognizance of conclusive evidence should beascertained by opening the course of the judge's discretional evaluation of it. This part points out that the standard of proof should be unitary, which is therule in a lawsuit, which we can see in the following:The differentia between the criminal procedure and civil procedure is not thecauses to persevere in the multi-standards, because the qualities of the disputesjust mean the resources to employ for a case's math. And the liabilities beingrespectively different don't result in the proofs cognizance standard but in theindispensable conditions regulated in the respective substantial laws and thedifferent harms to the other parties in these two suits. Then, based on the firstsection in Article 73, Some Provisions on Evidences in Civil Procedure, Ispeculate in "the goundless" coming up in it ,considering when not being able toascertain tree or false a judge should not fix the case fater simplely comparisingthe evidences brought forth by the opposite parties. So, in the criminal procedureif uncertain, the suspect should be made verdict of Not guilty, and in the civilprocedure, a court should adjudicate a case subject to the burden of proof. At last,this thesis speculates on the mode of the civil lawsuit, stressing the cooperationbetween the judges and the parties to find out the troth and to carry out thestandard of proof.