There are two parts of court's work, one is finding of fact and theother is applying law. Finding of fact is the precondition of applicationof law and foundation of judicial judgment. In Criminal Procedure,criminal judgment will lack its justicial groundwork if finding of fact dogo wrong or be distorted on purpose. Therefore, modern rule-of-lawnations consequently adopt the system of Discretional Evaluation ofEvidence to evaluate evidences in judicial procedure, in order to ensurethe proof of facts in a right way in cases. Discretional Evaluation ofEvidence means that there are no specific rules for evaluating evidencevalue in criminal procedure law, and judges evaluate evidence valueaccording their experience, common sense, nous and logic, and thencome into being certitude about finding of fact feel in their bones.Discretional Evaluation of Evidence which empowers judges with thepower of free proof of evidence value is beneficial to finding of fact, forevidences in idiographic case are heavy and complicated and case itselfis also larruping.Discretional evaluation of evidence has been disesteemed,misconceived and sedulously repulsed in China for a long time, fordoctrine of discretional evaluation of evidence affirms the subjectivity inthe proving process in lawsuits and judgment on the judges'own onusand affirm that idiographic human being's cognition of fact can'tcompletely accord with objective fact. Discretional evaluation ofevidence was considered as subjectivism and agnosticism which arecontrary with Marxism. But, with the development in criminal lawresearch and judicature practice, we have to make progress aboutunderstanding Discretional Evaluation of Evidence in fact-finding. First,they get rid of misconceives about discretional evaluation of evidenceand accept that discretional evaluation of evidence has tallied withhuman beings' orderliness of cognition. Second, they are convinced thatfindings of fact in idiographic case have been confined by many practical conditions. Third, Discretional evaluation of evidence hassignificant value for ensuring reliability in finding of fact.Subjectivity in fact-finding is expanding in our criminal procedure,for we emphasize seeking for absolute fact but lacking exercisablecriterion in fact-finding, and too much power for judges in fact-findingcould be resulting in judiciary corruption. Establishment and perfectionof Discretional Evaluation of Evidence in our criminal procedure canchange the dissatisfactory condition today. This thesis will analyze thatDiscretional Evaluation of Evidence reflects judges' self-determinationin modern rule-of-law nations, and not only affirms judges' subjectivego-aheadism but also lead this go-aheadism and make it be morenormative. Discretional Evaluation of Evidence seeks forharmoniousness between procedure justice and essential justice.Seeking for reality of fact and avoiding judges' forejudge are alwaysinconsistent which have to be faced and solved in our criminalprocedure.Discretional Evaluation of Evidence could basically solve thisproblem for a series of institutional measures which are a significantpart of Discretional Evaluation of Evidence have been established andexercised.Therefore, establishment and perfection of Discretional Evaluation ofEvidence in our criminal procedure have to be actualized. At the sametime, a series of institutional measures which can ensure favorableexercise of Discretional Evaluation of Evidence must be established andperfected. Accordingly, a well system which can carry forward judges'wisdom and avoiding judges' forejudge for fact-finding could beestablished, and a dependable foundation for judicial judgment could beprovided. |