On The Judgment Of Justice-Identify-Conclusion

As one of statutory legal evidences stipulated in the three major procedural laws, the correctness and scientificity of justice-identify-conclusion (JIC) will have a direct influence on the judicial justice. With the further development of society and science, the judicial procedure becomes more specified, therefore, as a special evidence, identify-conclusion will play a bigger role in asserting the fact of case, and litigation depends more and more on the expertise, experience and judgment of the identifier to find the truth. In essence, judgment is discretional evaluation of evidence. Judges should strictly follow the procedure rules in examining and declaring the identify-conclusion, and complete this procedure with their discretional evaluation according to empirical and logical law. At present, due to the flaw of management of identify mechanism , the lack of relevant litigation procedure system, the inner fault of the imperfect empirical law and the problems during improving the overall professional quality of the judges, it is difficult to make the judges'examining and declaring the identify-conclusion procedure scientific and standardized, therefore, identify-conclusion can't fully perform its evidence potency, which will definitely affect the correctness of justice-identify-conclusion and affect the case quality consequently. This paper attempts to state opinions on questions concerning identify-conclusion, i.e. we first specify the examining mode and content of justice-identify-conclusion based on theories of justice-identify-conclusion, then point out problems and conflicts in applicability of justice-identify-conclusion, by doing that we can establish scientific and reasonable procedure rules of identify-conclusion, with which we can avert the side effect of discretion evaluation, thus achieving judicial justice with identifying the truth correctly and deal with the cases fairly. This paper contains four parts.Part One mainly contains basic theories of justice-identify-conclusion. Identify-conclusion refers to the conclusion opinion of the qualified identifier or identify institution, entrusted or hired by the court with its authority or the application of the prosecution and the defense in a case, based on analyzing, identifying and evaluating the specified questions of the facts to be proved in the case. Identify-conclusion should firstly possesses the essential features of evidence, i.e. legitimacy, objectivity and relevance. Besides that, due to its unique essence, identify-conclusion has features different from other evidence subjectivity and objectivity, the possibility of truth and distortion, the uncertainty of probative force and the separation with the legal consequence.Part Two deals with the evidence nature and value of identify-conclusion. Identify-conclusion, an independent evidence form, is actually the understanding of the identifier to relevant physical evidence, the paper claim of the identifier's recognition, analysis and evaluation of the case fact contained in the identified object, which also includes some case fact due to the close relation with the identifier and the identified object. During the litigation procedure, its values lies on probative value, i.e. the independent and auxiliary probative value, and its investigative pointing value can help judicial officials realize the specific question of the case, thus with the function of supplementing judges'recognition and pushing the litigation forward smoothly. Part Three is the examination and evaluation of identify-conclusion. The unique feature, nature and function of justice-identify-conclusion determine that we must examine identify-conclusion carefully when applying it. It is mainly from the aspects of subject, process, mode and content, probative force, etc. to examine the identify-conclusion. The examining methods main includes survey and consulting, court cross-examination, supplement identifying and reidentifying.Part Four points out the problems in identify-conclusion examination and offers improvement suggestion. In fact, there are many problems in our justice-identify-conclusion examination, such as the flaws with discretional evaluation system, the disorder of identifying institutions, the adverse effect of the poor quality of judges and poor judicial environment to the objectivity and scientificity of identify-conclusion. We could attempt to solve the problems through a set of relevant procedure and system: firstly establish evidence rules through legislation to effectively constrain the discretional evaluation in examining and evaluating identify-conclusion, secondly standardize the management of identify mechanism, thirdly improve the overall quality of judges.