Analysis On Nol Pros For Insufficiency Of Evidence In Our Country

Nol pros for insufficiency of evidence is one system of three systems about non-prosecution in our Criminal Procedural law. It is with the prosecution function of procuratorial organ that make out the nol pros decision. It is a procedural decision which make a case terminate relatively. Nol pros for insufficiency of evidence make the spirit of "Respect and safeguard human rights" be reflected which is ruled in the constitutional law. It can improve efficiency and reflect the principle of innocent presumption and doubt is beneficial to the defendant.The new Criminal Procedural law has conformed the nol pros for insufficiency of evidence, but its value has not been fully open out on account of fuzzy and oversight of legislation and deviation inspecific manipulation. Therefore, it is necessary to deeply study the problems and reasons in the nol pros for insufficiency of evidence. In this paper, a case of injustice resulted from nol pros for insufficiency of evidence trigger thoughts about this system. This paper is going to analysis from five parts.The first part is the theoretical definition of nol pros for insufficiency of evidence. It contains the concept and the differences between related concepts, the characters, the evolution of its history and so on.The second part is the theoretical basis of nol pros for insufficiency of evidence. This system reflects the requirement of respect and safeguard human rights, and avoids conviction on the defendants or criminal suspects before the evidences sufficiency. It reflects the requirement of principle of utility, and makes the cases end which have no sufficiency evidences. It reflects the principle of innocent presumption and doubt is beneficial to the defendant, and accords with the theory about standard of proof.The third part introduce the nol pros for insufficiency of evidence in Continental law system countries(Germany, France, Japan) and Common law countries(British, American).Some systems are worth using for reference,such as procuratorial guiding investigation system, plea bargaining system and so on. The forth part summarize problems in the nol pros for insufficiency of evidence and analysis the reasons. The problems are:there are disputes about item140of the criminal procedural law: Whether it must be twice for returning to have supplementary investigation. Whether it is double jeopardy when sue again because of new evidences. When public prosecution turn to private prosecution, the right of sue which is owed by procuratorial organ is divided by victims, and in fact private prosecution can not really protect victims. Nol pros is substituted by withdrawing by procuratorial organs, and it makes public security organs lose the right of audit and review, and procuratorial organs lose the right of supervision. The function of mutual restraint is weakened. There is no rules about how to handle cases which have insufficiency evidence for public security organs, and it results to suspected crime from hanging or transfer to the procuratorial organs barely. Therefore, grievances always happen. Under the misjudged case investigation system, staffs in judicial authority purse guilty verdict for their own interests. It is against the original intentions.The fifth part is the suggestions to perfect the system of nol pros for insufficiency of evidence. The fuzzy and oversight of legislation should be amended. Change "public prosecution turn to private prosecution" to "private prosecution activate public prosecution". Bring in plea bargaining system. Improve the quality and law enforcement level of staffs in judicial authority.