The Study On Standard Of Proof In Capital Cases

The power of capital punishment review is retrieved in the hand of the Supreme Courtin2007, making it high hopes on the prospect of death penalty control. But this has alsobrought unprecedented challenges that if there is murderers of the reproduction or victims ofthe resurrection,the judicial risks will be immeasurable. Therefore, in order to guarantee thequality of capital cases and ensure the death sentence can stand the test of history,it’snecessary to find a solution from the substantive justice and procedural fairness at all levels.Being the core in the evidential theory，standard of proof involves the issue that it applies tothe capital punishment or not, and has an important significance for guaranteeing the qualityof capital cases. This paper describes the theoretical controversy and legislative status quo ofcapital cases in China, and analysis the problems in the judicial fitness through a number oftypical capital cases; combining the specificity of capital cases, reconstructs the standard ofproof of capital cases as" evidence is authentic and sufficient and comprehensive exclude theother possibility" should be uniformed both in the stage of conviction and sentencing, andthe related measures will be improved.This paper comprises four parts and over30,000words in its main body.The fist part is about the theoretical principles of the standard of proof of capital cases.Described the general criminal standard of proof, and the distinction between the differentformulation of the common law, civil law and the criminal standard of proof in China. Toillustrate these three are certain differences in the theoretical analysis, but should be consistentin practice.And, more importantly, as the criminal standard of proof in judicial practice. Thesame time, the hierarchy theory and extra-territorial doctrine laid down the standard of proofof capital cases provides the appropriate support.The second part is the status quo of standard of proof of capital cases in China. Theoriesabout standard of proof in capital cases can be classified into three categories,namely raisingthe standard in conviction,standards in conviction and sentencing should be distinguished andothers. However, only a simple replacement of the standard of proof is just a paper article,and a simplistic approach in an attempt to achieve the purpose of identifying the truth of thefacts is not realistic.On the contrary, the excessive idealism and operational levels of realityhinder may lead to arbitrary referee and obstruction of justice. According to the current legislative process in capital cases, compared to introduct a foreign concept as ‘innerconfident’or ‘reasonable doubt’, the legislature tend to make the ‘evidence is authentic andsuffcient’clearly defined and improved.And the capital cases under the premise of separationin the conviction and sentencing should apply the same standard of proof. At the same time，analysis the current problems and difficulties of standard of proof in capital cases, throughsome typical cases in China.The third part involves the re-establish the system of standard of proof in capitalcases,which maintains that uniformed standard of ‘evidence is authentic and sufficient andcomprehensive exclude the other possibility’ should be adopted in the conviction andsentencing phrases in capital proceeding. The object of proof in the cases to be sentenced todeath, will permit by elements fact to expand to the conviction and sentencing facts; the casesto be sentenced to death need direct evidence in principle, but must be combined with otherevidences to point to the same facts to be proved, and can reasonably rule out thecontradictions; despite the lack of direct evidence, if the circumstantial evidence can form acomplete system of evidences,it can also be considered to achieve the ‘evidence is authenticand sufficient and comprehensive exclude the other possibility’.Finally, the dissimilation ofthe proof standard must be considered to achieve the proof standard of the capital case.The forth part is on the complementary measures concerning the standard of proof incapital cases. Including constructing a separate capital sentencing procedures, setting the ‘onevote veto’ disagreement handler, and strengthening the ration of verdict.