Study On The Proof Of The Crime Constitution

The crime constitution is a key problem of the principle theories of criminal lawwhich play an important role of crime theory system and judicial practice. The currentdebate centers on the structure of constitution of crime do not complete, and whetherit should be reconstructed. By tracing its course of development can be seen theconstitution of the crime and litigation have a close relationship, because the entirelitigation activities are under the guidance of the constitution of crime. Theconstitution of the crime theory are set for guiding the criminal, therefore discuss thecircumstances of a crime can not be separated from its specific application in theproceedings. The prove of criminal are the centre of the criminal proceedings. Itcontent two parts including the contents of the substantive law and procedural law.The part of substantive law associated with the criminal proven results, also is themajor part of the facts of the dispute. The facts about the constitution of crime are thekey part of the substantive law to occupy the dominant position of the object of proof.The allocation of burden of proof and the Standard of proof are based on the object ofproof, that those three aspects constitute the most important part of the criminal prooftheory. The close relationship between the crime constitution and the object of proofalso work on the allocation of burden of proof and the standard of proof. The study ofthe crime constitution in procedure from other country have different directions, butthey have something in common which like all provide the basis for substantive lawas well as the allocation of burden of proof. The crime constitution in our countrywhich lacking of exclude criminal proceeding that could provide basis for theallocation of burden of proof. It would take measures to achieve the crimeconstitution’s function in proceeding. It could learn from comparing the two legalsystems. The purpose of criminal proof is to provide enough preparation for thejudgment. The standard of proof could tell whether it is enough. The two legal systemall set special standard, developing two distinct evaluations method which are thenegative and positive ways. Through comparing the different standard from Intra-andextra-territorial, it could find out that the standard of ‘The facts of the case are clear,the evidence is sufficient’ have a lot deficiencies. It is worth to find a better way tobuild the standard of proof through learning the experience of the extraterritorial. Toimprove the standard of proof is still up to go back to the crime constitution, combined with the rational knowledge of the crime to find the most reasonablestandard of proof. The elements of the crime in the case proved to be achieved by themethod of proof. The method of proof is identified and presumption，identified mainlyapplied to prove the facts of the objective elements, while the presumption is used toprove the fact that the subjective elements. Through the presumption is practical used,but does not establish a corresponding system which needs to be improved.