On The Evidence Of Defect Correction And Reasonable Explanation

The evidence and proof system is the most important system in criminal procedures. As theessential point of protection to human rights and fighting against crimes, the developmentof evidence system decides directly the civilization of the criminal procedures. Recently,among the various issues about criminal evidence and proof, the defective evidence comesinto the scholars and legal professionals’view and becomes hot spot in the legal studiesand practice, hence, how to consider the issue is about the developing level of Chinesecriminal justice. The defective evidence refers to the police, procurator and judge, whocollect the evidence in unfair or wrong ways and the evidence decides the facts in thecourt. About the opinion of defective evidence came through two period, one is before thetwo legal document about the defective evidence, when the scholars argued a lot and therewere theories of positive, negative and compromising way, the other period is after that,the legal document answered in positive way that defective evidence can be used in court.After resolving how to consider, then how to deal with it? The law allows the ways ofexplanation and reparation. However, there are many reasons to chaos,like the legal organsfocus heavily on essential law instead procedures, the wrong views of the legal documents,the defendant abuses the measurements and the police’s unwilling to explain or to redressthe defective evidence and meanwhile the judges and procurators lack the motive to do so.Objectively, because of the severe situation of crimes and bad soil for legal civilizationand the conflicts between the procedures and fighting crimes the survival of the defectiveevidence is unperfect at present. Hence, it is cannot avoided that the defective evidenceis hard to detect, the unclear aims and unsatisfactory explanation for defectiveevidence.etc.Therefore, the paper points out that we need very clear and useful principles for legalpractice. Such like to divide clearly between the facts and evidence or proof; take the‘proof to proof’as the base principle and at the same time widen the standards for thetestification in court. Furthermore, according to the characteristics of the legalprofessionals such like judges and polices officers, the paper also offers the practicaland specific suggestions, only to better resolve the issue especially after the newcriminal procedure law gets Enactment and enactment.