The Studies On Protection For The System Of Death Penalty Cases

In recent years, several cases have been found to be sentenced to death or reprieve of miscarriages of justice. These injustices have something in common, i.e. illegal handling, which can not make the case to reach the standard of proof. It adequately shows that the standard of proof of death penalty cases in the system to protect is a big problem. This paper describes the research on death penalty cases from both domestic and international standards to prove the practical application of the existing problems through two case studies of typical standard of proof in death penalty cases. Raised three main issues leading to the trial of death penalty cases reach the standard of proof, also including the proposed solutions, the reconstruction of the proof standard sentencing procedures in capital cases.This paper is divided into three parts, the full text covers two thousand words.The first part describes the standard of proof in death penalty cases. First of all, the proof of concept for death penalty cases is elaborated. The standards of academic standards for proof include three perspectives in China. They are "Objective Truth", "Subjective Truth" and "Legal Truth". Then it is expounded on common law and civil law about the standard of proof in death penalty cases. The standard of proof for death penalty cases in common law is beyond reasonable doubt, whereas, the standard of proof in civil death penalty cases is inner conviction. Then this thesis explains the problems and controversies in practical applications. Besides, the standard of proof i.e.beyond reasonable doubt is introduced, which is the standard of proof is easier to operate in judicial practice. Finally, China’s academic standards for three death penalty cases to prove the conviction standards will be expounded. The standard of proof in death penalty cases should adhere to the model of conviction unified standard.The second part describes the standard of proof of death penalty cases and the status of the problem, first cited "Hugejiletu case"and "Nian Bin case" two typical cases. There is a problem identified two cases of facts and evidence. Reasonable suspicion can not be ruled out. Two cases of the problems are institutional reflections, that is, the standard of proof is not easy to operate and the interrogation system in China can not effectively prevent torture. Moreover, site survey, inspection and identification of the presence are relatively big problems, which affect public opinions as well as the trial. Thus, it finally points out three main problems which lead to the trial of death penalty cases reaching the standard of proof, including the torture issue, the level of interference and forensics investigators of government agencies. While public opinions and lacking of consciousness for laws are the causes of these three issues.For the third part, this thesis firstly proposes that the confessions with audio and video recordings can not be served as the proof. The establishment of a comprehensive monitoring system in jail as a separate investigation and management system, and the establishment of lawyers questioned the presence of the system in death penalty cases should be fulfilled to prevent torture. Then the issue is proposed to establish a property law self-management system directly under the central court’s procuratorate, who takes the charge of property law self-management system, the establishment of direct intervention in Politics and Law Committee officials trial cases disciplinary system. Moreover, only laws rather than public opinions can reflect the wills of the people.Other strategies should be emphasized on establishing a rigorous on-site survey personnel access system and implementing the treatments of the survey personnel. Finally, the reform of the judicial system of death penalty cases should be put forward which can separate the conviction and sentencing procedures in order to establish an independent sentencing procedures which protect the facts and evidence to reach the standards of proof.