The Research On The Rules Of Criminal Slight Defective Evidence Corrections

Slight defective evidence refers to the criminal public prosecution in the process of investigation and evidence collection procedures non-standard criminal evidence. In the judicial practice, the sight defective evidence are due to an emergency or gross negligence or as a result, investigators illegal if the circumstances are not in violation of the substantive procedures, no violations of human rights, also won’t affect the authenticity of evidence, more will not affect the judicial authority. In our country criminal justice practice, slight defective evidence is common, and it is difficult to avoid and eliminate. Nevertheless, the slight defective evidence has received a serious amount of attention from theorists because there were no clear actions and there was an ambiguous attitude at the national legislative level for a long time until 2010. In that year, Chinese legislation issued "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Examination and Judgment of Evidence in Death Sentence Cases". In this case, it enumerates a range of criminal evidence with slight defection in discovery procedures and methods. Also, if the collection procedure or method of physical or documentary evidence has any of the mentioned flaws, the evidence cannot be adopted unless the case-handling personnel make a correction or make a justification. Thus providing statutory provisions for the correction of slight defective evidence, while settling defects or controversies.On the one hand, it not only enables investigator personnel to regain the evidence through these correction rules, but also makes things less difficult for them, thereby enhancing the strength of detectives against crime. Moreover, the correction of slight defective evidence is able to ensure the quality of the criminal case and improve the efficiency of the lawsuit, by avoiding the potential risk of slight defective evidence in the court session. Additionally, based on the nature of procedural sanctions, an investigator shall bear the adverse consequences for failing to correct or justify the flaws.So that is not only a punishment of illegal forensics, but is powerful as it deters others. On the other hand, theoretical basis argues that the provision of slight defective evidence correction is much more valuable when proofing the fact of a case, rather than the result of violating the law order. Beyond that, China has experienced a rapid economic and social growth from the late 20th century. As a result, social conflicts have been highlighted in various types of crimes such as an increase in the criminal rate and rising difficulty in handling these cases. While at the current stage of criminal investigation, particularly in criminal forensics means, which still lags behind the actual needs of the criminal struggle. Similarly, the traditional concept of ’heavy entity’(substantive law) and’light procedure’(procedural law) still has a profound impact on the public’s tolerance when adopting a certain degree of slight defective evidence. As mentioned above, these regulations of flawed correction meet the realistic demands of correction in application processes. Consequently, the "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Examination and Judgment of Evidence in Death Sentence Cases"etc. and other legal documents, provide a legal basis to provisions of slight defective evidence correction.However, there are still some shortages and insufficiency in slight defective evidence correction rules in current judicial practices. Firstly, slight defective correction rules give scope for blurriness, which results in difficulty of application. Secondly,’The criminal procedure law’, which was amended in 2012, regulated the revised provisions on collecting physical evidence and documentary evidence where this does not meet the statutory procedures and this may seriously affect judicial justice. In terms of this clause, some scholars advocate that the application scope of this provision should be extended to illegal physical evidence. Whereas others claimed that this correction term is the fatal flaw in the legislation. From my point of view, it could be argued that defective evidence correction rules are aimed at assisting flaws, which are gathered from improper ways or procedures. However, some revised provisions may provide a protection channel to illegal documentary and physical evidence that would lead on judicial fairness, which would also contradict its initial principle of legislation. Furthermore, expanding the application scope of this provision may offset the effect of the exclusionary rules, leading to a’whitewash’ of illegal evidence. Regarding the flaws correction rules, it should be separately legislated with relevant regulations and distinguished from the exclusionary rules by the Criminal Procedure Law. To list clear rules of correction which can be applied to the flaws, such as the type of evidence, correction processes and methods etc. In doing so, it is suggested that 1)add, correct and complete the content of evidence transcripts; 2) gain the party’s approval; 3) provide investigator personnel’s justification.