Research On Standard Of Proof "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" And Its Application In China

Standard of proof refers to a situation in which the party fulfills the responsibility of proof for the conviction of proof. Standard of proof is both subjective and objective according to its concept. Characteristics of criminal standard of proof in China are as follows:first, the concept itself is uncertain. Secondly, it focus on objective truth. Finally, the standard of proof does not reflect features of stages."Beyond reasonable doubt" standard originated in the "moral solace." It is convinced that the term "beyond reasonable doubt" was put forward in the trial of the Boston Massacre in 1770. Today, terms like "a defendant is to be proven guilty if there is no reasonable doubt to prosecute facts according to evidences "can often be found in trails. As for the explanation of "beyond reasonable doubt", foreign scholars hold following views, including the "moral conviction", "high probability", "uncertain" suspicion, and "firm conviction." Some scholars tend to quantify "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, which is obviously illogic, and more importantly, would result in erroneous judgment that may cause innocent people guilty.as to the definition of reasonable doubt, it may refers to any doubts relevant to evidence of guilty and able to shake confirmed truth made by a rational man who draws his conclusion after cautious analysis and inference for all evidences of a case.CPL stipulates that "beyond reasonable doubt" is a necessity. First, it is an inevitable choice under the pressure; in addition, it helps to save judicial resources; furthermore, "beyond reasonable doubt" has its own advantages per se. The standard of proof stipulated in the CPL amended in 2012 has made progress than that of in 1979 in following aspects:first, it pays more attention to the protection of human rights in terms of legislative spirit. Second, the value of CPL inclines to pursue legal truth more than objective truth. Thirdly, positive changes are made in operation. Fourthly, it emphasis on the unification of subjective and objective proof in terms of the way of criminal lawsuit proof. Fifthly, it requires the transformation of thought when judicial officers are dealing with cases. In China, "beyond reasonable doubt" should not blindly introduced unless the compatibility between standard of proof and legal system has been considered, for oversea legal environments are different from that in China. Although "Beyond reasonable doubt" standard has become a part of criminal prosecute standard of proof, criminal standard of proof has not been revised. It further explains the criminal standard of proof from a subjective aspect rather than replace the original standard.Subject of application should be definite when applying "beyond reasonable doubt", which characterized by diverse subjects. But, based on basic requirements and lawsuit structure of centralism of judgment, "beyond reasonable doubt", which required in court trail, should be taken as the highest standard of proof in criminal procedure. Besides, application subject should be clear. As the main trail organizations in China, collegiate bench and trail committees play a special role in dealing with the rules and procedures of case. The problems "beyond reasonable doubt" aroused in application should be solved in practice. Appropriate applying of "beyond reasonable doubt" demands the improving of vocational qualities and moral standards of judicators, which could ensure the trail results more acceptable and safeguard judicial authority, "the application of "beyond reasonable doubt" should include procedures as follows:the first, ensure the objectiveness and completion of proof; the second, ensure the legality of proof based on legal verification; the third, to judge whether the truth of the case could be applied within "beyond reasonable doubt" by integrating all the proof and adopting reverse thinking on the basis of the above two conditions. Whether "beyond reasonable doubt" is suitable for defective evidence is also a problem worth discussing. With regard to defective evidence, it should be dealt respectively. For a defective evidence which is slightly illegal, generally it is not excluded as a reasonable doubt. But for a serious case, investigation of truth should be conducted if it cannot be corrected by making a reasonable explanation. It could be adopted only by verification, or it should be excluded as reasonable doubt. Moreover, application of the standard is closely related to the perfection of relevant systems which would bring a fertile soil for the development of "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.