Font Size: a A A

Empirical Research On The Application Of The Standard Of Proof Of “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

Posted on:2017-04-18Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:Y HuangFull Text:PDF
GTID:2336330488972534Subject:Procedural Law
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
Since the amended Criminal Procedural Law adopted “beyond reasonable doubt” as one of the proof standards in 2012, the existing proof system has been greatly enhanced. However, after the introduction of “beyond reasonable doubt” from Anglo-American law system into China, there is a lack of guidance and directions for specific application, which exerts great influence on the practical application of it. In this thesis, a deepened research of the application of “beyond reasonable doubt” in judicial practices has been initialed to acquire accurate knowledge of the present situation and major problems of such. Through analyzing the prediction of system development, corresponding solutions and suggestions are proposed in this paper to promote the efficient enforcement of “beyond reasonable doubt”.There are around forty five thousand Chinese characters in this thesis and this thesis is divided into four parts as follows:In the first part, a definition of “beyond reasonable doubt” in the context of China is given. At the first place, the author defines “reasonable doubt” based on its intrinsic connotation which is examined by logic reasoning and empirical rule, and on external restrictions of policies and laws. Then, through contrastive study on “beyond reasonable doubt” and “inner conviction”, it is found that both the two are subjective proof standards, but different in thinking, representation, applicable scope and facts to be proved. Finally, by a comparison of “beyond reasonable doubt” and “sufficient and reliable evidence”, the author believes that “beyond reasonable doubt” does not substitute for the proof standard of “sufficient and reliable evidence”, nor mitigate the proof standard of Chinese criminal proceedings, but contains the standards of “exclusiveness” and “uniqueness”, which is better for the implementation of the proof standard of “sufficient and reliable evidence”.In the second part, an observation of present application situation of “beyond reasonable doubt” has been manifested. There are two sections in this part, of which the first one is an analysis of general situation. Starting from the perspective of prosecutors and courthouse, the author investigates the application rate of “beyond reasonable doubt” in different proceeding periods, comments of personnel handling related cases on this standard, as well as detailed problems in application, and then finds the low application rate and the vague cognition of related personnel in preset judicial practice. The other section of this part is a research of the application of “beyond reasonable doubt” in cases of non-prosecution for reasonable doubt(s), not guilty and guilty, as well as cases containing proceedings of excluding unlawfully collected evidences, to reveal the distinctiveness of the definition in different cases and the recognition in different proceeding periods.The third part gives a further analysis of problems in applying “beyond reasonable doubt”. Through analyzing the existing situation, the author observes the following problems in the application of such:(1) Vague definition of reasonable doubt. The subjective definition of reasonable doubt causes personnel’s differences in understanding which gives rise to their discretional acts directed by their logic and experience, for which the chaos in application is thus caused;(2) the stress of objectivity in proof standard. Inaccurate understanding of proof standard results in over-dependence on the proof mode of verification, and overemphasizing objectivity of evidence makes an ignorance of the proof mode combining objectivity and subjectivity.(3) The consistency of “beyond reasonable doubt”, which, to be specific, is reflected in the consistency of different cases and that of different proceeding periods. Objective principles inconsistent with recognition are harmful to the realization of proof standard.(4) The lack of feasibility. The vagueness and the confusion of proof standard and the purpose of proof make it hard to understand proof standard.In the fourth part, the author proposes solutions and suggestions to problems in applying “beyond reasonable doubt”. On the one hand, it is necessary to systematically guarantee the application of “beyond reasonable doubt”. To solve problems of consistency and the lack of feasibility, a proof standard system of multiple levels should be established and different proof standards should be applied to different proceeding periods and cases of different severity. To settle the problem of vagueness in definition, the reasoning in judge should be strengthened to make judges’ inner conviction public and to promote the judicial accountability. For solving the problem of over-objectivity in defining proof standard, the system of attendance of witness shall be promoted to meet requirements of judge centralism. On the other hand, it is also necessary to accelerate the efficient application of “beyond reasonable doubt”. The courts should strengthen their neutral position to increase the independence of trial, improve judges’ comprehensive quality, and strengthen the function of people’s jurors. For the prosecutor, it is necessary to strengthen its special judicial position, intensify its function of supervision, and enhance the examination of evidence in the procedure for commencement of action. For the defendant, effective defense and the function of investigation and evidence obtaining shall be strengthened. Having the aforesaid suggestions been taken, the efficiency of “beyond reasonable doubt” will be realized.
Keywords/Search Tags:reasonable doubt, proof standard, sufficient and reliable, evidence
PDF Full Text Request
Related items