Perjury Of Lawyer

Since the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China established the so-called perjury of lawyer,which aims to prevent defenders,litigation agents to destroy evidence,forged evidence,nuisance to testify,this norm has caused a lot of problems and criticism.However,most critics remain on the surface of the problems,and lack the rational analysis of the deep contradictions in the internal mechanism of the crime.Therefore,after the fierce criticism from the scholars,this normgradually fade out of people's vision,gradually being forgotten.Criticism did not prompt the legislature to respond in a timely and reasonable manner.The reason,in a sense,is precisely because the criticism did not hit the key to the problem.Critical focus is fragmented and lacks of systematic.Based on this,this paper clarifies and proposes two main lines of the problems: first,whether is it proper to use ‘perjury of lawyer' to refer to this norm? Second,the proposition of criticism is mainly a proposition of evidence law,or a criminal law proposition? The former reflects the conceptual errors of the past criticisms;The latter reflects the dislocation of the position on the basis of previous criticism.With these two questions as the inner logic of criticism,the article not only makes the existing criticism structured,systematized,but also further excavates some important issues that are widely neglected.Regarding the issue above,this paper responds to the two questions from the perspectives of concept,dogmatics of law,science of evidence law and sociology of law.Specifically,the first chapter identifies the conceptual extension and connotation of witness,perjury,and some other basic concepts,which provides the coherent conceptual basis for the full text.The second chapter clarifies the inherent logic of Article 306 of the Criminal Code,exposing the logic fallacies of the norm itself and its related provisions;.The third chapter indicates the negative impact on fact-finding caused by this crime and thus shows that the actual effects of the norm in fact contrary to its default target;The forth chapter discusses the negative social effects of the norm,further denying its existence with a legitimate social basis.Based on these analyzes,the article responds to the above two main lines: on the one hand,it points out that the name of "lawyer perjury" itself lacks reasonableness;on the other hand,the critique of the perjury of lawyer should be mainly a proposition of evidence,not a proposition of substantive law.Based on the criticism above,the last chapter attempts to give some advice of reformation from three aspects.First of all,from the point of view of the doctrine of law,we need to reintegrate the internal logic of Article 306 of the Criminal Law and the logical relationship between the norm and other relevant provisions;Second,at the level of evidence law,we must protect the lawyer's corresponding rights on evidence,so as to minimize the negative impact of the norm.Thirdly,at the level of legal sociology,we need to construct a real trial-centered litigation system and improve the lawyer's occupational security system so as to maintain and promote the development of the defense system.Although the perjury of lawyer seems to be a very microscopic,and even people may feel less important issue,the impact of the norm is enormous.In the context of trial-centered litigation reform,the so-called ‘perjury of lawyer' has hindered the advancement of relevant judicial reform both in theory and practice.Therefore,it is extremely significant to rethink and regulate this norm.