Research On Criminal Illegal Evidence Exclusion Rules

The exclusive rule of illegal evidence is a significantly important evidence rule in the whole criminal procedure. A case can be fair and just, and the rules are closely linked. In the present paper, titled with the rule of the criminal illegal evidence exclusion, will discuss in four aspects.The first part is mainly about the rule of illegal evidence exclusion. The first is to introduce the meaning of the rule. The following part is to introduce the generation and development of the rules from the Anglo American law system and the continental law system. Finally, from the two theoretical basis of the rule of illegal evidence exclusion, these two theories are human rights protection and the impact of procedural justice and substantive justice.The second part is about the present situation and the practice of the exclusionary rule in China since the new Criminal Procedure Law issued. Based on the practice, through the data of case solving in own prosecutorial system, the author reveals that there are still some issues since the new Criminal Procedure Law issued. Secondly, since the new Criminal Procedure Law issued, the existing regulations about exclusionary rule are a number of laws and regulations China’s current and recently introduced expressly. In the following, the author analyzes two famous cases-’Zhao Zuohai case’ and ’Uncle and nephew case’ in details. Finally, based on the current situation in our country, author analyzes the existing problems in our illegal evidence exclusion rule. For example, the definition of illegal evidence in our country is too strict and ambivalent, and legal issues about seduction and deceptive evidence and problems that the exclusionary procedure strictly limits.The third part mainly analyzes the present situation of the illegal evidence exclusion rules in foreign countries and its enlightenment to our country. The first is about the present status of Germany and Japan, which are the representatives of the countries apply continental law system. Followed by the status and practice United Kingdom and the United States, which are two representatives of the countries, apply Anglo American law system. Apparently, the analysis of the current situation and practice abroad is to deliver some help and impact to China’s system, so the last part of this chapter is mainly about the Enlightenment from foreign rules.The fourth part is mainly about how to complete our country’s illegal evidence exclusion rules. The first is to supplement the scope of exclusion of illegal evidence, as to how to improve, the author believes starting from two aspects--the first is the exclusion of evidence of illegal words, and the second is to reduce the obstacles of the illegal evidence and documentary evidence.Secondly, to improve the subject of illegal evidence exclusion, it is not only to clear the main body of the exclusion of illegal evidence, but also to identify the main body. Then, it is necessary to improve the supporting measures of the illegal evidence exclusion rules, which is to establish the system of the right to silence and to improve the system of interrogation from the procedure.The final part is about some suggestions for other problems. This part aims the suggestion to three problems in the second part of this article that the author rose-- about the definition problems, about seduction and deceptive problems and about starting strictly limits problems. The author gives the proposal on how to measure pain and criterion of suffering "severity", to establish the precedent system, to solve the temptation and deception, and the reforms of forensics procedure of exclusion.This paper aims to analyze the contents of the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence, analysis of the status at home and abroad and the practice of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence, discovering problems, asking questions, giving corresponding reform suggestions to solve the problems, the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in our country in order to improve, and the protection of human rights, realization of procedural justice and substantive justice.