Logic Principle And Model Construction Of "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt"

"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is a testimony to the conviction of the defendant in a criminal procedure in Anglo-American law,which is usually considered to be the first to appear in the trial of the American Massacre in 1770.In the case,the prosecution made it clear that "the evidence is not sufficient to exclude the reasonable degree of doubt," the prosecution has made it clear that the prosecution has to make the defendant 's innocence." Although the words were born in the mouth of the self-control,the trial judge also made it clear to the jury: " If,on the basis of all the evidence,you have any reasonable suspicion of their crimes,you must follow the rule of law and declare them innocent.After hundreds of years,"the exclusion of reasonable doubt" concept and standards continue to change,not only become the Anglo-American legal system to protect the right to be prosecuted an important system,also by many civil law countries to learn from and absorb.China in 2012 in the revision of the "Code of Criminal Procedure" will "exclude reasonable doubt" into the "clear facts,the evidence is indeed sufficient" proof of the standard.Although the system has a long history,but for a long time,"exclude reasonable doubt" standard has never been a strong operational mechanism,it can be universally applied to the jury or trial referee case process,but also to maintain its high degree of logical rationality and respect for the principles of criminal proof of jurisprudence.Even in the earliest establishment of the system is also the most developed of theUnited States,the federal constitution has not clear the criteria for the exclusion of reasonable provisions.On the one hand,it is considered that the term "reasonable doubt" is a self-evident concept and it may be difficult to define it further,while at the same time manipulating the discretionary power of the lower court on the definition of "reasonable doubt" to determine whether its definition is constitutional On the request.Not to mention the states of the state courts-that should not be "reasonable doubt" to define the state courts up to more than ten,and even among them are strictly prohibited.Such as the Oklahoma State Criminal Court of Appeal,argues that attempting to constitute a revocable error by a judge of a "reasonable doubt" directive states that the word is self-evident and that the definition does not make it more clear,the group is more confused and should not be defined.And cannot be defined more directly lead to the difficulty of applying the standard of proof,the jury in the defendant is guilty of the ruling,only to comply with each member's free evidence.So,in the end whether there is a way or method,even in the field of criminal procedural law is not enough mainstream and rules,perhaps a kind of legal psychology point of view,or the theory of logic to help us through the perspective of other disciplines Interpretation of "exclusion of reasonable doubt" whether it is one or what kind of existence? Based on this problem,it leads to the object of this study,that is,"logical excuse to exclude reasonable" logic and logical structure.Perhaps through the system of the logical anatomy,to find the key to solve the problem.According to this,this paper will start from the logical characteristics of the"reasonable excuse" standard,find the form and internal mechanism of this system operation,and try to establish a set of effective "operation manual" from the methodological level,Hypothesis model "and" inference to the best explanation"model.In the process of using the model,due to the lack of domestic relevant information,so I mainly use the comparative method,drawing on the United States,Britain,Germany and other countries of the legal system and the logical system of the corresponding regulation and research,but also The introduction of a typical case at home and abroad,in order to compare and discuss the actual case,the "exclusionof reasonable doubt" and the two models have a more intuitive and comprehensive understanding.Comprehensive analysis,this paper puts forward the "reasonable excuse" criteria,the emphasis is on the reasoning,the use of evidence to launch the conclusion lies in the use of hypothesis to explain the evidence point of view.At the same time as the core argument of this article,this view will also be used to solve the problem of how to apply the standard of criminal suit.In addition to the introduction of this article there are five chapters,the specific chapters are as follows:In the first chapter,this paper mainly analyzes the position of "reasonable excuse" standard in the process of traditional litigation proof,first combs the external form and practice mechanism of fact determination process.Secondly,the logic of the internal practice mechanism is clarified,and the empiricism is refuted.Thirdly,it analyzes the unique external deductive form and the principle of internal operation.Trying to point out the traditional litigation proof path in the "reasonable doubt" when the exclusion of the shackles.Which leads to a new model of proof,which is "hypothetical model" and "best description reasoning",which will focus on the study of how to use the new model to solve the problem.The second chapter mainly defines the concept of "excluding reasonable doubt".First of all,it defines the traditional definition of "excluding reasonable doubt",including the definition of moral certainty,the definition of analogy,the definition of firm belief of the defendant,the reasons for the definition of doubt,the definition of quantification and the definition of hybrid,and one by one to refute,the above definitions are too subjective,circular argument and repeated definitions and other issues.At the same time,the author put forward the "reasonable" and "skeptical" views,and eventually introduced the "reasonable doubt" definition,that "the judge's suspicion can be logically explain each case-related,after evaluation evidence of".The second chapter mainly defines the concept of "excluding reasonable doubt".First of all,it defines the traditional definition of "excluding reasonable doubt",including the definition of moral certainty,the definition of analogy,the definition of firm belief of the defendant,the reasons for the definition of doubt,the definition ofquantification and the definition of hybrid,and one by one to refute,the above definitions are too subjective,circular argument and repeated definitions and other issues.At the same time,the author put forward the "reasonable" and "skeptical" views,and eventually introduced the "reasonable doubt" definition,that "the judge's suspicion can be logically explain each case-related,after the evaluation to evidence".The third chapter mainly solves the problem of how to "reasonable doubt" in the process of applying "reasonable excuse".As the jurors in the "hypothesis model" to exclude reasonable suspicion of the process is mainly concentrated in the "constructive hypothesis to assess evidence" of this link,so the juror first to be resolved is to accept the prosecution(or defense)of the situation,or given The evidence available is a narrative structure of the foil.According to this theory,the hypothesis,including the foil,is constructed from three types of knowledge:(A)information on a particular case obtained from the trial;(B)an understanding of the similarity of the content with the subject matter of the dispute;and(c)a general expectation of a complete story.The constructed mental activity produces one or more interpretations of the evidence in the form of narrative stories.The jurors will accept one of these hypotheses as the best explanation of the evidence,but at the same time there may be two or several hypotheses that can explain the evidence well.When the jurors cannot accept the hypothesis of the prosecution,reasonable doubts arise.This chapter combines a case to explain and argue,with a view to more intuitive understanding of the jury in the exclusion of reasonable suspicion,the fact that the process of identification of the work model.The fourth chapter further guides the practice,on the one hand,clarifies the meaning and principle of the model of " inference to the best explanation ",and analyzes the feasibility of the model in applying the "reasonable excuse" criterion,and on the other hand,Method is to exclude the incompatible foil-to establish the description of the object-to construct the causal chain between the intermediate inference and the evidence-the process of constructing the causal chain between the foil and the case evidence,which not only ensures the deductive form of the wholereasoning But also with the previous "reasonable doubt" echoes the definition,how to do in practice "logical" for a detailed description.In the fifth chapter,based on the reality of China's criminal litigation,this paper introduces the "Tuermin model" which is widely used and representative in the proof of criminal procedure in our country,and the " inference to the best explanation " model is more The paper summarizes the guiding role of the " inference to the best explanation " model in China's practice.