The Predicaments And Solutions Of Knowingly Proving In Intentional Crime

The system of criminal theory is the "beacon" of criminal procedure,and the whole criminal proof is based on the system of criminal theory.And "knowing" is one of the most important subjective elements in intentional crime,so it has become one of the objects that must be proved in criminal proceedings.But "knowing" is the cognitive state of the actor's inner world.Even in today's highly developed science and technology,no one else can find out the actor's inner thoughts by modern technology or other means.This makes it very difficult for the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator "knows" a certain act or object.In addition,the theory of criminal substantive law and criminal procedure law and various constraints of legislation make it difficult for the prosecution to prove the subjective cognition of the actor in criminal proceedings.If we can't prove "knowing" in the process of criminal procedure,many criminals who should be punished by criminal law will escape punishment and go unpunished.This will not only lead to the failure of national penalty power,but also is not conducive to the effective governance of society.In view of the problem of "knowing" proof,we must solve it from two angles of criminal substantive law and criminal procedural law,and only when we take appropriate measures can we get rid of the disease.From the perspective of criminal substantive law,it is necessary to reach a consensus on the theoretical level,and to limit the scope of knowing objects on the premise of following the principle of responsibility.That is to say,the content of knowing should be limited to the two elements of behavior(nature,mode,time and place of behavior)and result(actual harm result and dangerous result).In addition,other objective elements should not be included in the content of knowing.At the same time,the mode of "possible knowing + element analysis" should be introduced into the theory of crime,that is,to allow the match of different objective elements in the same crime With different subjective elements.At the legislative level,"quasi legal presumption" in judicial interpretation should be appropriately incorporated into the relevant provisions of the specific provisions of criminal law,so as to provide legislative basis for the application of legal presumption.From the perspective of criminal procedure law,we should combine the leniency system of confession and punishment to introduce the mode of "giving priority to encouragement,supplemented by coercion",and obtain the confession of criminal suspect in time through positive encouragement(entity and procedure preference),negative encouragement and slight psychological coercion,so as to break the deadlock of knowing proof.In addition,we should change the traditional proof mode of our country,introduce the reasoning proof mode of reason,and allow the referee to infer through the common sense,common sense and experience rules in the process of identifying facts.However,in order to make the reasoning proof mode run smoothly on the established track,we should not only allow the environmental evidence to enter the criminal procedure in the future,but also perfect the corresponding system and rules in the aspects of participatory investigation reform,strengthening the reasoning of judgment,continuing to promote the substantiation of court trial and building the first trial into a thorough factual trial.