Study On Proof Standard Of Cases With Leniency On Admission Of Guilt And Acceptance Of Punishment

The standard of criminal proof is not only the standard to regulate and guide the proof activities in criminal procedure,but also the core content in the field of criminal evidence law..China’s criminal procedure takes the objective truth theory as the theoretical guideline,and takes "the facts are clear,the evidence is true and sufficient"as the criminal proof standard.At present,our country is carrying out the reform of criminal procedure system.The system of leniency of confession and punishment is one of the key points of the current reform.Since the implementation of the system,the application of the standard of proof has again attracted the attention of theory and practice.The reason is that although the system of leniency of confession and punishment has been established in legislation,there is no special provision for the application of the standard of proof.On the one hand,if it is required by the legitimacy of the law,the standard of proof in the case of leniency of confession and punishment still needs to apply the standard of proof stipulated in Article 55 of the criminal procedure law.On the other hand,due to the particularity of the leniency system of confession and punishment,in order to cater to the original intention of the system in pursuit of efficiency,we choose to make concessions to the standard of proof,which leads to the confusion of the separation of legislation and practice.In theory,there is still a lot of controversy about the application of the standard of proof in leniency cases.Some scholars argue that the essence of leniency system is to improve the efficiency of litigation,so the standard of proof can be reduced to meet the original intention of system design about the value of pursuing litigation efficiency.However,in order to avoid the reduction of the standard of proof,which can not guarantee the confession willingness of the accused,it can be solved by establishing a differential evaluation mechanism of the standard of proof.However,most scholars still maintain that there should be no difference in the standards of proof between lenient cases and non guilty cases.In the choice of value rank,justice is still the first important point.Even the leniency of confession and punishment system guided by efficiency value can not break through the bottom line of criminal justice at will,and the standard of proof can not be reduced.The central idea of this paper is to agree with the latter.Specifically,the main body of this article is divided into four parts:The first part is the introduction,which respectively introduces the reasons for the topic selection,the relevant domestic and foreign research review and research methods on this issue The first part is the introduction,which respectively introduces the reasons for the topic selection,the relevant domestic and foreign research review and research methods on this issue.the second part is to elaborate the general principle of the standard of proof for lenient cases of confession and punishment,and define the concept,basic characteristics,value and function of the standard of proof for lenient cases of confession and punishment.The third part discusses the current situation of confusion in legislation and practice.Such as lowering the standard of proof without authorization,resulting in the occurrence of unjust,false and wrong cases,resulting in the "actual reimbursement" of overdue detention,and cracking down on the enthusiasm of lawyers to participate in the case of leniency of confession and punishment;The fourth part,on the basis of the review of the relevant theories,puts forward targeted suggestions for the above problems in practice.For example,the prosecution and the accused are forbidden to negotiate on the three aspects of "crime and number of crimes",and the victim is informed to participate in the process of sentencing negotiation.in order to ensure the authenticity of the accused confession,the judge must adhere to the requirement of"excluding reasonable doubt".In terms of system guarantee,we should strive to improve the mechanism of solving contradictions in practice by strictly proving standards.In terms of procedural requirements,it is still necessary to strictly apply the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence and give duty lawyers full legal aid rights.