Research On Difficult Issues Of Judicial Application Of Criminal Proof Standards

The standard of proof is the core of evidence law and the symbol of evidence system,which plays an important guiding role in litigation practice.To study the standard of proof,we need to conduct in-depth and systematic research from the dual perspectives of criminal evidence and criminal procedure.For the difficult problems,we should set up a main line and conduct research with procedural justice as the basic requirement.First of all,it should be clear that the standard of proof and the standard of evidence are different concepts.They can not be used together,let alone replace each other.The standard of proof is a comprehensive evaluation of the facts of a case,and it is also a requirement for the referee to determine the facts of a case.The early standard of evidence does not have its own connotation and is regarded as synonymous with the standard of proof,which is often replaced.After that,the standard of evidence gradually separated from it in practice,and under the background of artificial intelligence,they have different application fields.The standard of evidence is the specific requirements on the types,forms and quantity of evidence around the conviction and sentencing of individual crimes.It has the value function of standardizing evidence collection,providing evidence and reducing judicial arbitration.The standard of evidence is the lower concept of the standard of proof,which is the embodiment of the objective aspect of the standard of proof.The standard of evidence solves the problem of "have" and "without" of the evidence itself,and the standard of proof solves the problem of "yes" and "no" of the facts to be proved.Secondly,the standard of proof in China has always been that the evidence is true and sufficient.Although the criminal procedure law revised in 2012 introduces the expression of excluding reasonable doubt,it does not mean that the standard of proof in China has changed.The elimination of reasonable doubt and the certainty and sufficiency of evidence is neither a side-by-side relationship,nor a substitute relationship,but a supplementary relationship.The elimination of reasonable doubt is only an explanation of "certainty and sufficiency of evidence",and there is no distinction between the two.The essence of eliminating reasonable doubt is a proof method of examining and judging evidence.It is combined with the corroboration method favored in practice in our country.One is constructed from the positive side,and the other is eliminated from the negative side,which greatly enriches the proof method system,and further improves the operability of the proof standard.From the perspective of methodology,it can be found that the introduction of excluding reasonable doubt makes the judge "can speak" the subjective analysis process,takes the defense evidence seriously and is conducive to the implementation of the principle of presumption of innocence.Finally,there is a dispute about the unification and differentiation of the standard of proof in the cases of confession and punishment,and the reason behind the dispute is attributed to the dispute between justice and efficiency.However,it should be noted that the reduction of the standard of proof not only violates the value of fair litigation,but also can not bring about the improvement of judicial efficiency.As a matter of fact,compared with the case of no guilty plea,because of the key direct evidence of the defendant's confession,whether it is "from testimony to confession" or "combination of testimony",or the unique "confirmation" in China,it is easier to reach the standard of "facts are clear,evidence is true and sufficient".Because the difficulty of proof is reduced and the standard of proof is easy to reach,the procedure is simplified.It is not because of the simplification of the procedure brought about by the admission of guilt and punishment,which needs to reduce the standard of proof.The causality and logical order can not be reversed.From the perspective of the practical operation of confession and punishment,there are some cases in which the accused plead guilty to false crime and false confession,which are specifically manifested as forced confession,voluntary confession,and the confession of avoiding the heavy and giving up the light;the duty lawyer system,which should make up for this defect,has the dilemma of "insufficient quantity and quality",and its function in the cases of confession and punishment is limited;the system of confession and punishment has its own characteristics The choice of authority mode,the objective and impartial obligation of prosecutors and the objective and neutral obligation of judges all indicate that even in the cases of pleading guilty and lenient punishment,we should adhere to the legal standard of proof,and there is no room to reduce the standard of proof.