Question 2: How to understand and apply the standard of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt". Excluding reasonable doubt means that the evidence has met the requirements of certainty and sufficient, that is, the facts for conviction and sentencing, and the evidence for finalizing the case have all gone through legal procedures. To verify the truth, comprehensively integrate the evidence of the entire case, determine the facts, and eliminate reasonable doubt. The evidence conclusion based on the requirement of eliminating reasonable doubt is unique
The conclusion of evidence that eliminates reasonable doubt is to eliminate reasonable doubt.
Question 3: What is the meaning of the theory of beyond reasonable doubt in the common law system? The theory of beyond reasonable doubt in the common law system is a standard of proof for criminal proceedings that has been accumulated over a long period of time and gradually formed in the common law system. The theory of beyond reasonable doubt has rich and controversial connotations. To fully understand the standard of proof, it is necessary to analyze its applicable subjects, excluded objects, theoretical basis, and procedural and substantive safeguards. Making necessary distinctions between the traditional British and American system of beyond reasonable doubt and the relevant provisions of our country will help accurately grasp the reasonable connotation of litigation proof, and also lay a solid foundation for the construction of our country's proof standards.
Question 4: Lawyer: What is reasonable suspicion? First of all, it needs to be explained that our country does not say that criminal evidence must be beyond all reasonable doubts, but that it must be beyond reasonable doubts, because criminal proceedings are related to the issue of whether a person has lost his freedom or even his life. Of course, a relatively high standard is required, such as the previous paragraph. The case of Shi Nianbin is a typical example. Regarding the elimination of reasonable doubt, according to the current Criminal Procedure Law, there are clear explanatory provisions on what "evidence is reliable and sufficient": "The evidence is reliable and sufficient and should meet the following conditions: (1) The facts of conviction and sentencing are supported by evidence; ( 2) Determine the facts of the case based on the evidence and in accordance with legal procedures; (2) The evidence on which the case is decided has been verified to be true by legal procedures; (3) Based on the evidence in the entire case, reasonable doubt has been eliminated for the facts identified. Make explanatory provisions for "the evidence is reliable and sufficient"
Question 5: What is the specific content of the criminal standard of proof "beyond all reasonable doubt"? At about 2 o'clock in the morning on November 19, 2004, a factory in this city was on duty indoor. The infrared alarm in the duty room of a factory in this city suddenly went off. Security personnel entered the factory's office building and found that the aluminum alloy window on the north side of the first floor of the office building was opened. After a floor-by-floor inspection, it was discovered that the general manager's office on the third floor had been pried open and items in the house had been turned over. Later, security personnel found the suspects Yang and Dai hiding in the corner on the roof of the fourth floor, but there were no stolen goods or crime tools around them. After a search, stolen cash and mobile phones were found scattered below the location of the two suspects on the roof. Due to the weak legal awareness of the factory's security personnel, they did not report the case in time. When the police received the report and rushed to the scene the next morning, they found that the stolen office site had been destroyed by security personnel, and fingerprints and footprints could not be extracted. A suspicious cone at the scene had also been touched by security personnel, and fingerprints could no longer be extracted; the stolen goods were scattered It has also been confiscated by security personnel. The two suspects have always refused to admit that they committed the theft.
There are two different opinions on whether the two suspects committed the crime of theft. The first opinion is that although there is no direct evidence in this case and the two suspects refused to admit the facts of the crime, after the alarm sounded, the security personnel blocked the stolen office building in a short time and discovered the crime on the fourth floor. The suspect basically rules out the possibility of others committing the crime; at the same time, the stolen items found downstairs on the roof of the building where the criminal suspect was located, and a banknote found on the wire between the first and second floors can prove that the crime was stolen. Objects are dropped from a height. The stolen goods were thrown from a high place; the confessions of the two suspects were contradictory, and their excuses were inconsistent with common sense, which can prove that their excuses were untenable; the testimonies of the witnesses in this case were consistent with each other and had high credibility. Therefore, the indirect evidence in this case has formed a complete chain of evidence, which is sufficient to prove that the two suspects committed the theft.
Another opinion is that this case lacks direct evidence to prove the facts of the crime. The two suspects have always refused to admit the facts of the crime, and there is a lack of relevant trace identification. The indirect evidence in this case can only prove the fact that property was stolen, but cannot prove that the two criminal suspects committed the theft. There is a lack of evidence of correlation between the crime facts and the criminal suspects. The two suspects cannot be found guilty without reasonable doubt and should be released immediately.
Through the analysis of the above two opinions, we can see that the standards of proof based on the two opinions are different. The former considers the positive side and forms a chain based on indirect evidence to determine guilt. The latter considers it from a negative aspect and believes that a conviction cannot be made without reasonable doubt. So, what standard of evidence should apply?
"Beyond any reasonable doubt" (beyond any reasonable doubt) is a standard of proof adopted by countries in the common law system, which first emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries. The basic content of this standard of proof is that in criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. The authoritative legal dictionary "Black's Law Dictionary" explains the meaning of "beyond reasonable doubt" as "sufficient certainty, complete certainty, or a moral certainty; the word is equivalent to words such as clear, accurate, and beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal cases "The defendant's guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that the facts proved must establish the guilt by its probative force". "Proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' does not exclude a slight possible or imaginary doubt, but excludes every reasonable hypothesis unless the hypothesis is well founded; it is 'morally certain' Proof is proof that is consistent with the judgment and belief of the jury, that is, the members of the jury, as rational people, are convinced from the evidence in their reasoning that the alleged crime was committed by the defendant, and it is impossible to draw any other reasonable conclusion. "Countries that apply the right to silence usually use beyond reasonable doubt as the standard of proof for criminal charges. This is because in these countries, criminal defendants generally do not bear the burden of proof and the burden of proving the defendant's guilt lies with the prosecution. The prosecution must prove its allegation beyond a reasonable doubt and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury will find the verdict in favor of the prosecution. In other words, the juror's inner conviction is the basis for the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. A juror who fails to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot pronounce a verdict that the defendant is guilty.
However, the "beyond reasonable doubt" advocated by Chinese scholars does not directly copy the British and American standards of proof. Professor Fan Chongyi believes that the expression "beyond reasonable doubt" in Western countries is interpreted in words... .. gt; gt;
Question 6: How to understand and apply the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. From the perspective of the provisions of Article 195 of the new "Criminal Procedure Law", the standard of proof of the defendant's guilt is still "The evidence is reliable and sufficient", but its Article 53 provides new provisions for the connotation of this standard, which specifically includes the following three elements:
(1) The facts of conviction and sentencing are supported by evidence ;
(2) The evidence on which the case was decided has been verified to be true through legal procedures;
(3) The evidence in the entire case and the facts identified have been beyond reasonable doubt.
Experts believe that the first two provisions belong to the "standard of proof" and are requirements for the evidence itself. Among them, "the facts of conviction and sentencing are supported by evidence" are requirements for the quantity of evidence, and "the basis for finalizing the case is "All evidence has been verified to be true through legal procedures" is a requirement for the quality of evidence; Article 3 on "excluding reasonable doubt" is a requirement for the extent to which evidence can be used to determine the facts of the case, and is a new interpretation of the standard of proof.
Question 7: What does "reasonable suspicion" mean? Reasonable suspicion is a concept in criminal law. In fact, the meaning of reasonable suspicion itself is very clear, that is, reasonable suspicion. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for proving a crime.
According to the provisions of Article 53 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the evidence is reliable and sufficient and must meet the following conditions: (1) The facts of conviction and sentencing are supported by evidence; (2) The evidence on which it is based has been passed Verified by legal procedures; (3) The evidence and identified facts in the entire case have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Question 8: 5 points for criminal prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt refers to the doubt that ordinary rational people with daily life experience have about the defendant’s criminal facts intelligently and prudently.
1. Eliminating reasonable doubt focuses on eliminating "reasonable" doubt and emphasizes the rationality of the doubt.
2. To eliminate reasonable doubt is to eliminate legitimate doubt, not arbitrary doubt.
3. Beyond reasonable doubt requires the judge to be convinced that the alleged criminal facts exist.
4. Excluding reasonable doubt does not require absolute certainty, nor is it 100% certain.
Effects:
1. It can realize the human rights protection concept of "doubtless innocence" and ensure that the fact finder makes correct judgments.
2. Helps reduce the risk of misjudgment.
3. The standard beyond reasonable doubt plays an important role in punishing crimes and protecting human rights.
Question 9: How to understand the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings. The new Criminal Procedure Law’s understanding of the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Eliminating reasonable doubt focuses on eliminating "reasonable" doubt and emphasizing the rationality of doubt. The so-called standard for eliminating reasonable doubt is to make a careful and detailed judgment of the evidence based on general life experience from a macro perspective.
Excluding reasonable doubt means eliminating legitimate doubt, rather than random guessing and doubting. Nothing in the world of life is absolutely true. We cannot be as reasonable as we are for various "doubts" in daily life. Doubts and legitimate suspicions, as well as speculations and conjectures in that situation must be dealt with! The determination of facts in criminal cases is not random guessing and speculation. Therefore, reasonable doubt should be the doubt that a judge or people's assessor has after careful consideration of the case evidence based on reason.
Beyond reasonable doubt requires the judicial judge to make an inner confirmation of the facts of the case. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is an undeniable empirical factor. Judges often make their own subjective determinations when determining facts, some of which are similar to precedents. In the French trial, we analyze and prove beyond reasonable doubt. The analysis and elimination of reasonable doubts need to be combined with the "inner confirmation" standard of common law countries to form a moral "confirmation".
Question 10: Which standard is higher: beyond reasonable doubt or a high degree of probability? Reasonable doubt is reasonable doubt? 1. Eliminate reasonable doubt. Eliminate "reasonable" doubt and emphasize the rationality of the doubt.
2. To eliminate reasonable doubt is to eliminate legitimate doubt, not arbitrary doubt. 3. Beyond reasonable doubt requires the judge to be convinced of the existence of the alleged criminal facts. 4. Excluding reasonable doubt does not require absolute certainty.