In modern society, the principle of presumption of innocence is not only the basic principle of criminal procedure law with universal significance in international conventions, but also the constitutional principle of quite a few countries, which has gradually evolved into the theoretical cornerstone of a modern democratic society ruled by law. In China, since the rule of law was emphasized, the principle of presumption of innocence has been highly valued. Many colleagues in academic circles have taken a serious attitude towards scientific research, conducted useful discussions on this issue, and formed * * * knowledge in many aspects. In particular, the government of China has successively participated in or concluded some international conventions for the protection of human rights, and has not made any reservations about the provisions of the principle of presumption of innocence, which shows that the government of China has accepted the requirements and contents of this principle. In the Basic Law of the People's Republic of China (PRC) Special Administrative Region and the Amendment of the Criminal Procedure Law formulated and passed by the legislature, the basic spirit of the principle of presumption of innocence has been fully reflected in the relevant provisions, and bold institutional innovation has been made in combination with China's judicial practice, which has greatly promoted the implementation of the principle of presumption of innocence in China's legislation and justice, and enriched and developed this important principle to a certain extent. However, there are still a few people who hold a negative, critical or skeptical attitude towards the presumption of innocence as a principle of criminal procedure in China. The requirement of criminal procedure legislation to embody the principle of presumption of innocence is not sufficient, and the understanding of the principle of presumption of innocence in judicial practice needs to be further improved, which is inconsistent with the situation that China has signed and will approve its implementation. Therefore, it is far from enough to simply explain that the presumption of innocence is a worldwide legal and cultural phenomenon at present. Only by clarifying the relevant issues can we eliminate the negative, critical or skeptical attitude towards the principle of presumption of innocence, thus ensuring the implementation of the principle of presumption of innocence and further promoting the modernization of criminal justice in China.
First, the basic connotation of the principle of presumption of innocence
Although the principle of presumption of innocence has become an important principle and one of the lowest standards of criminal justice in modern countries, the understanding of its basic connotation is not consistent in academic circles. In the previous discussion, there are mainly the following four viewpoints:
1, some scholars believe that the presumption of innocence means: in the process of criminal proceedings, judicial personnel have some understanding of the innocence of criminal defendants; On the basis of this understanding, the activities of investigating the defendant's criminal proceedings are carried out. People who hold this view think that the presumption of innocence is the opposite of the presumption of guilt. Since the presumption of guilt means that the judicial personnel subjectively identify the criminal defendant as a criminal once he is identified as a criminal, and his litigation activities are carried out on the basis of this understanding, then the presumption of innocence should of course be the opposite. However, although the presumption of innocence and the presumption of guilt are opposite, they still have something in common, that is, they are both subjective understandings of whether a criminal defendant is guilty in the course of criminal proceedings, rather than in the absence of sufficient and conclusive evidence. At the same time, the presumption of innocence is different from the hypothesis in scientific research, because the hypothesis is not a subjective determination, but only a research method; It is also different from the presumption of unknown facts based on known facts, because this presumption is meaningful only in court trials and does not affect the whole litigation process.
2. Some scholars believe that the presumption of innocence means that the judicial personnel should not regard the criminal defendant as a criminal or should regard him as innocent until there is sufficient and conclusive evidence to prove his guilt. Comrades who hold this view believe that the basic spirit of presumption of innocence is to require conviction by evidence. It is in this sense that the presumption of innocence is the opposite of the presumption of guilt. The presumption of guilt is not based on evidence, but that the defendant is accused of a crime, or the criminal defendant can be convicted without sufficient and conclusive evidence. Therefore, the presumption of innocence is neither legal presumption, because the essence of legal presumption is that the case can be finalized without permission; Nor is it subjective knowledge, because it does not require judicial personnel to have a prior understanding of whether the defendant is guilty or not; But a legal requirement is whether the defendant is guilty or not, and ultimately it depends on evidence to determine.
3. Some scholars believe that the presumption of innocence means that in criminal proceedings, the defendant should be presumed innocent before being sentenced, which is a legal fiction. An important function of legal fiction is to determine the existence and right and wrong of some special circumstances stipulated by law without sufficient conclusive evidence. Accordingly, the court can deal with this special situation in a timely manner. For example, people whose whereabouts are unknown for a long time are declared "missing" or "dead" and so on. Of course, this kind of legal fiction is only a temporary assumption, and it is allowed to be overturned if there is sufficient evidence. This kind of legal fiction is not a requirement for the subjective understanding of judicial personnel. Just as there is no evidence to prove that a person whose whereabouts are unknown for a long time is "missing" or "dead", the judicial personnel's understanding of whether he is missing or dead has nothing to do with legal fiction; Presumption of innocence is only a cheap measure in criminal proceedings, which has nothing to do with the judicial personnel's understanding of whether the defendant is guilty or not. At present, many people in academic circles hold this view.
4. Some scholars believe that to explore the meaning of the concept of presumption of innocence, we have to consider the actual situation and draw theoretical conclusions out of thin air. They believe that when discussing the concept of presumption of innocence, we should first pay attention to the fact that this word is a foreign word, so there is a practical problem of whether the translation is accurate. In their view, the translation of "presumption of innocence" is inaccurate. According to the actual content of this principle and the original intention of foreign languages, it should be translated as "presumption of innocence". Secondly, the legislative example of "presumption of innocence" should be an objective situation that should be paid full attention to when conducting research. Judging from legislative cases, there are two different expressions of presumption of innocence. One is represented by the French Declaration of Human Rights, that is, Article 9 stipulates that "anyone shall be presumed innocent before being declared a criminal". The other is represented by the Italian Constitution, that is, "the defendant shall not be considered guilty before the final conviction". The latter expression is also clearly stipulated in the Outline of Criminal Procedure of the Soviet Union, that is, "no one shall be identified as a criminal and punished without a court decision". People who hold this view believe that there is a trivial but important difference between "presumption of innocence" and "not considered guilty"
It should be pointed out that although there are disputes about several rules derived from the principle of presumption of innocence, there is basically no dispute about its main core content. These core contents include: when the defendant is guilty or innocent, and the charges are in doubt, a conclusion should be made in favor of the defendant; The burden of proof to prove that the defendant is guilty shall be borne by the accusing party; The defendant should have the right to remain silent, and his refusal to make statements should not be used as a basis for conviction.
We believe that to explore the basic connotation of the principle of presumption of innocence, in addition to understanding the above meaning, we should also grasp the following two aspects:
1, literally
The word "presumption of innocence" is directly translated from Japanese. Of course, people do not regard "presumption of innocence" as an ordinary word, but as a specialized term in criminal procedure theory and law. Its core is the understanding of the legal meaning of the word "presumption" in this term. In this regard, many people think that this is a legal fiction. That is, as a legal fiction, "presumption of innocence" refers to a criminal defendant who should be regarded as innocent until he is found guilty according to law. However, understanding the presumption of innocence as a legal fiction is still only a literal understanding. There are different understandings of the meaning of this novel. For example, some people think that the meaning is not "the defendant should be considered innocent before being convicted according to law", but "the defendant should not be regarded as a criminal before being convicted according to law." However, the author believes that this discussion of different understanding of literal meaning, although beneficial, is not the key. It is important to investigate the legislative cases of presumption of innocence and explore its legal and literal significance. If we only understand the presumption of innocence literally, we will draw some absurd conclusions, which will be further explained later.
2. Understanding of opposing laws
As far as we know, the word "presumption of innocence" generally does not appear directly in the criminal procedure law documents of any country or region, but is just a legislative example that people think belongs to the expression of "presumption of innocence". For example, the plenary session of the Supreme Court of the former Soviet Union was 1978.
/kloc-a passage in the resolution of June 0/6: the defendant (the person on trial) is considered innocent until he is proved guilty according to legal procedures and confirmed by a legally effective judgment. For another example, Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stipulates that a criminal defendant is not considered a criminal until his crime is determined by a legally effective judgment. Article 9 of the famous French Declaration of Human Rights (1789) stipulates that anyone shall be presumed innocent before being declared guilty. Italy, on the other hand, stipulates in Article 27 of its Constitution 1947 that the defendant should not be considered guilty before the final conviction. Article 86 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region stipulates that anyone who is arrested according to law has the right to a fair trial by the judicial organs as soon as possible and is presumed innocent until convicted by the judicial organs. Of course, it is further elaborated. For example, in the United States, which takes precedent as its legal source, Supreme Court Judge Robert Jackson said in the favorable opinion of Stark v. Boyle that the defendant's traditional right to freedom before conviction is not allowed to hinder his defense preparation and prevent him from being punished before conviction. This right should be protected, otherwise, the presumption of innocence gained after years of struggle will lose its meaning.
. As for international human rights conventions, whether it is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights, the provisions on the presumption of innocence stipulate the contents of "fair trial" and "right to defense" at the same time. Therefore, judging from the relevant legislative cases, the presumption of innocence has never been an isolated principle, but a principle closely related to the litigation rules that guarantee judicial justice and the rights of criminal defendants. Judging from the precedent of presumption of innocence, this feature is more obvious. For example, in the precedent of the European Court of Human Rights on the presumption of innocence, deprivation of the right of defense, partiality in court trial and excessive criminal detention of the defendant are all regarded as violations of the presumption of innocence in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Through the investigation of relevant legislative cases, the understanding of presumption of innocence has broken through the limitations of literal understanding in at least the following three aspects:
First, the above-mentioned legislative examples of presumption of innocence show that various literal understandings of this legal term are actually just copying some legislative examples; The word "presumption of innocence", in a sense, is just the abbreviation of legal provisions expressed in relevant legislative cases.
Second, the presumption of innocence, as a legal principle, is a legal and cultural phenomenon with universal significance. The United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted in 1966 and entered into force in 1976.
The fact that it has been widely recognized by all countries in the world fully illustrates this point.
Third, the literal understanding of "presumption of innocence" is more abstract and poor than the actual situation of legislative cases. As far as legislative cases are concerned, the content of the principle of presumption of innocence is more specific and extensive; It also shows that it is not only an isolated legal principle, but also closely related to other legal provisions in criminal proceedings. As far as the content is concerned, the expression of presumption of innocence in the resolution of the plenary session of the Supreme Court of the former Soviet Union quoted above includes "proved by legal procedures" and "confirmed by a legally effective judgment", which cannot be included in the literal understanding; For another example, Article 4 of the Canadian Constitution 1982 1 1 stipulates that a person accused of a crime shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty by an independent and impartial court in a fair and open trial. It also contains more than the literal understanding. As far as the relationship with other legal provisions is concerned, for example, Article 1 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 stipulates that anyone accused of a criminal offence shall be considered innocent until proven guilty in a public trial according to law, and all the guarantees required for his defense shall be given at the trial. However, in the relevant provisions before and after the second paragraph of Article 14 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there are more extensive contents related to the presumption of innocence that are conducive to ensuring a fair trial and the rights of the defendant.
On the one hand, we have broken through the literal understanding of the principle through the investigation of relevant legislative cases of presumption of innocence, thus making our understanding further; On the other hand, it also caused more problems. For example, what is the content of presumption of innocence, and how does this principle relate to other relevant laws and regulations; Why this principle will become a universal legal and cultural phenomenon in the world, and so on. Only by studying these problems in depth can we have a more comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the meaning of presumption of innocence.
3. Understanding of the nature of presumption of innocence
A correct and comprehensive understanding of the essence of one thing needs to be examined in connection with other things. To understand the essence of presumption of innocence, we must clarify the relationship between presumption of innocence and presumption of guilt and other related issues. To this end, first clarify the following two facts:
First of all, unlike the presumption of innocence, the presumption of guilt has no clear legislative proof. "Presumption of guilt", in a sense, is only a principled summary of some phenomena in the legal system of criminal procedure under feudal autocracy. The meaning of this principle is that anyone accused of a crime is presumed guilty and can be directly declared a criminal or treated as a criminal without due judicial process; In other words, although the criminal defendant is declared a criminal through judicial procedure, this judicial procedure is established and carried out on the basis of assuming that the defendant is guilty. This principle induction of presumption of guilt is mainly aimed at some phenomena in the criminal procedure system under feudal autocracy: a person accused of a crime can be identified as a criminal by the court or other organs with the right to make judgments without other judicial procedures, or can be punished as a criminal; The defendant is the object of litigation, not only has no litigation rights such as defense rights, but also can be detained for a long time or even indefinitely; Lack of open and fair judicial procedures to ensure the objective and fair application of the law in criminal proceedings; The defendant's confession is the king of evidence, which can be obtained by inhuman and unscientific methods such as extorting a confession by torture, and so on.
Second, the presumption of innocence was put forward by the bourgeoisie in the anti-feudal struggle against its autocratic and barbaric criminal prosecution system of presumption of guilt. Since the presumption of innocence was put forward by the bourgeoisie, it is not an isolated principle, but contains a series of contents opposite to the presumption of guilt. This can be illustrated by Beccaria's exposition. Cecily Beccaria, an Italian enlightenment jurist who is regarded as the first to comprehensively expound the principle of presumption of innocence, said in her book Crime and Punishment written in 1764: Before making a guilty verdict; No one can be called a criminal. Society cannot but protect him. If the crime is not proved, innocent people should not be tortured. Because anyone, when his crime is not proved, should be considered innocent according to the law. At that time, it was limited to the theoretical explanation and propaganda of presumption of innocence. After the victory of the bourgeois revolution, this principle was stipulated as law, and then under the guidance of the spirit of this principle, a series of litigation systems against presumption of guilt were established. If the defendant has all kinds of litigation rights with the right of defense as the core; The defendant should be investigated for criminal responsibility through fair judicial procedures; It is forbidden to extort confessions by torture and deny the evidential effect of confessions and other evidence obtained by illegal means; The defendant does not bear the burden of proof; There should be restrictions on compulsory measures taken against the defendant, and so on.
The above two facts imply that we have two points. One thing is: to understand the meaning of presumption of innocence, we must consider it in the relationship of its opposite-presumption of guilt, and then regard presumption of innocence not as an isolated principle, but as a guiding ideology closely related to many aspects of the criminal procedure system, so as to obtain a complete understanding of this principle. On the other hand, it is precisely because of the close relationship between the principle of presumption of innocence and many aspects of the criminal procedure system that this principle has strong vitality and has been widely valued and recognized by most countries in the world. In fact, the concept of presumption of innocence has long existed. For example, in ancient China, there was an idea that "it is better to kill people than to lose them".
. However, this exciting ideological spark failed to break through the darkness of China's feudal autocratic criminal procedure system for thousands of years, leaving us with regret that it only blossomed and failed to bear fruit. Explore, in addition to being restricted by the social system at that time, the germination of this idea of presumption of innocence has not been implemented and reflected in the relevant content of the criminal procedure system, which is also an important reason. However, the bourgeoisie is different. They not only put forward the idea of presumption of innocence, but also stipulated it as law, which was then implemented and embodied in the relevant content of the criminal procedure system. This is an important reason why its criminal procedure system is very different from the feudal criminal procedure system and shows its advanced nature in many aspects. Therefore, if there are many progressive contents in the capitalist criminal procedure system, which are closely related to the principle of presumption of innocence as a reference for many countries in the world to establish modern criminal procedure systems, it is not surprising that most countries in the world generally attach importance to and confirm the principle of presumption of innocence in their legal systems.
To sum up, the author believes that the meaning of "presumption of innocence" should be understood as follows: presumption of innocence means that a criminal defendant should be presumed innocent before being convicted in accordance with due process stipulated by law; As a principle of criminal procedure, like the presumption of guilt, it is not an isolated principle, but closely related to many aspects of the criminal procedure system; This principle is not only of great historical significance in the anti-feudal struggle, but also a legal and cultural phenomenon of universal significance in the world since modern times.
Second, the value structure of the presumption of innocence principle
As a basic legal norm to determine and protect the defendant's legal status, it has gone far beyond the boundaries of social system, ideology and legal and cultural traditions, and has become a universally recognized constitutional principle in all countries of the world, and is fully reflected in the criminal procedure structure of modern countries as an institutional element of a democratic and rule-by-law society. It can be seen that the principle of presumption of innocence is not only universal, but also has become a solid foundation for the survival and development of modern society. Therefore, it is undoubtedly of great theoretical value and practical significance to deeply explore its value structure.
1, the procedural significance of the principle of presumption of innocence
As mentioned above, there is no doubt that the presumption of innocence, as the principle opposite to the presumption of guilt, needs to reflect a series of requirements in the criminal procedure system. However, what are the specific requirements of the presumption of innocence for the criminal procedure system and what are the contents of these requirements? However, after a long-term debate, it is still a controversial issue in academic and theoretical circles. The requirement of elaborating the principle of presumption of innocence should include all the contents, which is beyond the length of this article, but it is necessary and possible to explain the core content. The author believes that according to the meaning of the principle of presumption of innocence, the requirements of this principle for the criminal procedure system mainly include the following aspects:
First, since the presumption of innocence means that the defendant should be regarded as innocent before being convicted, it is logical and inevitable that the criminal procedure legal system endows and protects the defendant's various litigation rights. The modern criminal procedure system of all countries in the world has endowed defendants with a wide range of litigation rights with the right of defense as the core, and paid attention to ensuring them to realize these rights, which is inevitably related to their affirmation of the principle of presumption of innocence. Therefore, it can be said that it is one of the basic requirements of the principle of presumption of innocence to make the defendant get rid of the status of the object of litigation and have the status of the subject of litigation rights.
Second, since the presumption of innocence requires that the defendant be investigated for criminal responsibility through legal procedures, it is the proper meaning of the criminal procedure legal system to establish a fair litigation procedure to investigate the defendant's criminal responsibility and safeguard his inviolable dignity. Although it is not easy to determine the meaning of the fair litigation procedure established according to the need of the principle of presumption of innocence (because there are many judicial procedures stipulated in different judicial systems, which vary greatly), its central point can be determined, that is, it is completely opposite to the judicial arbitrariness that prevails when the judicial organs investigate the criminal responsibility of the defendant under the criminal procedure system of presumption of guilt, or it restricts the behavior of the judicial organs, so that their judicial activities can not only help to achieve objective justice, but also avoid unfair treatment of the defendant.
Thirdly, since the presumption of innocence assumes the innocence of the defendant before the judgment, there must be sufficient and conclusive evidence to refute this assumption in any specific case; Not only that, but more importantly, in any specific case, the burden of proof and proof should be borne by the plaintiff to overthrow this assumption of the defendant; Torture and other illegal means of obtaining evidence are prohibited. For the court, this means that the guilty verdict of the defendant should be based on conclusive and sufficient evidence, and confession is no longer the king of evidence; For the defendant, he should not bear the obligation to plead guilty. Although he failed to prove his innocence, if the complainant's allegations are not conclusive and sufficient evidence, he should turn the assumption of innocence into the basis of judgment.
Fourthly, since the presumption of innocence assumes that the defendant is innocent before the judgment, it should be an inevitable requirement of this principle that he cannot be treated as a criminal before the judgment. In modern criminal proceedings, the defendant should not be regarded as a criminal. The central idea is a series of compulsory litigation measures that require strict restrictions on the defendant's civil rights, especially personal freedom. They should not only be used with caution, but also be terminated as soon as possible, so that the defendant can be tried in time and its final legal status can be determined. Arbitrary detention, prolonged detention or indefinite detention are not allowed.
The above discussion shows that the core content of the requirement of the principle of presumption of innocence for the criminal procedure system involves all aspects of the criminal procedure system: from the basic legal status of the defendant to the responsibilities of the judicial organs, from the judicial procedure system, the compulsory measures system to the evidence system, all of which are restricted by the principle of presumption of innocence. At the same time, the requirements of presumption of innocence are not isolated and irrelevant, but interlocking, and only the overall operation can realize the principle of presumption of innocence. In addition, for those clauses in the criminal procedure system that reflect the requirements of the principle of presumption of innocence, only by linking them with the principle of presumption of innocence can we understand their deeper significance.
2. The objective and true value of the principle of presumption of innocence.
Law needs to reflect social reality and its needs. The objective authenticity of law is its objectivity and degree of reflecting social reality and its needs. As far as the objective truth of the presumption of innocence is concerned, it is related to the objective reality and requirements of criminal proceedings. This can be discussed from the following aspects:
First of all, the occurrence of criminal proceedings is based on the fact that there will be no criminal proceedings without criminal traces, and there will be no criminal charges without criminal suspects. This fact shows that the criminal proceedings aimed at investigating the defendant's criminal responsibility, from filing investigation to prosecution to trial, are generally based on the premise that the public security and judicial organs determine that the defendant is suspected of committing a crime. Materialist dialectics tells us that if we only understand things from one angle, we will easily fall into subjective extremes and make mistakes. The value of presumption of innocence lies in that the defendant should be presumed innocent before judgment, which requires the judiciary to understand from an opposite angle: it requires the judiciary to always pay attention to its own understanding of criminal facts and criminal defendants at all stages of litigation, and whether there is a solid and sufficient basis to overthrow this legal assumption. Presumption of innocence embodies the objective requirements of judicial organs to prevent subjective understanding from being one-sided.
Secondly, in a sense, criminal proceedings are the confrontation between the accused suspected of committing a crime and the state public security and judicial organs. It goes without saying that the strength of confrontation between national judicial organs and criminal defendants is quite different. This difference in power contrast is not only caused by the fact that the national judicial organs have financial resources, material resources, manpower and various specialized technical means that the defendant cannot have, but also because the criminal defendant is in a special legal position and is deprived of or restricted from enjoying certain rights as a citizen (such as personal freedom is restricted). The principle of presumption of innocence requires giving and protecting the defendant a wide range of litigation rights and restricting the judicial activities of the judicial organs. Although it is not enough and impossible to achieve the equivalence between judicial organs and defendants in criminal proceedings, it helps to achieve a certain degree of balance. As a legal hypothesis, the aforementioned presumption of innocence has the function of preventing the judicial organs from subjectively understanding one-sidedness, and its practical significance is also obvious to be guaranteed by this balance.
Third, criminal proceedings have two basic tasks, that is, to discover, expose and prove crimes and criminals, and to apply the law correctly to investigate their criminal responsibility; At the same time, innocent people should be protected from criminal prosecution. Presumption of innocence plays an indispensable role in realizing these two tasks. For example, the presumption of innocence requires that the defendant be given a wide range of litigation rights and it is forbidden to extort confessions by torture, which not only helps to protect innocent people from criminal investigation, but also helps the judicial organs to correctly understand the objective situation of the case.
Therefore, the principle of presumption of innocence is based on the objective reality of criminal procedure, which is necessary to ensure the fair and accurate realization of criminal procedure tasks, so it has undeniable objective authenticity. However, in the eyes of some people who have doubts about the principle of presumption of innocence, criminal proceedings are based on the existence of a crime from filing, investigation, prosecution to trial. If the defendant is presumed innocent before judgment, it is obviously not in line with the actual situation of criminal proceedings. This is the result of understanding the principle of presumption of innocence only literally. The mistake of this understanding is that according to this understanding, criminal proceedings based on the principle of presumption of innocence will be more ignorant, barbaric and backward than criminal proceedings based on the principle of presumption of guilt. Because according to the principle of presumption of guilt, it is still necessary to take suspicion as the premise to prosecute crimes, while according to the principle of presumption of innocence, it is no longer necessary to take suspicion as the premise to prosecute crimes, so anyone will be criminally prosecuted on the premise of being considered innocent. It is of course absurd to draw such a conclusion based on this understanding of the principle of presumption of innocence.
3. The social value of the principle of presumption of innocence
First, although the democratic degree of the criminal procedure system can be reflected in many aspects, the existence and breadth of the defendant's litigation rights is the most prominent, even the most important aspect. Because democracy always needs to be embodied in human rights. In criminal proceedings, the defendant is a special person in the central position, and the existence and sufficiency of his litigation rights are of course of decisive significance to the democratic degree of the criminal procedure system. Presumption of innocence requires establishing the defendant's status as the subject of litigation and giving him extensive litigation rights, which is of positive significance to the democratic development of the criminal procedure system.
Second, although the degree of civilization of the criminal procedure system is determined by many factors, the different means to realize the criminal procedure tasks more clearly reflect the degree of civilization of the criminal procedure system in an intuitive sense. Because of the different means to realize the task of criminal procedure, people can and will judge their own civilization. For example, the prevalence of extorting confessions by torture in the criminal procedure system during the fascist period is an important reason why it is regarded as a barbaric criminal procedure system. Presumption of innocence requires strict prohibition of brutal means such as extorting confessions by torture, so as to realize the task of investigating crimes in criminal proceedings and strictly limit the coercive measures taken against defendants, which is actually an outstanding contribution to the civilized development of the criminal procedure system.
Thirdly, if it is a dual and often contradictory task to investigate the criminal responsibility of criminals and avoid the innocent being investigated in the process of criminal proceedings, how to coordinate these two tasks is an important symbol to determine the degree of democracy and civilization of the criminal procedure system. The criminal procedure system of presumption of guilt focuses on completing the former task, and the latter task is only an appendage of the former task. Therefore, instead of letting go of any defendant who may be a criminal, it is better to catch the wrong sentence by mistake. This is a typical result of presumption of guilt. Presumption of innocence requires the defendant to be presumed innocent from the beginning of criminal proceedings, which requires the judicial organs to always pay attention to protecting innocent people from criminal investigation in terms of understanding and the establishment of judicial procedures. Therefore, put these two tasks in the same important position. Therefore, as long as we realize the possibility of wrong arrest or wrong judgment, we can't arrest or convict, which is the inevitable requirement of presumption of innocence. At a glance, the two principles have different ways to deal with the contradictions arising from these two tasks.
It should be noted that the degree of democracy and civilization of the criminal procedure system is not simply determined by whether the principle of presumption of innocence is implemented, but its development level is also restricted by many other factors such as social politics, economy and culture. However, the principle of presumption of innocence puts forward requirements and points out the direction for the democratic and civilized development of the criminal procedure system, which is of great positive significance to promoting the democratic and civilized progress of the criminal procedure system. For China, its positive significance should be further affirmed. Because the legal system of criminal procedure in China has not fully reflected the requirements of the principle of presumption of innocence in some aspects. For example, China's criminal procedure law not only does not clearly stipulate that "self-incrimination is not allowed", but also clearly stipulates that criminal suspects have the obligation to "truthfully answer" when being questioned; For another example, the "right to know", which is of great significance to the protection and realization of the right to defense, has not been fully reflected in China's criminal procedure law. Therefore, it is of great significance to clarify the meaning and publicize the spirit of the principle of presumption of innocence for promoting the development and perfection of China's criminal procedure legal system and approving China's accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at an early date.