Article 12 of Chapter 1 of the General Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) clearly stipulates that no one shall be found guilty without the judgment of the people's court. This is an important principle determined by the new criminal procedure law, which is called the principle of "presumption of innocence" or the principle of "no doubt". The new criminal procedure law further confirms this principle in the trial procedure. The third paragraph of Article 162 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that the people's court shall make an acquittal if "the evidence is insufficient to determine that the defendant is guilty and the alleged crime cannot be established". It can be said that determining the principle of "presumption of innocence" is a great progress in China's criminal procedure system. In the trial practice, we must deeply understand the legislative spirit of this principle, firmly grasp its essential characteristics, reasonably and accurately apply the legal provisions, and better play its role in punishing crimes, protecting people, ensuring safety and maintaining stability. First, the origin and legislative intention of the principle of "presumption of innocence" as the name suggests, is put forward for the principle of "presumption of guilt" in feudal society. The general expression is: "That is, the defendant should be presumed innocent before the court finds him guilty according to law". This idea was first put forward by Italian jurist Beccaria in his book Crime and Punishment published in 1764. Its main meaning is: "No one can be called a criminal until a guilty verdict is made. Society will have to protect the defendant before it is judged that he has indeed violated the conditions he should abide by. " This principle is an important product of the western bourgeois democratic revolution and the struggle of feudal landlords. Under the wave of bourgeois revolution, this advanced ideological theory was brought to the whole European and American countries. After the bourgeoisie gained political power, this ideological and theoretical principle was first enshrined in the constitution or criminal law of some countries in Europe and America, and gradually incorporated into some countries outside Europe and America with the spread of western culture, which made the ideological and theoretical principle of presumption of innocence recognized worldwide. International legal documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have also established this principle. Undoubtedly, the presumption of innocence, compared with the presumption of guilt under the feudal autocratic system and forcing the interviewee to prove his guilt by torture, is undoubtedly a thorough change in criminal proceedings and a great progress in the history of human legal civilization. The principle of presumption of innocence can be summarized as four basic rules: first, only the court can convict someone in accordance with legal procedures. That is, the right to conviction belongs to the court. Second, the burden of proof to prove the crime is borne by the plaintiff, usually by the police and procuratorial organs. Because according to the theory of natural human rights, people's basic rights are innate, innocent and need no proof. If the state wants to push him to the status of a criminal, it must produce evidence of guilt, otherwise "anyone" will not be transformed into a criminal without changing his innocent legal status. Third, there is no doubt. The evidence to prove guilt must reach a sufficient level, that is, to convince the court of guilt, otherwise "no one" can become a criminal. Fourth, the defendant has the right to remain silent and cannot force anyone to make statements against him. It is generally believed in legal circles that the first three schemes are the most basic meanings of presumption of innocence, the first two are procedural elements and the third is substantive elements. As for the right to silence, it does not affect whether the principle of presumption of innocence is implemented. Presumption of innocence is a universally recognized principle in the criminal procedure law of all countries in the world. Whether this principle can be applied to criminal proceedings in China is a long-standing debate and a very inconsistent understanding. From the "anti-rightist" struggle in the mid-1950s to the opposition to bourgeois liberalization and the elimination of spiritual pollution in the 1980s, the legal circles in China have never stopped criticizing the principle of presumption of innocence. Especially during the Cultural Revolution, the public security law was smashed, the party committee was kicked out of the bureau to engage in revolution, and the presumption of innocence was regarded as a "forbidden area". Imagine that a security officer of a rural production team can arrest people, bind people and interrogate criminals at will. Who dares to mention the presumption of innocence? At that time, the presumption of innocence was branded as "class". In the 1980s, the legal circles in China mainly debated whether it conformed to China's national conditions, arguing that the principle of "seeking truth from facts" was the principle, and there was no need to stipulate the principle of presumption of innocence. With the deepening of reform and opening up, China's politics, economy and culture are fully integrated with the world, and the principle of presumption of innocence has been recognized by more and more legal professionals. It was not until 1996 that the Criminal Procedure Law was revised that it was written into the new Criminal Procedure Law as a basic principle. There are several reasons for establishing the principle of presumption of innocence: 1. The principle of presumption of innocence is a general rule in the legislation of all countries in the world, and it is also a general provision in international conventions. Presumption of innocence is a basic principle in the criminal procedure law of European and American legal system countries and civil law system countries. If China's economy wants to be fully integrated with the world, the law as its security system should also have this principle. 2. The principle of presumption of innocence has precedent in China's domestic law. Both the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Basic Law of the Macao Special Administrative Region promulgated by the National People's Congress clearly stipulate that "everyone is presumed innocent until convicted by the judicial organs". The basic laws of Hong Kong and Macao are domestic laws, not foreign laws. 3. Establishing the principle of presumption of innocence is conducive to the effective protection of human rights in litigation. According to the principle of presumption of innocence, anyone can only be a "suspect" or a "defendant" before being convicted without a judgment. Therefore, the law should not only endow and guarantee the defendant to fully exercise the litigation rights such as the right of defense, but also effectively prevent the case-handling personnel from "presupposing" the defendant's guilt and engaging in the de facto presumption of guilt. 4. Establishing the principle of presumption of innocence is conducive to improving the professional quality and handling quality of public security judicial personnel. The core content of the principle of presumption of innocence is to require the prosecution to prove the defendant with sufficient evidence. If enough evidence can be collected to overturn the plaintiff's presumption of innocence, he can be confirmed guilty. It makes public security and prosecutors bear strict burden of proof, which will effectively urge public security political and legal organs to improve their professional quality and law enforcement environment, and ultimately help to improve the socialist legal system. 5. Establishing the principle of presumption of innocence is conducive to solving difficult cases. Presumption of innocence means that if the defendant cannot be proved guilty, he should be presumed innocent. This is conducive to completely solving the abnormal practice that the defendant is detained indefinitely because the case (so-called suspected crime) that cannot be proved by insufficient evidence is delayed for a long time. 6. Establishing the principle of presumption of innocence is conducive to overcoming the wrong behavior of extorting a confession by torture and abusing the supervised personnel. It is forbidden to extort confessions by torture, which is clearly stipulated in China's criminal law and criminal procedure law. However, in the past, it was repeatedly banned. One of the important reasons is that the public security political and legal personnel regard the defendant as a criminal and think that we should "strike hard" the "bad guys". Establishing the principle of presumption of innocence will help to reverse the concept of public security and judicial personnel, thus reducing or gradually eliminating this phenomenon. Second, the nature and characteristics of the principle of presumption of innocence The establishment of the principle of "presumption of innocence" essentially shifts the burden of proof borne by the parties in the past to the prosecution, which is a new division of burden of proof. In the past, if the parties did not have enough evidence to prove their innocence, they were presumed guilty, that is, "self-incrimination", "self-incrimination" or "presumption of guilt"; According to the new procedural law, if the prosecutor does not have exact and sufficient evidence to prove that the party concerned is guilty, he should make an innocent judgment with insufficient evidence and uncertain charges, that is, "notarized guilt" or "presumption of innocence" and "beyond doubt". From "self-incrimination" to "notarized guilt" and from "presumption of guilt" to "presumption of innocence", China's criminal procedure law has achieved a huge leap. Because it protects not only the interests of the defendant, but the interests of every member of society. Because everyone can be the defendant. Why do criminal suspects and defendants not bear the burden of proof, while procuratorial organs bear the burden of proof? This is because, first, the object of proof in criminal proceedings is very complicated and the proof requirements are very high, but the vast majority of criminal suspects and defendants are restricted by some compulsory measures because of their personal freedom, and they have no right to collect evidence, nor can they conduct investigations, and they simply cannot produce evidence to prove their innocence. Even if some evidence can be presented, it is often difficult to reach a clear and sufficient level. Let criminal suspects and defendants bear the burden of proof as judicial organs, which will inevitably lead to the unfavorable position of criminal suspects and defendants in litigation. Putting the burden of proof on the defendant does not conform to the principle of fairness under the rule of law. Secondly, putting the burden of proof on the criminal suspect and the defendant will easily make the judicial personnel shirk the burden of proof and passively rely on the criminal suspect to prove their guilt or innocence, which will have a negative impact on the determination of the case. The third is the theory of natural human rights put forward by bourgeois jurists. People have no obligation to prove their guilt or innocence. The principle of presumption of innocence determines that in public prosecution cases, criminal suspects and defendants generally do not bear the burden of proof, that is, they have no obligation to prove their innocence, and they cannot draw the conclusion that they are guilty just because they cannot prove their innocence. However, criminal suspects and defendants do not have the right to remain silent. The law clearly stipulates that criminal suspects should truthfully answer investigators' questions, that is to say, guilty criminal suspects should truthfully explain their crimes and provide evidence that they can provide; An innocent criminal suspect shall truthfully state the facts of innocence and provide evidence or clues that he can provide. This is completely different from the laws of western countries. The laws of western countries, including Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, stipulate that the parties have the right to remain silent and can refuse to answer police questions. But our country is different. Since a criminal suspect knows best whether he has committed a crime or not, the law cannot allow him to refuse to answer questions or make false statements. (2) "For a guilty person, asking him to truthfully account for the crime is conducive to the investigation organ to accurately and timely find out the case; For the innocent, he is required to actively cooperate with the investigation organs, help find out the truth, catch the real criminals, and get rid of the suspects as soon as possible. The criminal suspect must answer truthfully, which does not mean that he has the burden of proof; The fact that a criminal suspect does not bear the burden of proof does not mean that he has the right to silence. " Starting from the practice of criminal proceedings, this provision of the law gets rid of the shackles of the traditional concept of burden of proof and the misunderstanding of western evidence theory, which is not only conducive to cracking down on criminals, but also conducive to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of criminal suspects and defendants. It can be said that it conforms to China's national conditions and is a legal principle with China characteristics. But everything is changing. With the change of China's national conditions, the further improvement of China's socialist legal system, the further improvement of social civilization and the further enhancement of people's legal consciousness, another human right "right to silence" derived from the principle of "presumption of innocence" will also be written into law. The issue of "the right to silence" is also a hot topic in the field of law.
Legal objectivity:
Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Law "Minor criminal cases with victim evidence directly accepted by the people's courts" refers to the following criminal cases with victim evidence: (1) Cases of intentional injury (minor injuries); (2) Bigamy cases; (3) Cases of abandonment; (4) Cases of interference with freedom of communication; (5) Cases of trespassing on other people's houses; (six) cases of producing and selling fake and inferior commodities (except those that seriously endanger social order and national interests); (seven) cases of infringement of intellectual property rights (except those that seriously endanger social order and national interests); (8) Other minor criminal cases in which the defendant can be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years as stipulated in Chapters IV and V of the Specific Provisions of the Criminal Law. In the above eight cases, if the victim brings a lawsuit directly to the people's court, the people's court shall accept it according to law. If the evidence is insufficient to be accepted by the public security organ, it shall be transferred to the public security organ for investigation. If the victim complains to the public security organ, the public security organ shall accept it. The crime of perjury and the crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling shall be investigated by the public security organs. Legal basis: Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) Article 1 Cases of private prosecution directly accepted by the people's courts include: (1) Cases handled after being informed: 1. Cases of insult and slander (except those that seriously endanger social order and national interests as stipulated in Article 246th of the Criminal Law); Violent interference with freedom of marriage (as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 257th of the Criminal Law); 13. Abuse cases (as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 260th of the Criminal Law); 4. Corruption cases (as stipulated in Article 270 of the Criminal Law). (2) Minor criminal cases where the people's procuratorate has not initiated public prosecution and the victim has evidence to prove it: 1. Cases of intentional injury (as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 234 of the Criminal Law); Case of illegal invasion of houses (stipulated in Article 245th of the Criminal Law); 13. Cases of infringement of freedom of communication (stipulated in Article 252 of the Criminal Law); 4. Bigamy case (stipulated in Article 258 of the Criminal Law); 5. The crime of abandonment (stipulated in Article 26 1 of the Criminal Law); Case of producing and selling fake and inferior commodities (except those that seriously endanger social order and national interests as stipulated in the first section of Chapter III of the Specific Provisions of the Criminal Law); 7 cases of infringement of intellectual property rights (except those that seriously endanger social order and national interests, as stipulated in Section 7 of Chapter III of the Specific Provisions of the Criminal Law); Cases in which the defendant may be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years as stipulated in Chapter IV and Chapter V of the Specific Provisions of the Criminal Law. If the victim brings a lawsuit directly to the people's court under the circumstances specified in this paragraph, the people's court shall accept it according to law. If the evidence is insufficient and the public security organ can accept it, or the defendant may be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of more than three years, the victim shall be informed to report the case to the public security organ or transfer it to the public security organ for investigation. (3) Cases in which the victim has evidence to prove that the defendant has violated his personal and property rights and should be investigated for criminal responsibility according to law, and there is evidence to prove that he has filed a complaint, but the public security organ or the people's procuratorate will not investigate the criminal responsibility of the defendant.