Also known as innocent analogy, it means that anyone should be presumed innocent before being convicted according to law. As a constitutional principle and the basic principle of criminal procedure law, it has been adopted by criminal proceedings in most countries in the world.
The principle of presumption of innocence first appeared in the bourgeois enlightenment in 1764, and was put forward by Bellaria of Italy. It has a history of hundreds of years, but the principle of presumption of innocence is different in the legal provisions of various countries in the world, but its basic spirit and connotation are similar. Article 12 of China's Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that no one shall be found guilty without a judgment by the people's court according to law. Although this article does not directly state "presumption of innocence", it clearly embodies its basic spirit and clearly stipulates that only the people's court has the right to conviction, that is, before the people's court makes an effective conviction judgment in accordance with legal procedures, any accused person should be regarded as innocent.
I. Presumption of innocence and guilt
The "presumption of innocence" in the principle of modern criminal procedure law is mainly aimed at the presumption of guilt in inquisitorial criminal proceedings under feudal autocracy. Presumption of guilt means that in the process of criminal proceedings, the defendant is presumed to be the actual criminal without being convicted by judicial organs according to law. They are a pair of relative concepts in different social forms, and also reflect that the legal system has made corresponding progress with the development of the world economy, paying more attention to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of defendants and standardizing the exercise of procuratorial organs' powers.
Presumption of guilt is mainly reflected in the following phenomena in the criminal procedure system: for example, the defendant mainly exists as the object of litigation and has no right to defense; The defendant is the main source of evidence, and confession is one of the most valuable evidence, and torture can be used to extract confessions; The trial does not need to be open, and there is no distinction between the judiciary and the administration, and there is no distinction between prosecution and trial. The above phenomenon can be summarized into two forms: (1) the general public's judgment of the defendant's guilt is seriously externalized without the judicial organs' judgment according to law, which infringes on the defendant's basic rights such as reputation and privacy, or forms negative public opinion guidance on the defendant's conviction and sentencing; (2) Before the judicial organs determine whether they are guilty or not according to law, the public authorities infringe upon the defendant's personal rights and litigation rights or prejudge or even deal with the defendant.
However, the principle of presumption of innocence emphasizes that the defendant must have sufficient, conclusive and effective evidence. If he cannot be proved guilty in the trial, he should be presumed innocent. It is embodied in the following aspects: (1) When the people's court hears a case, the defendant's behavior should not be regarded as a crime. The defendant is in the position of "criminal suspect" before being prosecuted, and in the position of "defendant" after being prosecuted, thus avoiding treating him as a "guilty person" or a "criminal"; (2) There is no doubt; (3) The people's procuratorate can only make a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute, but not to exempt from prosecution. In the process of court hearing, the public prosecutor has the responsibility to produce evidence to prove that the defendant is guilty, and the defendant does not assume the obligation to prove his guilt or innocence.
Second, the content of the principle of presumption of innocence
The core content of the principle of presumption of innocence is to protect the legitimate rights of criminal suspects and defendants and standardize the exercise of the power of procuratorial organs. It specifically includes the following three rules:
1. Doubt never has rules. That is, if the evidence produced by the prosecution is not enough to find the criminal suspect or defendant guilty, it shall be declared innocent. The determination of any case must rely on reliable and sufficient evidence. If you can't meet the standard of proof, it will form a mystery. The principle of presumption of innocence is to deal with doubtful cases according to the principle of "no doubt", that is, to declare innocence in the judgment. This fully reflects the protection of human rights in our laws.
2. Rules of proof for the prosecution. That is, the plaintiff bears the responsibility of proving the criminal suspect or defendant guilty. In criminal proceedings, the burden of proof of the defendant's guilt is borne by the people's procuratorate or the private prosecutor, and the defendant has no obligation to prove his innocence. Articles 89, 137 and 140 of China's Criminal Procedure Law clearly stipulate that the burden of proof for finding a criminal suspect or defendant guilty lies with the state judicial organ, not the defendant. If the defendant is required to bear the burden of proof, it will inevitably go back to the old road of presumption of guilt, and it will also lead to the phenomenon of extorting confessions by torture.
3. The rule of the right to silence. The rule of the right to silence is closely related to the spirit of human rights protection of presumption of innocence and the attribution of burden of proof. No one should be a tool to sue himself. The law gives criminal suspects and defendants the right to remain silent, and it is up to them to decide whether to exercise the right to refute the charges and whether to cooperate with the judicial organs, which also reflects the status of criminal suspects and defendants as subjects of will and litigation. Criminal suspects and defendants have no obligation to prove their innocence and should not be tortured to extract confessions. If they remain silent, the investigation must be stopped, and only the defendants confess, without other evidence, they may not be convicted. It is forbidden to extort confessions by torture in criminal proceedings, but criminal suspects should truthfully answer the questions of investigators.
Third, the application of the principle of presumption of innocence in judicial practice
In the history of judicial practice in the world, although the principle of presumption of innocence is not clearly stipulated in the laws and regulations of various countries, it will be reflected in the trial of adjudicative cases in courts of various countries. For example, 1994 American football player Simpson's murder of his wife caused a sensation in the United States, and the trial at that time was full of twists and turns. However, due to mistakes in the process of obtaining evidence, the prosecution was finally acquitted due to insufficient evidence. Therefore, this case has become the largest case in American history and is still a typical case studied by the legal profession. Simpson case mainly embodies the conviction standard of "excluding reasonable doubt" in American criminal cases, and requires the evidence to withstand the scrutiny of all reasonable doubts. That is to say, in a court trial, if the prosecution wants to accuse the defendant of being guilty, it must produce conclusive and credible evidence to prove that the defendant is guilty, which is a concentrated expression of the irregularities in the prosecution's proof rules and the principle of presumption of innocence. Therefore, transcending the standard of reasonable doubt is the application of presumption of innocence in American judicial practice.
The principle of presumption of innocence has not been fully implemented in China's judicial practice. In recent years, Yang Botao case of Zhengzhou University, Zhao Zuohai case of Henan Province and wife-killing case of She Xianglin City of Hubei Province have been rehabilitated. Most of these cases are cases of insufficient evidence and extorting confessions by torture. Although the truth finally came out, the belated justice is by no means true justice, which shows the importance of the principle of presumption of innocence in judicial practice. Although article 12 of China's criminal procedure law stipulates that "no one shall be convicted without a judgment by the people's court according to law", it only embodies the principle of presumption of innocence to a certain extent. There is still a difference between the two. The principle of presumption of innocence emphasizes that the defendant and the criminal suspect should be regarded as innocent until they are confirmed guilty, which is the confirmation of their innocent state, while the provisions of article 12 are suspected of evading guilt or determining the answer without guilt. The principle of presumption of innocence has not been fully and clearly applied in China, especially the legislation on the right of silence of defendants and criminal suspects and the abandonment and exclusion of illegal evidence needs to be improved.
This also reflects that "it is better to kill one person by mistake than to put one person wrong" in a society ruled by law.
Justice is the last line of defense for national fairness and justice, and it is also the source of national fairness and justice. As one of the basic principles of criminal procedure, the principle of presumption of innocence embodies the principle that "it is better to kill one person by mistake than to release one person by mistake", which is of great significance to prevent the abuse of state power and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties. The principle of presumption of innocence should be established in China's laws as soon as possible and thoroughly implemented in the judiciary, which is very important to realize the goal of judicial reform centered on trial in criminal proceedings in China.
See:
1. Outline of Criminal Procedure by Yang Xiong and Yang Xiong, Wuzhou Media Publishing House.
2. Lawyer Li Jun's blog, Simpson's judgment-a typical case of presumption of innocence.