First, the occurrence of wrongful convictions is both a possibility and an inevitability. Why do wrongful convictions occur? Regarding this, it can be said that there are different opinions from ancient and modern Chinese and foreign people, high-level civil servants and even people in the legal profession. But in general, I think there are ideological reasons, factual reasons, legal application reasons, and even work system reasons. In addition to the misconduct of judicial personnel (such as torture to extract confessions and other violations of legal procedures), there are many reasons for wrongful convictions worthy of study. It can be said that criminal wrongful conviction is a homosexual issue faced by human society. Not only do countries with imperfect legal systems make misjudgments, but countries with sound legal systems also make misjudgments. In this sense, because as long as people have cognitive limitations, the occurrence of criminal wrongful convictions is first a possibility, and secondly a necessity, that is, its inevitability. As Comrade Shen Deyong said: "At present, the idea of ????presumption of guilt has not been completely carved out, the idea of ????presumption of innocence has not been truly established, and the probability of unjust, false and wrongful convictions can even be said to be relatively high. In this regard, we must maintain We should have a clear understanding and at the same time further strengthen our awareness of preventing unjust, false and wrongful convictions, rather than miscarriage of justice. The "misplacement" and "miscarriage of justice" mentioned at this time are only actual harmfulness. comparison. When there are omissions in the procedures and flaws in the evidence, "misplacement" may prevent the occurrence of a wrongful conviction, and "miscarriage of justice" may directly lead to the occurrence of a wrongful conviction. Therefore, there is a value judgment of "misplacement is worse than misjudgment." This value judgment exactly echoes the modern judicial concept of "presumption of innocence."
Second, the correction of wrongful convictions requires both substantive and procedural justice. There is a saying that we are all familiar with, that is, "neither wrong a good person nor condone a bad person." It should be said that this is not only a beautiful legend, but also a good wish and ideal state for criminal justice. However, this is not possible under any country’s criminal justice system. Although we cannot achieve 100% absolute justice, we must still use 100% of our efforts to pursue relative justice. In other words, we must strive to make people feel justice in the handling of individual cases, which includes both substantive justice and procedural justice. Substantive justice and procedural justice are two aspects of judicial justice. China's judicial tradition places too much emphasis on substantive justice. Judicial practice has proven that the one-sided pursuit of substantive justice will not only lead to indifference or even trampling on the legitimate rights of litigation participants, but will also lead to distortion of the concept of judicial fairness and even lead to wrongful convictions. The values ??of procedural justice such as "presumption of innocence" and "beyond reasonable doubt" must be reflected not only at the trial stage, but also throughout the entire criminal proceedings. Take Li Huailiang as an example. Although Li Huailiang made a guilty confession, after repeated trials by the court, there are still contradictions between Li Huailiang's guilty confession and witness testimony, on-site inspection records, expert opinions and other evidence, which cannot be ruled out. Therefore, Li Huailiang was acquitted, which fully reflects the judicial principles and concepts of "presumption of innocence" and "beyond suspicion". Although there can be various speculations and doubts from various aspects, this is a manifestation and requirement of the rule of law and must be observed and observed. The vindication of Uncle Zhang Gaoping's case does not depend on accidental factors such as the resurrection of the victim, the appearance of the real culprit, or the arrest of the real culprit. Rather, it is up to the judicial organs to change their past prudent and conservative practice of correcting miscarriages of justice, judge whether the case is fully established based on the characteristics of the evidence itself, and ultimately make a bold not-guilty verdict. It should be said that this is a great progress in the construction of our country's rule of law, and it also marks that our country's judicial organs have reached a new level in correcting wrong cases.
However, ordinary people like us cannot imagine the pressure the courts bear when faced with the issues of “whether to release or not to release, to sentence or not to sentence, to give a light sentence or to give a heavy sentence”. This kind of pressure is not only a kind of work pressure, but also a kind of pressure. kind of psychological pressure. As Comrade Shen Deyong said in the article "How to Prevent Unjust, False and Wrongful Cases": "In some of the cases we see now, including the murder case in Henan and the rape case in Zhangjia, Zhejiang, the trial court had achievements at that time, to say the least. It was relatively successful. "The "merits outweigh the faults" mentioned here are only to prevent wrongful killings, and are not considered meritorious services to prevent wrongful convictions. In fact, Comrade Shen Deyong also believes that although "it is not easy for the court to insist on making a lenient judgment in such cases in the face of interference and pressure from all aspects," "Objectively speaking, a misjudgment has occurred. In the final analysis, this Such a judgment with room for maneuver not only seriously violates the principle of legality and procedural justice, but also cannot withstand the test of facts and law." We must resolutely correct this situation. It can be said that "misplacement is worse than misjudgment" is a complete truth, a common saying, and a truth. Our correction of wrongful convictions is based on seeking truth from facts, and the most real mistakes must be corrected.
Third, preventing wrongful convictions is not only a work pursuit, but also a system requirement. Since the occurrence of wrongful convictions is inevitable, does that mean there is nothing we can do? Obviously not. Whether it is the design of the litigation system or the design of the judicial working mechanism, whether it is the thinking of procedural rules or the awareness of human rights protection, we need to do our best to prevent the occurrence of wrong cases. Since there are many reasons for wrongful convictions, measures to prevent wrongful convictions should also be comprehensive. Experts believe that the prevention of criminal wrongful convictions should start from investigation, prosecution, trial, defense and other aspects, continuously improve the judicial system, improve the case quality evaluation mechanism and evidence confirmation rules, establish an open and transparent judicial concept, establish the true principle of presumption of innocence, and fully guarantee The legitimate rights and interests of criminal suspects and defendants. At the same time, we should accelerate the transformation from the procedural view of the investigation center to the procedural view of the trial center, adhere to the rational judicial concept, uphold judicial neutrality, and treat public opinion rationally. In short, how to effectively prevent it ultimately requires fully embodying the values ??of procedural justice, giving full play to the role of lawyers, and mobilizing the power of all sectors of society.
Our study of the occurrence or redress of wrongful convictions is essentially to prevent wrongful convictions. Where should we start to prevent wrongful convictions? As can be seen from the above, this is first of all a question of judicial philosophy, and secondly a question of working mechanism. In terms of judicial philosophy, we have to decide whether we are misplaced or misjudged, guilty or innocent, guilty in doubt or never, whether we are wise after the fact or nip in the bud; in terms of working mechanism, we have to answer whether we should rely on torture to extract confessions or pursue science. When collecting evidence, is it based on judicial laws to pursue a murder case that violates the laws of nature or is it procedural justice? Is the public security and procuratorial organs cooperating with each other or are they restricting each other? This is a watershed in judging whether procedural justice can be upheld and unjust, false and wrongful convictions can be effectively prevented.