Study On The Rule Of Corroboration

In the modern system of discretionary evaluation of evidence, the law mainly regulates the evidence eligibility, and generally does not regulate the probative force of evidence. They are all entrusted to discretion of judges. However, the complete discretionary evaluation inevitably has judges'subjective uncertainty, and easily leads to misjudgment. So there must be appropriate limitations to discretionary evaluation, and the rule of corroboration is the restraint mechanism for discretionary evidence. As an important rule of evidence system, the rule of corroboration is used to define the probative force of some types of verbal evidence. As the form of Chinese criminal trial has changed from judge-led interrogation to both-side confrontation, perfecting the rule of corroboration has become an urgent-solved problem in Chinese criminal procedures. Therefore, this paper seeks to systematically research and organize the rules of corroboration, so as to benefit legislation and practice.This thesis is divided into five main parts, and totally has about 38,000 words.The first part of the thesis discusses general issues about the rule of corroboration. The rule of corroboration was produced in the United Kingdom. At first, it was established as a legal mechanism, which was used to correct the jury's non-professional shortcomings and prevent biased oral confession. This rule refers to, when the defendant's guilty statements and other weak verbal evidence become the only unfavorable evidence for defendant bearing the crime, jury cannot only base on this evidence to sentence the defendant as guilty, and there must be other evidences to reinforce the probative force of this evidence. The rule of corroboration is a kind of verbal evidence rules, and is a statutory rule. The basic content of the rule of corroboration can be divided into the following three aspects: corroboration, the applied scope of the rule, and the degree of corroborate to. Corroboration must be reliable, independent and involved. All the legitimate and independent-sourced physical evidence, verbal evidence, and some behavioral evidences, which can enhance the probative force of leading evidence, can be used as corroboration. Confession is the main subject of the rule of corroboration. The scope to be corroborated covers two aspects: crime fact, and the defendant's identity. In terms of the corroborative extent of the evidence reinforcement, there are two criteria: absolute statement and relative statement.The second part firstly discusses the theoretical basis for the rule of corroboration. The article points out the theoretical basis that impels the establishment of the rule of corroboration and supports its existence, including the following three aspects: the principle of discretionary evaluation of evidence, the theory of human rights protection and the evidence-judging doctrine. The rule of corroboration directly limits the probative force of specific verbal evidence, restricts judges'discretionary judgment, and is an exceptions to discretionary evaluation of evidence. Preventing misjudgment and protecting human rights are the purpose and concept for the rule of corroboration, and the evidence-judging is the inevitable requirement for the rule of corroboration. Subsequently, through the value analysis on of the rule of corroboration, we can know the rule has positive and far-reaching significance in ensuring entity truth, preventing misjudgments and inquisition by torture, and protecting human rights.The third part carries out a study on the comparative method the rule of corroboration. The study selects legislatively representative countries in the rule of corroboration among the Two Legal Systems -- the United Kingdom and Japan, as models. It introduces the content and features about the extraterritorial rule of corroboration, and gives a brief assessment on the similarities and differences in the rule of corroboration among the Two Legal Systems. Generally speaking, in terms of the rule of evidence reinforcement, the application subjects of Anglo-American law system countries are much wider than the continental law system countries. But the continental law system countries make more in-depth and systematic study on the corroboration theory. The various differences in the rule of corroboration among the Two Legal Systems are much related to their respective judicial traditions. The in-depth study on the evidence reinforcement theory at abroad can be beneficial to the improvement of the rule of corroboration in China.The fourth part of the thesis carries out an in-depth analysis on the rule of corroboration to confession. The main and most important task of the rule of corroboration is to restrict the probative force of the defendant's statements, and avoid the judicial personnel's excessive bias towards the oral confession, so the rule of corroboration to confession should certainly be used as the core content for the rule of corroboration to be grasped. At first, the article defines and distinguishes the meanings of confessions and oral statements. It considers that the two should be made same understandings in the application of the rule of corroboration. Then it gives detailed introduction to the application of the rule of corroboration to confession with respect to the relations between voluntary and corroboration of confession, the corroborative degree of confession, and the procedural provisions of confession to corroborate. The voluntary and corroboration of confession are different from each other on basis in theory, but they also have some connection. The court investigation on confession should be conducted after the first survey of corroboration. Finally, the discussion focused on the evidence value of accomplice confession and its relationship with the rule of corroboration. Through the qualitative analysis on confession of co-accused accomplice and different accused accomplice, it points out that the two should all apply to the rule of corroboration to confessions.Part Five discusses the rule of corroboration in Chinese Criminal Procedure Law on the two levels of "in fact" and "should". Based on analysis and evaluation on Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Law, it points out the inadequacy and defects of existing legislation, and thereby clarifies that how to improve the rule of corroboration in China's law is the emphasis of discussion. In terms of the content building of the rule of corroboration, the article proposes the applied subjects on the rule of corroboration should be enlarged from the currently confined defendant statements to verbal evidence. Defendant's statements should also include two parts: the court testimony and court-outside statements, and points out that regardless of the co-accused or different accused accomplice defendants, their confessions all have to be corroborated. At the same time, the article also raises the procedural protection mechanisms relevant to the rule of corroboration, and exceptional regulations applied to the exclusion of the rule. The procedural protection mechanisms include three aspects: the investigation order of corroboration during court trial, the judge's corroboration reminding and the sanctions measures of violating the rule of corroboration. Considering the lawsuit efficiency, the rule of corroboration may not be applied to ordinary procedures cases and pleaded misdemeanor cases of the defendants that tried by simple procedures. At last, the article puts forward specific provision assumptions on how to improve the legal regulations about the rule of corroboration.