Analysis Of 'Documentary Evidence-centrism' In Chinese Criminal Procedure

In the criminal proceeding in this country, producing evidence, cross-examining,fact debating as well as judicial decision is not based on the presence of witnesses, experts, victims those people who originally witness the fact in court. On the contrary, it is on the basis of written documents, for example the interviewing reports, experts notice, records of investigation and examination which are formed before the hearing. This is the normal practice in criminal procedure in our country. The widespread use without restriction of the documentary evidence is contrary to the principle of direct language, violates the fairness of trial, and also infringes on the rights of the defendants. China's Criminal Procedure in the "documentary evidence centrism" means that the trial in place, if you do not address this phenomenon, any adversarial-based transformation can not touch the root causes. But written evidence has its own value, it is neither necessary nor practical to exclude absolutely, we must have serious attitude on it, and treat different evidence with different rules.The thesis of this essay is the 'Documentary evidence-centrism ',about this thesis, I will give a systematic research about it, and the sequencing of the article is what the 'Documentary evidence-centrism' in criminal procedure is ,why this phenomenon occurs, what impact it has on China's Criminal Procedure and how to solve this problem. This paper adds up to more than 30,000 words,excepts the preface and conclusion, it is divided into four parts,and the main contents is introduced as follows:In the first part of the thesis, I will dissue the origin and the true meaning of 'Documentary evidence-centrism ' in criminal procedure, then then I will analysis its Specific Performance. Sencondly, I will make a careful analysis of its causes, because the "Documentary evidence centrism" is not only the issue of criminal evidence, but also related to the criminal justice approach and the trial mode, so the reasons are will not be limited to the shortfall of rules only , but should be deep into the litigation culture, habits, and the trial proceedings system, and so on. In the following third part , I will analyse impact of the 'Documentary evidence-centrism ' on China's criminal proceedings, just from the availability of documentary evidence and evils of the "documentary evidence centrism" , and emphasice what negative impact it will make to the real entity, procedural justice, as well as the effectiveness of the proceedings. In my mind, although the written evidence is reasonable and efficient, which the verbal evidence can not match, but in undergrounding of our criminal procedure, and it is still rational to exaggerate the reasonableness of documentary evidence, after all, the first problem we must solve is how to regulate the use of documentary evidence. In the fourth part of the thesis,I will focus on the solution of the problem, firstly I will propose the basic idea, that is trying to reduce and standardize the use of documentary evidence,but not the absolute exclusion. Then I will analysis the principles and specific rules of distinction. Finally, I will try to through the establishment of direct language to allow exceptions to the principles and conditions for building a "documentary evidence centrism" deconstruct framework.