Fact-finding In The Criminal Trial Of

This essay is on fact-finding. For many years, we learnt and taught for granted and couraged that the judicial decision must be and would be on the truth and the most and for most subjected truth. The traditional issue of our main land claimed in an agitated tone that the fact is beyond any judge's own attitude, only the fact "decided" the case. In this believe, we formed our jurisdiction in administrative ways and regulated them in teams and does not give any single choice to decide the case by his own understanding. But in this formulation, how do they find the truth and what truth can they find still need more careful examinations. For many years, we ignore the science of Power so much as we care less of the regulations we set. And the more urgent question still is what do justices use to find the truthful facts and do we give them the right power and right means? Backing these questions, we have many claims used to be out of questions should be introspected. In vain ,we have not enough courage to be so proud about our judiciary theories. This article is a careful step into this field. Although many men have marked their names in the route, and the reforming way is opening now. As plain as I am, still make my best. Pains but no gains. It is my own glimpse.In a very long time, we see res indicata a claim in the evidence field and we scolded this one thoroughly. See res indicata in more care and intent way, we will find the rules only means give the judge the power to find fact. The judge does need to own the authority to make the decision. Although he buries the duty to listen the parties, to hear the evidences, and he also bury the duty to endure the persevading. But he as a single man has the power to rule the court and can use his own knowledge of law science and his understanding to find the guilt, to sentence the guilty boy, to guard the safe line of our society. We also can see, in some cases, the judge make the decision such kind to near his own experience that we can not cut the infellonse between his power and his own attitude thoroughly.There are six parts in my essay. The first is on the complication of the facts we will talk. I think the fact we find in courts is not absolutely subjective, for the judge and the particular rules add a few objective parts in to it. And the judge ismore objective than we think before. In the second part, I make a plain backing on our jurisdiction in history. In the following one I make a introduction of our theories nowadays in mainland as simple as possible. Looking back and around Is only for one thing - to find the default exactly, especially in the settlement of our judge' power.In the forth and fifth part, I try to explain my point: in fact-finding, the most and fore most important role is the judge's power. In any cases the judge own the only power to make the decision. And his thought about some people or something, or even our society, our law, our civilization, his painful experience, his relations would affect the jurisdiction. So we need the rules to own him the power and to regulate this power. In plain words the power is a component one. In the last part, I make a few propose for further reforming.Thanks a lot to MZ..SUN, she give my essay many helpful clues. Also thanks Mr. LongZongZhi and this essay is debating his theories. Thanks Mr. song of the lia. Of the South-west college of law science and politics, I find many books there.