The Difficult Problem Of Perjury Justice Research In China

Perjury is one of the ancient and modern criminal law offenses, and serious harm to society. Criminal law theory and judicial practice in the around perjury identification and processing, there are divergent views of a range of issues. Judicial determination of the controversy of the problems for perjury, this article uses the theory with practice, trying on the basis of existing research results, combined with the views of scholars proposed some of the recommendations put forward their own humble opinion and Perfection of the Crime in order to further study of the perjury and judicial practice. The full text is divided into three parts:Introduction, body and conclusion about two sixteen thousand words.The introduction part, mainly introduces the writing this proposition, writing background, writing motivation, academic to this topic research present situation, and the research value and significance.The text is divided into six parts:The first part is how to recognize the "false statements"." False" meaning and the judgment standard for perjury behavior that play a decisive role, but the criminal law circles about" false" definition and it differs from person to person.Some scholars believe that the false in two forms: First, take something out of nothing the way to fabricate or exaggerate the facts to achieve the purpose of the trap to incriminate him; take obscure, or out of the fact that to achieve the purpose of exculpatory for others to say no way. Some scholars believe that the basic form of the following categories:One is fabricated will not; concealing criminal evidence, for no; is evasive or light for; harbor framed rolled into one. This paper argues that the false is violating its own statement of objective and true memories and actual experience, but if the contents of their statements with the objective facts consistent, we should not as the constituent elements of the perjury.The second part "not as" can constitute perjury. On the behavior of perjury, there have always been controversial. China’s criminal law theory to believe that a lot of crime either as a constituent, you can also constitute by as. This case an academic called pure omission. Crime of perjury is generally manifested as this is no doubt worth exploring is the crime of perjury whether omissions constituting? This paper argues that the perjury only as a composition, the omission can not constitute perjury, the so-called is actually a "hybrid theory" and not as a combination of as a form.The third part perjury acts committed or the result of guilty. Acts committed with the results of the distinguishing criteria are not uniform, the existence of different perspectives on domestic and international criminal law theory. Is generally believed that the acts committed the crime will complete the statutory crime as a completed sign; results committed to the implementation of the crime constitute the objective elements of the behavior of a statutory damage have to constitute a consummated crime. This paper argues that should be guilty of behavior on the principle of perjury, but the criminal circumstances are obviously minor does not need to impose criminal penalties of impunity, and according to the specific circumstances of the case, be reprimanded or ordered to a statement of repentance, apology, compensation for loss of, or administrative penalties or administrative sanctions by the competent authorities.The fourth part of the main body of perjury what and who. In accordance with the provisions of section305of the Penal Code, the main body of perjury is limited to witnesses, expert witnesses, the four categories of record and a translator However, judicial practice has been for the scope of the witness to identify whether to include the unit, whether the subject of record as perjury appropriate and whether the parties can be included in the perjury among the subjects in dispute. In this regard, one by one explained.Part V for a specific purpose whether it is subjective aspects of the elements of perjury. Subjective purpose elements of perjury under the Penal Code,"with intent to implicate another person or concealing criminal evidence" of academia and practice is still controversial, the focus of debate is the subjective purpose of the legislation of perjury whether it is reasonable to be qualified. This paper argues that not necessary in the criminal law the subjective purpose of the perjury be qualified, the subjective purpose of the diversity of perjury, to frame others "or" hidden evidence "provisions in the legislation as the purpose of the crime of perjury is not only inconsistent with perjury the nature of the crime requires, and also identified the difficulty of perjury in judicial practice, thereby affecting the enhancement of the efficiency of litigation. Therefore propose to abolish the legislative limit of the subjective purpose of the relevant perjury. Part VI of the legislation in section305of the Criminal Code to improve recommendations. For perjury justice finds a difficult problem, this paper argues that both fairness and efficiency, from the legislative to be clear, refined and improved further to perjury.In the conclusion part, this paper summarizes the problems, and points out some deficiencies in this paper.