On The Construction Of Differentiated Standards Of Proof From The Perspective Of Lenient Cases Of Guilty Plea And Punishment

Whether in civil,criminal or administrative litigation,the core issue involved in the field of proof is the standard of proof,which is the final criterion for the referee to determine the facts of the case.In the newly amended Criminal Procedure Law in2018,the provisions on the standard of proof still follow the provisions of the criminal procedure law of 2012,that is,"the facts of the case are clear,the evidence is accurate and sufficient".The single standard of proof makes the controversy on this issue more and more fierce in the theoretical circle.There are three different standards,namely,"standard theory","reduction theory" and "difference theory".In the judicial practice,in the face of all kinds of cases with different complexity,a single standard of proof can not solve the existing litigation problems,nor can it meet the development needs of China’s criminal procedure justice.Since the implementation of the system of confession and punishment,such cases in criminal proceedings have adopted the same standard of proof as ordinary procedural cases.Although the judicial interpretation has added "basic facts" clear and "basic evidence" sufficient on the basis of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law,there are still vague practical difficulties in the specific operation of judicial interpretation.The application of quick procedure and summary procedure in the case of guilty plea requires "short time" and "high efficiency",which contradicts the quality of the case to a certain extent.Therefore,the key to the successful implementation of the system is to determine the proof standard of leniency cases.In order to make full use of the advantages and uniqueness of the three kinds of trial procedures in our country,we should distinguish the seriousness of the crime and the complexity of the litigation procedure,apply the hierarchical proof standard accurately,and reasonably use various systems to ensure the authenticity and voluntariness of the defendant’s confession and punishment,so as to give full play to the advantages and uniqueness of the three different trial procedures in China.The judicial organ’s litigation mechanism should not be mechanically rigid,and strive to improve the flexibility and flexibility of its operation in order to better protect the rights of the parties.It is also of great significance for the realization of social balance and legal justice.This paper extends the analysis and discussion by the following structure:The first chapter is the status quo and theoretical controversy of the proving standard of leniency cases in my country.First of all,it introduces how to apply the standard of proof in the criminal procedure law of our country in the case of plea guilty and punished with leniency.Then use the method of case analysis to analyze the practical problems in the application of the certification standard,so as to better start from the problem and propose solutions.Finally,it analyzes and summarizes the theoretical doctrine of whether the proof standard should be lowered in the theoretical circle of our country,and supplements the branch theories in the "statutory proof standard theory" and "the proof standard reduction theory".Through the analysis of the background and application value of different theoretical theories,we try to find the best way to construct differentiated proof standards for fair and efficient trials of guilty pleas and lenient cases.The second chapter constructs the practical basis and significance of differentiated certification standards.This chapter considers judicial practice from the perspective of the application of proof standards in different litigation procedures in cases of confession and punishment,explores the theoretical and practical foundations of the construction of differentiated proof standards in reality,and analyzes the practical significance of constructing differentiated proof standards.The third chapter examines the certification standards of similar procedures outside the territory.This chapter analyzes and compares the unique plea bargaining system in the United States with the criminal negotiation system in Germany,discusses the difference between the common law system and the civil law system in the application of proof standards in confession and punishment cases,and explores the differentiation and differentiation of foreign experience in my country Prove whether the standard has a point of reference.The fourth chapter proposes to construct the proving standard of the leniency case of guilty pleas and punishment in our country.This chapter uses the three different litigation procedures currently prescribed as the basic framework,taking ordinary procedures,summary procedures and expedited procedures as the starting point for constructing different proof standards,and studies which proof standards should be applied in each kind of litigation procedure in confession and punishment cases,And analyze whether this kind of proof standard is reasonable and possible in actual application.This chapter uses the expedited procedure,summary procedure and ordinary procedure as the framework to discuss the specific ideas of applying differentiated proof standards in different litigation procedures,so as to solve the difficulties in the application of proof standards in different litigation procedures and provide some references for future research..