Research On The Standard Of Proof In The Fast-track Sentencing Procedure

In the context of trial-centered judicial reform,in order to better implement the basic principle of "quick trial of simple cases and precise trial of complicated cases",and to realize the triage of simple and complicated cases,the speedy criminal adjudication procedure has been officially legalized by the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2018 after several years of piloting.As an important issue in the study of criminal litigation theory,the criminal adjudication procedure is also a practical frontier issue in criminal justice reform.The standard of proof runs through all stages of criminal litigation,which concerns the fairness of criminal justice,and is an important factor affecting the realization of the value of the litigation efficiency of criminal expedited procedures.The first chapter mainly explores the dilemma of the application of criminal procedure.It clarifies the standard of proof in the criminal expedited procedure from the provisions in the existing norms,and then questions the rationality and feasibility of the standard of proof in the existing norms of the criminal expedited procedure in the light of the value orientation of the criminal expedited procedure,starting from the differences in the provisions of the criminal standard of proof at various stages.In the light of the judicial application of the expedited criminal procedure from the pilot to the present,the dilemmas in practice are pointed out,and the reasons behind them are analyzed.The second chapter considers the rationality of setting the standard of proof in expedited criminal proceedings.On the one hand,it discusses the theory of stratification of the standard of proof,analyses the theoretical aspects of stratification of the criminal standard of proof,and further analyses the application of this theory to the setting of the standard of proof in expedited proceedings.On the other hand,it considers the interface between expedited proceedings and the plea-bargaining system,and discusses the rationalisation of the standard of proof for expedited proceedings based on some of the institutional features of the plea-bargaining system and its possible impact on the standard of proof.The third chapter focuses on the feasibility of setting the standard of proof for the expedited criminal procedure.The scope of application of the expedited criminal procedure has both positive and negative conditions,and is mainly applicable to cases with relatively simple facts and possible misdemeanours,while excluding some cases where the application of the procedure may affect justice,and at the same time the defendant’s plea of guilty and punishment can bring about certain procedural effectiveness and judicial effects,coupled with the special mode of proof of the expedited procedure itself,and the supporting measures can be used as a safeguard for rights and interests,so specifically from these The four aspects of the feasibility of concretizing the standard of proof of the speedy trial procedure are explored.The fourth chapter reviews the standard of proof of the consultative justice from the perspective of comparative law.The common law system takes "beyond reasonable doubt" as the core in the adversarial mode of litigation,while the civil law system takes free mind as the core in the inquisitorial mode of litigation,and the standard of proof has been adjusted to different degrees in various countries and regions under the mode of consultative justice.The differences in the application of the standard of proof in the trial proceedings of these countries,the United Kingdom,the United States,and Germany and Japan,are explored to explore the experience suitable for our national conditions.The fifth chapter provides a detailed discussion of the path to setting the standard of proof for expedited criminal proceedings.The first step is to ensure that the determination of the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession is strictly "beyond reasonable doubt".On this premise,the standard of proof for the incriminating facts is categorised according to the severity of the possible sentence,while the sentencing and procedural facts can meet a high standard of conclusiveness and a preponderance of proof respectively.At the same time,under such a stratified standard of proof,suggestions are made to improve the supporting measures to protect the rights of the suspect and the defendant.