The Force And Application Of Presumption Of Awareness In Drug Crimes

In recent years,my country’s legal theory and judicial practice have carried out a series of discussions on major issues such as the concept and effectiveness of criminal presumption,and the relationship between criminal presumption and the burden of proof.However,such as the relationship between legal presumption and factual presumption.There is far from consensus on issues such as the boundaries of the presumption of facts,the theoretical value and practical significance of the presumption of facts.Theoretically,scholars who hold a negative attitude towards the application of the presumption of fact occupy the majority,and the "distance" between theory and practice has led to disputes over the validity of the presumption of fact.As far as drug crime is concerned,with the development of scientific and technological means,the methods of crime are becoming more and more diverse,and the means of crime are becoming more and more concealed,which makes it more difficult to identify the subjective elements of drug crime.The perpetrator has committed a drug-related crime objectively,and is subjectively intentional,and only meets the above two aspects to constitute a drug-related crime.In judicial practice,in order to correctly determine specific crimes such as drug possession,drug smuggling,drug trafficking,and drug transportation,it is necessary to confirm the subjective purpose of the perpetrator.However,in judicial practice,once the perpetrator is caught,he often defends himself with ignorance,and the evidence that the prosecution can provide is difficult to directly identify the subjective aspect of the perpetrator.The judiciary has issued a series of normative documents to guide the judiciary to apply the presumption rules in practice and determine the subjective elements of the perpetrator.Some basic facts are listed in the normative documents to guide the judges to presume that the defendant knows the relevant facts under the same circumstances.However,whether the rule of presumption of knowledge formulated by judicial interpretations and normative documents is a legal presumption or a presumption of fact,what changes will be made to the burden of proof of the prosecution when applying the rule of presumption of knowledge,and the extent of the defense’s rebuttal? there is controversy.Therefore,it is of great significance to clarify the prosecution’s burden of proof and the defense’s rebuttal standards.Under the realistic background that there is a "distance" between theoretical research and judicial practice,starting from the difficulty of proving the elements of knowingly knowing in drug crimes,taking judicial practice as an example to analyze the judicial application of the presumed knowingly rule.The main body of this article mainly includes the following three parts:The first part is to propose the research question of this paper.It is divided into three aspects: firstly,it expounds the difficulty of proving the elements of subjective knowledge of drug crimes,and analyzes it from the perspectives of objective proof problem and subjective dilemma;secondly,it describes the rules of presumed knowledge in existing normative documents,and discusses their application.Controversy and theoretical disputes;thirdly,from the application of the presumed knowing rule,the theoretical controversy of factual presumption is derived,and the theoretical hypothesis of this paper is proposed,which presupposes the property of the presumed knowing rule.The second part discusses the judicial application of the rule of presumption knowing from a practical point of view.The analysis is made from the standpoint of both the prosecution and the defense.It includes three aspects: First,in the context of the burden of proof in the civil law system,it discusses the influence of the presumption of knowledge rule on the burden of proof.Second,the impact of the application of the presumption of knowledge rule on the prosecution’s burden of proof.Third,how should the defense conduct its rebuttal,and the question of the standard of proof for the rebuttal.The third part is to explore the binding force of the presumption of knowledge rule on judges.The discussion is divided into three aspects: first,since the rule leaves a large room for the application of flexibility for judges to adjudicate,judges need to fully justify whether to apply the rule of presumption knowingly in the adjudication documents,so as to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the defense;Second,from the perspectives of my country’s authority-based trial model and judges’ free testimony,it discusses the issue of the binding force of the presumed knowing rule on judges.It focuses on whether judges should be held liable for wrongful convictions caused by the application of presumption and knowing rules,and whether judges should be held liable for wrongful convictions if the judgment results are changed when they form wrong psychological evidence.