Comments on legal framework for evidence taking in China

Jiang Na, Han Rong
{"title":"Comments on legal framework for evidence taking in China","authors":"Jiang Na, Han Rong","doi":"10.15406/frcij.2019.07.00258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the revelation of more and more wrongful convictions, Chinese authorities have responded to criminal injustices by means of new justice reforms in the recent decade. The public and media at home or abroad are curious about the core of justice reforms in China like the rule of evidence taking or exclusion. Clearly, Chinese evidence rules used in handling criminal cases including capital cases cannot meet the minimum standard of human rights or criminal justice in many aspects, particularly in the context of international standards concerned. Chinese authorities are still exploring into whether or not its rule conforms to international human rights rules, and if not, how to change it for better justice and human rights protection in criminal cases. This paper will start from a general description of legal framework and its context on the books. Next, it will proceed with the development and reforms of Chinese rules on evidence exclusion. Further, it will examine the Impact of Exclusionary Rules on the actors within criminal proceedings. Also, both the justification of exclusionary rules in paper law and their limitations will be analysed and commented as well. Particularly, it will specify the mandatory or discretionary feature of exclusionary rules and clarify the flaw of no acknowledgment of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Finally, it will suggest substantive reform proposals from the perspective of the significance and impact of international human rights law in the Chinese context.","PeriodicalId":284029,"journal":{"name":"Foresic Research & Criminology International Journal","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foresic Research & Criminology International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15406/frcij.2019.07.00258","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the revelation of more and more wrongful convictions, Chinese authorities have responded to criminal injustices by means of new justice reforms in the recent decade. The public and media at home or abroad are curious about the core of justice reforms in China like the rule of evidence taking or exclusion. Clearly, Chinese evidence rules used in handling criminal cases including capital cases cannot meet the minimum standard of human rights or criminal justice in many aspects, particularly in the context of international standards concerned. Chinese authorities are still exploring into whether or not its rule conforms to international human rights rules, and if not, how to change it for better justice and human rights protection in criminal cases. This paper will start from a general description of legal framework and its context on the books. Next, it will proceed with the development and reforms of Chinese rules on evidence exclusion. Further, it will examine the Impact of Exclusionary Rules on the actors within criminal proceedings. Also, both the justification of exclusionary rules in paper law and their limitations will be analysed and commented as well. Particularly, it will specify the mandatory or discretionary feature of exclusionary rules and clarify the flaw of no acknowledgment of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Finally, it will suggest substantive reform proposals from the perspective of the significance and impact of international human rights law in the Chinese context.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
论中国取证的法律框架
随着越来越多的冤假错案的曝光,近十年来,中国当局通过新的司法改革来应对刑事不公正。国内外公众和媒体对中国司法改革的核心——采证规则或排除规则感到好奇。显然,中国在处理包括死刑案件在内的刑事案件中所使用的证据规则在许多方面都不能达到人权或刑事司法的最低标准,特别是在有关国际标准的背景下。中国当局仍在探索其规则是否符合国际人权规则,如果不符合,如何改变它,以便在刑事案件中更好地伸张正义和保护人权。本文将从法律框架的一般描述及其对书籍的背景开始。接下来,将论述中国证据排除规则的发展与改革。此外,它将审查排除规则对刑事诉讼行为者的影响。此外,本文还对纸面法中排除规则的正当性及其局限性进行了分析和评论。特别地,它将明确排除规则的强制性或自由裁量性特征,并澄清不承认“毒树之果”学说的缺陷。最后,从国际人权法在中国的意义和影响出发,提出实质性的改革建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Examining the liability issues associated with prone restraint deaths in detention Transformation of labour rights: a solution to protecting prisoners in China? Forensic evidence – a rape and murder case Overview on crime scene procedures involving animals The right of peoples to self-determination and territorial integrity of states in the estimates and conclusions of the Venice commission
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1