“Beyond Reasonable Doubt” in the Chinese Legal Context

Abstract

The standard of proof in the Chinese criminal procedure has five characteristics: first, it centers on corroboration; second, its starting point is objectivity; third, its theoretical foundation is epistemological optimism, i.e., the position that the truth can be known; fourth, objective proof is used as the method of proof, which affects its practicality; and last, it is used as a universal rule, thus lacking flexibility of application across the whole spectrum of different situations. In this paper, we will review the origins of the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” and draw on the experience of other countries. The summary of our findings from abroad and from China is that in practice, “beyond reasonable doubt” refers not only to the credibility of evidence, but also to the sufficiency of evidence. It is used in the evaluation of both the overall evidence record and individual pieces of constituent evidence. In relation to method, the difference between “proof beyond reasonable doubt” and “proof with credible and sufficient evidence” mainly lies in the fact that the former standard is a kind of positive construction while the latter is a kind of passive deconstruction; the former has a semantic orientation toward subjective evaluation while the latter has a semantic orientation toward objective corroboration. Furthermore, there are both differences and overlap in the degree of proof required by the two standards. “Credible and sufficient evidence” is the sufficient condition for “beyond reasonable doubt,” while the latter is the necessary condition for the former. Our recommendations in this paper are that to apply the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” in Chinese criminal procedure, we need to be more “passive” in the examination of doubts so as to reinforce an error prevention mechanism. We should treat it as both a standard of proof and a method of proof. The standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” can be applied to different types of cases as well as different stages of an individual case, but there should also be some flexibility of practical application in different situations. We should adhere to rules of thumb in its application and combine it with the Chinese experience of “removal of doubts.” To make it easier for application, official jurists should issue proper interpretation of it. Judicial practitioners should interpret and carry out the standard of proof through judicial precedents, and guarantee its effectiveness through application of proper evidence law and publication of the formation of proof.