Research on the Challenges and Optimization Path of Criminal Evidence Standards
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63313/SSH.9024Keywords:
Criminal Evidence Standards, Conviction and Sentencing, Evidence Quantity, Evidence DeficiencyAbstract
The criminal evidence standard is a judicial tool established to implement the provisions of criminal law and resolve the issue of evidence deficiency. Its core concept involves setting minimum requirements for the quantity of evidence required for conviction and sentencing in relation to specific crimes, ensuring the evidence meets a threshold of usability. Scholars argue that evidence stand-ards should highlight the fundamental set of evidence required for conviction and sentencing, addressing the frequent issues of insufficient evidence, which may result in non-approval of arrests or non-prosecution. The current stand-ards established by local authorities are flawed in terms of their legal basis, con-tent, and application methods, such as inconsistent legal foundations, overly simplistic content, or overly rigid or lenient enforcement. To resolve these is-sues, evidence standards should be based on the elements of crimes as defined by criminal law, and comprehensive evidence collection checklists should be jointly developed for each crime. These lists should be precise and inclusive. The application of these standards should strike a balance between normative rigid-ity and flexibility, allowing necessary annotations and adjustments based on specific case conditions, thereby improving the quality and efficiency of crimi-nal case processing.
References
[1] Zong, B. (2024) An Analysis of the "Evidence Standard" in Judicial Practice. Local Legisla-tion Research, 2, 110–130.
[2] Zhang, Z.-G. (2018) A Review of the Legislation of China's Criminal Law over the Past 40 Years of Reform and Opening-Up. Academic Exploration, 10, 53–58.
[3] Miao, S.-M. (2000) Preliminary Concept on the Establishment of the Minimum Evidence Standard for the Prosecution in Criminal Proceedings. Criminal Law Case Studies, 1, 253.
[4] Li, G. (2014) The Prosecutor’s Responsibility System for Main Prosecution in Haidian Dis-trict Prosecutor’s Office. Journal of the National Prosecutor’s College, 2, 63–71.
[5] Liu, J.-C. (1998) Handbook on the Application of Evidence for Conviction and Sentencing in the New Criminal Law: Volume 1. Beijing: People’s Court Press, 1, 1–10.
[6] Ke, H.-M. (2003) How to Handle Evidence Standards in Theft Cases. Procuratorial Daily, 2003-12-26, 3.
[7] Ma, C.-X. (2017) Guizhou Courts Create a Big Data Case Handling "Smart Sample." Legal Life Daily, 2017-12-10, 1.
[8] Huang, Y.-Y. (2022) Theoretical Explanation and Practical Reflection on Evidence Stand-ards. Journal of the People's Public Security University of China (Social Sciences Edition), 1, 110–118.
[9] Xiong, X.-B. (2019) The Similarities and Differences between Criminal Evidence Standards and Proof Standards. Legal Studies, 4, 191–208.
[10] Dong, K. (2020) Evidence Standards: Reinterpretation and Path Forward. Contemporary Law, 1, 108–118.
[11] Zhou, Y.-Y. (2024) Reflection on the "New Objectification" of Criminal Proof Standards under the Context of Artificial Intelligence. Journal of China Criminal Police University, 3, 96–108.
[12] Zhang, H.-Z. (2023) Theoretical Explanation and Optimization Path of Supervisory Evi-dence Standards. Chinese and Foreign Law, 3, 785–802.
[13] Cui, Y.-D. (2019) Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Modernization: The Practice and Re-flections on the "Trial-Centered Litigation System Reform: Shanghai Criminal Case Intelli-gent Assistance System." Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House, 126.
[14] Chen, W.-D. (2019) Criminal Procedure Law Studies (3rd ed.). Beijing: Higher Education Press, 156.
[15] Miao, R.-S. (2022) Research on Unified Evidence Standards—Centered on the "Cautious Prosecution" Criminal Justice Policy. Qin Zhi, 11, 14–16.
[16] Ji, Y. (2022) Simplification and Limitations of Proof in the Crime of Aiding Information Network Crime. Legal Review, 4, 94–103.
[17] Bao, W.-Q. (2020) Criminal Evidence Standards under the Trial-Centered System: Practical Functions and Application Standards—Based on 253 Judgment Documents. Legal Applica-tion, 22, 80–88.
[18] Lin, H.-Y., & Lin, S. (2020) Analysis and Countermeasures of the Return for Supplementary Investigation Work. Procuratorial Daily, 2020-07-21, 3.
[19] Jin, S. (2022) Structural Transformation and Development of the Supplementary Investi-gation System under the "Case-to-Document Ratio" Positive Radiation. China Criminal Law Journal, 2, 162–176.
[20] Liu, J.-K. (2018) Evidence Review Rules and Analytical Methods: Principles, Standards, and Examples. Beijing: Law Press, 260–263.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 by author(s) and Erytis Publishing Limited.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
