English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

in criminal proceedings many misjudged cases begin with violating and ignoring the principle of evidentiary adjudication and correlative institutional rules. The principle of evidentiary adjudication ought to be adhered to at the investigation stage and the previous "investigation centrism" ought to be abstained from. Investigation activities ought to be trial-centered. Torture, false confession, expert opinion flaws and ignorance of exculpatory evidence are major causes at the investigation stage resulting in misjudged cases. Such stereotypes in judicial practice as mentioned above are directly or indirectly in violation of the principle of evidentiary adjudication. Consequently, the principle of evidentiary adjudication and correlative institutional rules ought to be adhered to so as to advance the normalization, systematization and substantiation of the prevention and control of misjudged cases. Definition of Misjudged Cases What are misjudged cases? They can be defined as follows: as indeed exist the misconducts resulting in misuse of governing law and inconformity of the facts used in judging the cases and the truth of the cases, with stressing of the Illegal Evidence Exclusion rule and implementation of the Doubted Guilt Be Guiltless rule, controversial cases involving the use of the Illegal Evidence Exclusion rule are those cases in which due to major violation of procedural law, the defendant-favored but against the substantial conclusion judgments are adjudicated, simply named as Chinese-type "Simpson Case"; those cases involving implementation of the Doubted Guilt Be Guiltless rule in which the innocent are judged as guilty and the guilty are judged as innocent. From the perspective of Trial Centrism, misjudged cases consist of such two types as those cases misjudged——the innocent is misjudged as guilty and those cases mis-acquitted——the guilty is treated as innocent. The former is taken by the academic circle as two wrong judgments in one case. The author, through conducting a long-term tracking study, thinks that those cases are often neglected cases in the study of misjudged cases which should be further explored and more effective prevention strategies ought to be put forward. Investigation Stage & Channels of Evidence-Related Misjudged Cases Misjudged cases often originate from improper investigation activities. Major causes resulting in misjudgments include using torture to coerce a statement and false confessions by the accused, expert opinion flaws and ignorance of exculpatory evidence. 2nd Annual International Conference on Social Science and Contemporary Humanity Development (SSCHD 2016) © 2016. The authors Published by Atlantis Press 204 Stereotype of Unfair Evidence-Collecting vs. Evidence-Collecting Pattern of Presumption of Guilt No matter using torture to coerce a statement, false confessions by the accused or ignorance of exculpatory evidence manifests the evidence-collecting pattern of presumption of guilt. "Lopsided evidence-collecting" or "Confession for evidence” forms conventional generation pattern resulting in misjudged cases, whereas unfair-investigation-to-unfair-trial forms conventional process pattern resulting in misjudged cases. One stereotype resulting in misjudged cases is that investigation personnel’s preconceived ideas keep a strong hold and the evidence of innocence is neglected. In order to cope with the unidirectivity and closeness of investigation and interrogation, an amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law (2012) endows a suspect with the right of defending himself against interrogation, i.e. this amendment puts forth a principle by which the investigators shall not collect evidence by forcing one suspect to prove himself guilty. This principle respects a suspect’s subject status to express himself freely, and meanwhile stresses that a suspect is obliged to tell the truth. Some case investigators still hold on stereotyped concept of law enforcement. The most serious problem nowadays in the pattern of evidence-collecting is that though a suspect is obliged to tell the truth, he is also forced to give false confessions. Hence breaking the stereotype of investigation centrism is a key to avoid misjudged criminal cases. Origins of Scientific Evidence vs. Expert Opinion Flaws Besides Using Torture to Collect Evidence and False Confessions of the Accused, "Expert Opinion Flaws" is another most serious factor resulting in misjudged criminal cases. Judge-authorized identification system is adopted in China. As most surveyors are from the personnel of investigation authorities, the accused has no right to start an appraisal program or any infringement relief right. This convention is not conducive to guarantee the neutrality of appraisers. Nowadays, evidences are deciphered and analyzed with the help of science and technology methods, and people are also increasingly concerned with the scientificalness of expert opinions. Many scientific evidences are presented as expert opinions. Based on data of a rough comparative analysis provided by American innocent movement agency website (See Figure 1), we can see that evidence unvalidated and improper in the misjudged cases comes in the second place. In fact, the factors resulting in misjudged cases in our country are similar to those in the US, i.e. the scientificalness of expert opinions is indeed a problem. Figure 1 Causes of American Misjudged Criminal Cases Investigation Stage & Ways to Readdress Evidence-related Misjudged Cases Bring Order Out of Chaos——the Evidence-collecting Pattern in Presumption of Innocence "Comprehensive Evidence Collection" and "Evidence-based Confession" should become new normal pattern of misjudged cases correction, so as to completely refrain from the unfair-investigation-to-unfair-trial process pattern of misjudged cases. By following this new normal pattern, the investigators should collect such evidence comprehensively and objectively as those for guilt and those for innocence, those for major crime and those for minor crime, instead of

Breaking the Stereotypes: Analysis and Prevention of Criminal Misjudged Cases in the Procedure of Criminal Detection from the Perspective of Evidentiary Adjudication