Seek the judicial spirit of the defendant who attributes the interests of doubts and the jury syst

In fact, it means that there is no doubt about the guilt, and our country has clear regulations, but the formulation is different.

The implementation of the jury system is currently unaffordable in our country, and after the jury members are selected, they are managed in a closed manner, and they are paid for lost work. In the common law system, a jury is generally responsible for determining guilt and innocence, and only on the premise of guilt can the judge determine the specific sentence based on the guilty verdict, otherwise he will be acquitted. In order to attract attention, some things are filmed on TV, but this is not the case in reality, and there are many versions of the British and American judicial system written by domestic people who study abroad, and there are many differences in the details, so I don't know who to believe, so I am interested in finding more such books to see.

This is a common law system, and at present, the laws of our mainland do not explicitly stipulate this spirit, but this spirit is indeed reasonable. It generally means that in a criminal case, the defendant is at a disadvantage (because the plaintiff is generally a prosecutor, and so many manpower and material resources have been mobilized to investigate the case, and the defendant is only one or two people), so in the trial of the case, the defendant should be taken care of and the balance should be balanced!

The jury system is also an Anglo-American legal system, and unlike the civil law system, they adopt the principle of confrontation between the original defendant and the defendant, and the jury decides the determination of the facts of the case, and the judge then pronounces the verdict against the law by the facts determined by the jury.

It's not easy to be a juror, you generally have to have a certain social status, property, education, no illegal history, etc., the main actors on TV are actors, maybe they are all students of TVB, anyway, it's cheap and easy to use, there is no need to pursue it in details.

Hong Kong, like the United Kingdom, applies the law of the sea (customary law), the core of which is the presumption of innocence of the accused.

That is, the plaintiff (including the judicial department of **) needs to present strong evidence to prove the guilt of the defendant.

On this basis, if the plaintiff's evidence is doubtful, the judge will infer that the defendant is not guilty.

Jurors are not necessarily seven, but they are necessarily singular.

is young because the drama is for pleasure to the eye, and in reality, Hong Kong stipulates that all Hong Kong citizens with a university degree are included in the jury list, so there are actually old and young. In addition, jurors are responsible for deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty by ballot after the entire affair has been witnessed in court. In court, jurors can only listen and watch, and are not allowed to ask questions or express opinions. In fact, jurors are representatives of citizens, and they decide whether the defendant has committed a crime from the point of view of an ordinary person (to a certain extent, representing society as a whole).

As for the defendant's punishment, it is up to the judge to decide, and after the judge decides, he needs to publicly announce the verdict, that is, the reasons for the decision.

In addition, jurors are civic duty, and there is only a small fee for attending court, unless there is a dispute between the jurors and the meeting is held until the result is reached after the case is concluded; Otherwise, no room and board will be provided. If the case is to be tried for many days, the jurors go home each day.

In developed countries in the West and countries with sound legal systems, judicial trials are conducted in accordance with doubtful points and the interests are vested in the defendant. Because the defendant is an individual, how weak his power is compared to the huge public prosecution organ, and the public prosecution organ has the ability, financial resources, and means to obtain evidence for itself to the greatest extent, while the relatively weak defendant has extremely limited ways and scope to seek relief for himself, based on the principle that the law is to maintain fairness, and the judiciary has the principle that the interests of doubts belong to the defendant. Of course, this is a special situation in China, because we do not have the rule of law, but the government is greater than the law, so fundamentally speaking, we do not have the so-called judicial spirit of attributing doubtful interests to the defendant, but rather to the power and wealth of the judicial, because the judicial division is not independent, and the partiality of the judicial trial has occurred from time to time, such as the case of Wang Dynasty in Shijiazhuang, which caused a stir, and the case of Li Qiming's school collision, which killed and injured one person, and it was obvious that the judicial court was biased

Don't really understand your question! In mainland criminal law, it is generally practiced that there is no doubt about the crime! That is to say, if there is no evidence to prove it or the evidence cannot form a chain of evidence, it will be dealt with as not guilty!

This is in favor of the accused! If it is a civil case, the plaintiff generally bears the burden of proof for the facts asserted, and if there is no relevant evidence to prove it, the plaintiff must bear the risk of losing the lawsuit!

The same is true on the Chinese side. The names are different, but the nature is basically the same. It's just that we haven't done enough to do things in terms of the exclusion of illegal evidence.

In Chinese law, whether the interests of doubt are attributable to the defendant is not a clear legal provision, and it is not applicable in the field of civil trial. However, the judicial interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates the system of "no prosecution in case of doubt", and in criminal justice trials, it is basically a provision that "there is no doubt about the guilt".

The principle of "the benefit of doubt belongs to the defendant", also known as the principle of "in favor of the defendant when in doubt", refers to the fact that in the case of criminal proceedings, when the facts cannot be ascertained or the cost of ascertaining the facts is too high, the judgment is made in accordance with the principle of benefiting the defendant, which is the embodiment of the function of the criminal law to protect the freedom of the perpetrator by limiting the state's penal power. This is due to the fact that the defendant's strength is much smaller than that of the state organs, and the investigative and enforcement capabilities of the public security and procuratorial organs are far superior to the defendants' individual defense and protection capabilities.

Yes, but only in criminal law. If it is a civil law, it is to see which party is more credible, and its credibility is greater than its untrustworthiness, and the case can be decided.

Yes. When the evidence is in doubt, the facts of the case should be determined on the basis of the principle in favor of the defendant.

The gist of the adjudication: In the course of criminal proceedings, when encountering a situation where the evidentiary facts are unclear or the cost of ascertaining the evidentiary facts is too high, the modesty of the punishment should be reflected by restricting the state's penal power, that is, when the evidence is in doubt, the facts of the case should be determined in accordance with the principle of favoring the defendant, and on this basis, the conviction and sentencing should be carried out.

Never Suspect a Crime: Never Suspect a Crime means that in a criminal proceeding, the procuratorate shall make a decision not to prosecute a criminal suspect where the facts of the crime are unclear, the evidence is not credible and sufficient, and criminal responsibility should not be pursued.

Article 173 of the Criminal Procedure Law Where a criminal suspect has no facts of a crime, or has any of the circumstances provided for in Article 15 of this Law, the people's procuratorate shall make a decision not to prosecute.

As a defendant in a criminal case, he will only be found guilty if the facts are clear and the evidence is conclusive, and if there are doubts in the case, the court will make a not guilty verdict in favor of the defendant on the grounds that the facts are unclear and the evidence is insufficient. @&

That is, everything that assumes that he is innocent, and everything that has doubts about the case is in favor of the defendant.

I think that if something is found in the case, but it is not certain, the defendant is not guilty in this matter.

The principle of "the benefit of doubt belongs to the defendant" is manifested in the declaration of innocence when the facts are in doubt as between guilt and innocence; A misdemeanor is determined when there is doubt as to the fact between a felony and a misdemeanor; When there is doubt as to the fact between several crimes and one crime, it is determined to be one crime; When there are doubts about the aggravating circumstances, the aggravating punishment shall be denied; In addition, this principle also applies to the preconditions for litigation, if it is not possible to be sure whether the statute of limitations for a criminal act has expired, it should be considered that the statute of limitations has expired and no prosecution should be pursued. --Encyclopedia

The essence of this law has always been adhered to in the European and American legal systems, and Chinese mainland is"The interest in doubt is vested in the plaintiff", that is, whether you are guilty or not, first beat you 30 big boards. This is related to China's social environment for thousands of years, that is, ordinary people will not sue (complaint), A sues B, and the judge will subconsciously think that B is guilty, otherwise others A will not sue you B! The so-called people do not sue the officials and do not hold them accountable!

Hong Kong and Macau belong to the European and American legal systems!

In China, the principle of "no guilt in doubt" and "in favor of the defendant" is the principle that the interests of doubts belong to the defendant, that is, if a certain piece of evidence cannot directly prove the defendant's guilt, a judgment in favor of the defendant should be made.

This should be released in court in any country, on the basis of the principle of presumption of innocence.

There is no doubt about the guilt, de jure yes, but the chances of your case happening are almost none.

This situation is certainly distinguishable, as long as the two men are tried separately. In addition, even if the two of them are the same, it is impossible for the social relationship to be the same, right? There is a motive for committing a crime, and it is easy to figure out after an investigation, this case is not so good.

If you want to illustrate the presumption of innocence, it's best to look at the various cases in the United States.

The principle of "never suspecting a crime" is exactly like this in our country.

No, it's just an international practice, such as the practice in ancient China, that people have the most and get rid of their own crimes!