英语论文网

f the offense . Obviously the referee was too narrow , so a lot of procedural violations lost in the legal regulation . Meanwhile, China's criminal legislation relating to procedural provisions of unlawful consequences . Only the first 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code " remand " and the Supreme People's Court "interpretation" of Article 61 of the " exclusionary rule " in two ways , but the provisions are too simple generalization. This is clearly unable to meet practical needs .

In our country, the right to judicial control of the entire criminal proceedings do not form , the court of criminal procedure as the sole jurisdiction of the subject 's status has not been established. Occurred in pre-trial proceedings in the criminal procedural issues are not independent of both defense and prosecution through court decisions , and often through the stages of the proceedings as a party accused the state prosecution authorities exist to resolve. Which is particularly prominent criminal trial proceedings against suspects forcibly taken decisions on punishment and its implementation are the main recourse implementation . Thus, as the accuser of the police and prosecutors in the pre-trial stage became "their case the judge" is bound to make people question their impartiality . This is caused by extended detention , abuse of coercive measures, such as the reason for happening .

Code of Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court 's "interpretation" Although the referee made some procedural requirement , but because only provides certain procedural consequences of the referee , the referee and procedural mechanisms for the specific operation is no provision in the rules of procedure , leading to judicial practice these two provisions can not be real implementation . To the exclusionary rule , for example, the Supreme Court 's "interpretation" clearly defines the use of torture or threat , enticement, deceit and other illegal methods to collect the testimonial evidence can not be used under the facts of the case . However, the judicial interpretation of the application of the exclusionary rule does not make any procedural issues clearly defined . Results , " in judicial practice , the defense made even exclude the application of the relevant prosecution evidence , it usually does not induce judges specialized procedural referee program ." Lack of appropriate procedural rules in practice lead to the exclusion rule in name only and a mere formality.

Under the current procedural referee , the court even to rule on questions of procedure . Made a conclusion , it almost does not make a specific ruling thereon or judgment . For example, for the defense to the court for the exclusion of illegal evidence in judicial practice, the more common situation is that the court 's decision in this regard verbal , of course, the overwhelming majority rejected the defense request "decision ." But in China's current judicial system , the prosecution and the defense only for first instance court's "judgment" and " determination " to lodge a protest or appeal. And his " decision" is not raised any objections to the opportunity to declare valid . Result , the court of first instance ruled illegal evidence and other procedural issues rulings in most occasions are circumvented appellate review . Meanwhile, the proposed excl