Following improvements in evidential thinking,more questions have been raised about the probative values of criminal investigation records;therefore,there is an urgent need to investigate the prominent problems with t...Following improvements in evidential thinking,more questions have been raised about the probative values of criminal investigation records;therefore,there is an urgent need to investigate the prominent problems with this system for keeping investigation notes and evidence.The binding 2013 Criminal Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China lists the victim’s statement,defendant’s confession or defence,inspection,examination,identification,and investigation notes as statutory evidence.Technically,these criminal investigation records are naturally legally admissible as evidenced in criminal justice procedures.However,the Miranda rules of the United States,which guarantee the defendant’s right to silence,have not been established in China's Mainland.Consequently,the objectivity of those kinds of criminal investigation records can be questioned during cross‑examination.Comparative and systematic research methods were used to examine the probative values and their affecting factors in criminal investigation records.The results show that it is not easy to obtain the full probative value of criminal investigation records because it involves analyses of issues such as understanding the notes,procedures,and methods in making the records,as well as the reform of related systems,such as transplanting the Miranda rules to secure the defendant’s right to silence and the presence of counsel.Only in this way can we expect evidence used in criminal investigation records to be used scientifically by ensuring that evidence of criminal acts are kept free from irrational contamination and resolve the existing related problems in judicial practice.展开更多
文摘Following improvements in evidential thinking,more questions have been raised about the probative values of criminal investigation records;therefore,there is an urgent need to investigate the prominent problems with this system for keeping investigation notes and evidence.The binding 2013 Criminal Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China lists the victim’s statement,defendant’s confession or defence,inspection,examination,identification,and investigation notes as statutory evidence.Technically,these criminal investigation records are naturally legally admissible as evidenced in criminal justice procedures.However,the Miranda rules of the United States,which guarantee the defendant’s right to silence,have not been established in China's Mainland.Consequently,the objectivity of those kinds of criminal investigation records can be questioned during cross‑examination.Comparative and systematic research methods were used to examine the probative values and their affecting factors in criminal investigation records.The results show that it is not easy to obtain the full probative value of criminal investigation records because it involves analyses of issues such as understanding the notes,procedures,and methods in making the records,as well as the reform of related systems,such as transplanting the Miranda rules to secure the defendant’s right to silence and the presence of counsel.Only in this way can we expect evidence used in criminal investigation records to be used scientifically by ensuring that evidence of criminal acts are kept free from irrational contamination and resolve the existing related problems in judicial practice.
