Judge of the Foshan intermediate peoples Court: the case of narcotic conviction should limit the application of death penalty.

category:Society
 Judge of the Foshan intermediate peoples Court: the case of narcotic conviction should limit the application of death penalty.


The harm of drug crime to public health needs to be finally realized through the behavior of drug users based on free will. The fault of drug users decides that drug crimes should not belong to the most serious crimes in the criminal law. Drug crime can not only be attributed to the crime of no victim, but also a typical non violent crime. The death penalty for drug crime is not only inconsistent with the formation mechanism of drug crime, but also difficult to receive the effect of active prevention, but also violates the spirit of relevant international conventions. The death penalty of drug crime should be abolished, which is based on the establishment of the law. The inevitable conclusion of a place. However, in the current and the future period, China will still be in a period of high incidence of drug crime and the concentration of drug control, and the situation of the fight against drugs is serious and complicated. Therefore, for drug crimes, the Judicial Restriction of death penalty is obviously more in line with Chinas national conditions than the abolition of legislation. According to the provisions of the criminal law of China, the sentence of death sentence is slow unless the crime is deliberately committed and the circumstances are bad. The sentence of death sentence is actually a way to limit the application of death penalty. The application of limiting death penalty in this article only refers to limiting the execution of death penalty immediately. The death penalty cases are vital and the quality of cases is particularly important. In order to avoid the miscarriage of death in the death penalty case, the fourth article of the United Nations safeguard measures for the protection of the rights of the death penalty specifically stipulates that the death penalty can only be sentenced to death in cases where the accuseds crimes have no other explanation for the facts on the basis of clear and convincing evidence. The fifty-third article of criminal procedure law of our country stipulates that the evidence of the criminal case must be true and full, and that the so-called evidence is true and sufficient refers to the comprehensive evidence of the whole case, which has ruled out the reasonable doubt of the facts identified. The Supreme Peoples court, the Supreme Peoples Procuratorate, the Ministry of public security, the Ministry of public security, the Ministry of security of the state and the Ministry of justice have thirty-third provisions on dealing with the examination and judgment of death penalty cases (hereinafter referred to as the provisions), and the death penalty shall be particularly prudent in accordance with the indirect evidence. Conclusions based on circumstantial evidence are the only ones sufficient to exclude all reasonable suspicions. It can be seen that the criminal procedure law and the stipulation have some different interpretations of the evidence is true and sufficient. The former only requires the exclusion of reasonable doubt, while the latter requires the only conclusion and the exclusion of all reasonable doubts. Therefore, from the point of view of evidence, the standard of proof for death penalty cases should be higher than that of ordinary criminal cases. As for the evidence of death penalty cases in drug crimes, we must follow the proof of the sole conclusion and the exclusion of all reasonable suspicions. Heavy evidence, not credulous testimony is an important part of the principle of evidence adjudication. In criminal proceedings, criminal suspects and defendants are not only the subject of litigation, they are protected by many kinds of litigation rights, but also can be convicted and sentencing. The multiplicity of criminal suspects and defendants litigation status determines the characteristics of the confession and justification of the suspects and defendants: first, confession by the accused and Justification is one of the basic ways to exercise the right to defend. Second, the testimony of the defendant, such as the confirmation of evidence, can fully and thoroughly reflect the motives, ideological struggle, purpose, means and process of the case, and it can be the direct evidence for the fact of the case. Third, the defendants confession is more subjective and false. Fourth, the defendants confession is repeatable and unstable, and can not be compared with objective evidence such as material evidence and documentary evidence. Fifth, there is a relationship of responsibility sharing among the defendants in the same case, and it is possible to remove the responsibility, transfer the responsibility, reduce the responsibility, or protect the criminal. On the basis of the above-mentioned characteristics of the confession of the accused, the case handlers review the confession of the accused from the aspects of whether the procedure is legitimate, whether the confession is objective, the confession and the justification, and whether it is reasonable or not. There is a lack of other evidence for the whole case, which relies mainly on the testimony of the accused. Even if the guilty confession of several defendants of the same case can be confirmed by each other, the sentence should be left out in the sentencing, and the death penalty should be particularly prudent. In general, the death penalty should not be executed immediately. In some cases of drug crime, the time of investigators involved in the investigation is late. Drugs have already inflow into the market and can not get drugs from the suspects. The concealment of the drug market and the possibility of the criminals involved in the drug decision make it difficult for investigators to obtain the testimony of related transport, Tibetan poison and drug purchasing personnel. Therefore, in judicial practice, only the confession of the accused and the same case in some drug-related crimes can prove that the defendant has carried out the related drug crime, but lacks other objective evidence such as other drugs, poison and stolen goods. In this regard, the summary of the summary of the Forum on the work of drug crimes in some courts of the country (2008) stipulates that some cases of drug crimes, often due to the fact that the evidence of drugs and toxic capital have not existed, lead to the examination of evidence and the fact that it is difficult to identify the facts. In dealing with such cases, only the confession of the accused is consistent with the statement of the others, and the confession of the defendant, the confession of the accused and the confession of the same case can be used as evidence of the case. Only the testimony of the defendant and the confession of the co verdict are taken as the evidence of the case, and the defendants immediate execution of death penalty must be especially careful. According to this, the case of drug crime depends mainly on the confession of the accused and the testimony of the same case. The confession between the accused and the same case must be consistent, and all the cases of illegal evidence collection, such as confession, extortion and collusion, can be completely eliminated. However, in judicial practice, the confession of the accused and the same case is difficult to completely eliminate the illegal evidence collection, such as the existence of confession, extortion, and collusion, and it is difficult to completely guarantee the objective truth of the confession of the accused and the same case. Therefore, there is a lack of other evidence for the whole case, mainly depending on the defendant and the same case. Even a number of defendants and the same cases can prove their guilty confession to each other and have room for punishment in sentencing. The death penalty should be particularly prudent. In general, the death penalty is not executed immediately. This is the irreversibility of the death penalty. It is decided by the falsity of the confession of the defendant and the co owner. Source: Procuratorial daily writer: Gu Jia Jin responsible editor: Huang Zhecheng _B9302 In some cases of drug crime, the time of investigators involved in the investigation is late. Drugs have already inflow into the market and can not get drugs from the suspects. The concealment of the drug market and the possibility of the criminals involved in the drug decision make it difficult for investigators to obtain the testimony of related transport, Tibetan poison and drug purchasing personnel. Therefore, in judicial practice, only the confession of the accused and the same case in some drug-related crimes can prove that the defendant has carried out the related drug crime, but lacks other objective evidence such as other drugs, poison and stolen goods. In this regard, the summary of the summary of the Forum on the work of drug crimes in some courts of the country (2008) stipulates that some cases of drug crimes, often due to the fact that the evidence of drugs and toxic capital have not existed, lead to the examination of evidence and the fact that it is difficult to identify the facts. In dealing with such cases, only the confession of the accused is consistent with the statement of the others, and the confession of the defendant, the confession of the accused and the confession of the same case can be used as evidence of the case. Only the testimony of the defendant and the confession of the co verdict are taken as the evidence of the case, and the defendants immediate execution of death penalty must be especially careful. According to this, the case of drug crime depends mainly on the confession of the accused and the testimony of the same case. The confession between the accused and the same case must be consistent, and all the cases of illegal evidence collection, such as confession, extortion and collusion, can be completely eliminated. However, in judicial practice, the confession of the accused and the same case is difficult to completely eliminate the illegal evidence collection, such as the existence of confession, extortion, and collusion, and it is difficult to completely guarantee the objective truth of the confession of the accused and the same case. Therefore, there is a lack of other evidence for the whole case, mainly depending on the defendant and the same case. Even a number of defendants and the same cases can prove their guilty confession to each other and have room for punishment in sentencing. The death penalty should be particularly prudent. In general, the death penalty is not executed immediately. This is the irreversibility of the death penalty. It is decided by the falsity of the confession of the defendant and the co owner.