The theory, design and reform of the exclusionary rule: A comparative study between Canada and China
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractThe paper analyzes the theory, design and reform of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence through a comparative study between Canada and China. As a newly created legal mechanism, the exclusionary rule in China has undergone rapid changes since 2010, which calls for a systematic analysis. The experience of the Canadian judicial system, especially the case law regarding the protection of Charter rights, is of great value for reference.As a policy-oriented rule, the exclusionary rule is based on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic values. In Canada, section 24 (2) of the Charter emphasizes the significance of maintaining the repute of the administration of justice. Similarly, public confidence in judicial system, together with human rights protection, is also highlighted in China. Although the exclusionary rule in both countries can trace its legal basis in the constitutional norm, China’s rule is specifically codified in law and judicial reform documents. In addition, it is reasonable to incorporate modern notions such as due process and judicial integrity in the exclusionary rule’s theoretical basis, which is particularly beneficial for China’s criminal procedural reform.The main content of the exclusionary rule can be divided into mainly two parts: the scope and standard of illegal evidence, as well as the procedure of excluding evidence. As far as the scope and standard of illegal evidence is concerned, the paper firstly discusses the hierarchy of rights in criminal proceedings, especially rights relating to the improperly obtained evidence, and then analyzes the paradigm shift from quasi-automatic exclusion to discretionary exclusion in Canada. After that, the focus is placed on the distinction between testimonial evidence and material evidence, exclusion of derivative evidence, and judicial discretion of excluding defective evidence. When it comes to the procedure of excluding illegal evidence, the paper conducts a detailed analysis of the defense’s preliminary burden of proof and the prosecution’s responsibility for proving the legality of evidence respectively. Then the mechanism of excluding illegal evidence at pre-trial process in China is specifically examined. After that, the paper entertains legal remedy at the appeal process.Since the exclusionary rule is experiencing dynamic change, the final part of the paper pays attention to its systematic influence on the criminal procedure. Both the judicial maturity effect of the Supreme Court and the real function of local courts are considered. Furthermore, the paper anticipates the future development of the pre-trial procedure, particularly the recent judicial reform in China. Although there may be the ebb and flow with regard to judicial reform, it is clear that the evolution of the exclusionary rule will contribute to the flourishing enterprise of human rights in criminal proceedings, thereby leading to both the advancement of judicial authority and the professionalism of investigation. Shaped by the special political and cultural features in China, the exclusionary rule will also gradually take on a distinctive look in the future
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».