The theory, design and reform of the exclusionary rule: A comparative study between Canada and China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".