Li Huailiang’s case basically covers three main issues related to the
application of the principle of presumption of innocence in China’s criminal
judicial practice: First, the interference of media trial dominated by the idea of
presumption of guilt to judicial justice;second, the suspect and defendant are presumed guilty in the criminal proceedings; third,
theprinciple of “In dubio pro reo” only stays in the
trial stage of the court. For the issue of media trial, it is necessary to
regulate the news reports related to law, authorize the judicial organs to restrict the news reporting cases through
legislation, and endow the courts with the power to regulate the news reporting
activities related to their trial cases. For the problem of extended detention,
China’s judicial organs have carried out activities to supervise and
inspect extended detention cases for many times. Media trial and extended
detention all reflect the far-reaching impact of the idea of presumption of
guilt on China’s public concept and judicial practice, as well as the practical
problem that it is difficult to implement the principle of “In dubio pro reo”
in judicial practice. The reason is inseparable from the thought of suspected
crime in Chinese traditional legal culture, the limitations of China’s
reference to the criminal legal system of western countries, and the tradition
of China’s administrative intervention in justice.
References
[1]
Bai, R. (2021). Inspection of Extended Detention and Its Solution—Taking the Survey Data of H Municipal Procuratorate as a Sample. Chinese Prosecutor, 9, 35-37.
[2]
Barry, N. (2010). Introduction to Roman Law (pp. 193). Translated by Huang Feng. Law Press.
[3]
Cha, G., & Wan, F. (2015, August 12). Li Huailiang’s Intentional Homicide Case—How to Judge the Probative Power of Evidence in Death Penalty Cases. Henan Higher People’s Court. http://www.hncourt.gov.cn/public/detail.php?id=157892
[4]
Chen, G., Zhang, J., & Xiao, P. (2013). On the Principle of Presumption of Innocence and Its Application in China. Journal of Law, 34, 1-8.
[5]
Chen, L. (2011). Spreading the Legal Consciousness of “Presumption of Innocence”. News and Writing, 7, 63-64.
[6]
Guo, H. (2021). Theoretical Review and Rule Restatement of “In Dubio Pro Reo” in China. Political and Law Forum, 39, 161-173.
[7]
He, J. (2020). Acquittal of Suspected Crimes and State Compensation. People’s Procuratorate, 23, 7-10.
[8]
Lu, X., & Yang, Y. (2019). On the Regulation of Law Related News Reports—From the Perspective of Presumption of Innocence. Journal of Zhejiang University of Technology and Technology, No. 2, 45-54.
[9]
Luo, C. (2010). Causes, Harm and Countermeasures of Extended Detention in Criminal Cases in China. Journal of Hunan University of Foreign Economics, 9, 51.
[10]
Min, C., & Bao, W. (2018). Reflection on the Mode of Acquittal Judgment in China—An Analysis Focusing on Item 3 of Article 195 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Law Science, 5, 152-164.
[11]
Qian, D. (2007). New Notes on Tang Law (p. 1011). Nanjing University Press.
[12]
Wang, J. (2017). Presumption of Innocence and Media Reports. Journal of Xi’an University of Finance and Economics, 30, 116-123.
[13]
Wang, S. (2013, May 8). There Are Many Disadvantages of “Joint Handling Cases”. People’s Court Daily.
[14]
Xie, E. (2013). Reasons for the Existence of Extended Detention and Countermeasures from the Concept of “Presumption of Guilt”. Hubei Social Sciences, No. 2, 150-153.
[15]
Xing, X. (2015). Current Chinese Procedural Discourse in Favor of the Defendant—And Evaluation of Relevant Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law. Global Legal Review, 37, 130-147.
[16]
Yang, X., & Zhou X. (2016). On Pre-Trial Procedure Control under “Trial Centrism”—Taking “Hidden Extended Detention” as the Starting Point. Political and Legal Treatise, No. 3, 129-136.
[17]
Zhou, Y. (2019). Research on the Policy Implementation of Grass-Roots Government in the Territorial Management of Petition to Maintain Stability—Taking Tan Township of a City as an Example. China Administration, No. 1, 80-87.
[18]
Zou, J. (2015). Let the Judiciary Exercise Its Power Independently, Bid Farewell to the “Joint Handling of Cases by the Public Security, Procuratorial and Judicial Organs” and the Leadership Does Not Intervene in Cases. China Economic Weekly, 13, 25.
