Examining Statutory Criminal Presumptions From Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof - with an Analysis of Taiwan''s Property Crimes of Unknown Origin
Date Issued
2014
Date
2014
Author(s)
Liao, Yen-Chun
Abstract
The presumption of innocence, a king provision that every criminal law learner knows well, was enacted to Taiwan'' s Criminal Procedure Law in 2003 which formally declared that criminal defendants in our country are under its protection. Accordingly, the defendant in criminal procedure is presumed innocent, and should the prosecutor take responsibility for proving the defendant''s guilt which was also confirmed its constitutional status by Constitutional Interpret (CI) 556. However, due to the confidentiality and the difficulty of introducing evidence in some specific crimes, the prosecutor is sometimes hard to prove the defendant''s guilt in practice. In this case, foreign criminal procedure law developed "statutory criminal presumptions" to reduce or reverse the prosecutor''s burden of proof in certain crimes, yet also lead to a question that whether statutory presumptions violate the presumption of innocence or not.
To clarify the above question, first of all, this article introduces scholars'' discussion of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof including their origins, classifications, relevance and the possibility of exceptions. Furthermore, this article claims that the content of the presumption of innocence in our country is : " The prosecutor should take the entire responsibility for proving the defendant''s guilt. In addition, it is not allowed to reduce or reverse the prosecutor''s burden of proof by legislation".
Based on these grounds, this article will further analyze and examine statutory criminal presumptions, which include the following three types: First, the conclusive presumption, whose violation of the presumption of innocence depends on whether it reduces the prosecutor''s burden of proof. Second, the mandatory presumption, which disobeys the presumption of innocence because of shifting a part of the prosecutor''s burden of proof to the defendant. U.S. Supreme Court'' s opinion to limit the mandatory presumption by applying "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard either makes the presumption useless or makes it still unconstitutional; on the other hand, European Court of Human Rights'' view to restrict the mandatory presumption is quite loose and reckless. Third, the permissive presumption, non-involvement in reducing or reversing the prosecutor''s burden of proof, does not directly violate the presumption of innocence; however, once introduced to our country, we should consider its suitability according to our institution of legal procedure.
Finally, this article will take Taiwan''s property crime of unknown origin as an example, emphasizing its nature of statutory criminal presumptions as well as the conflict between this crime and the presumption of innocence. This article holds that under the explanation of the existing law, this crime is a mandatory presumption, violating the presumption of innocence and increasing the risk of wrongful conviction. The other possible constitutional explanations, nonetheless, either goes beyond the context of the Article or needs more information to confirm its respective appropriateness. Therefore, not until the context of this crime is modified or being sufficient empirical information to break new ground, this article still inclines to abolish this crime in order to correspond with the presumption of innocence.
Subjects
無罪推定
舉證責任
刑事立法推定
終局推定
強制推定
任意推定
財產來源不明罪
SDGs
Type
thesis
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Loading...
Name
ntu-103-R00a21055-1.pdf
Size
23.32 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum
(MD5):96d9b023f3008e38b25591e559ee6f8c