چکیده:
The standard of proof in criminal cases is the judge's reaching a conscientious satisfaction. In fact, the basis of judgment and verdict is the internal certainty that is achieved for the judge, and this is achieved by evaluating the evidence presented in the criminal case for him. The judge takes two actions in criminal cases: reconstructing the material events that happened in the past and also aligning with the law and issuing a verdict. However, closer examination reveals that there is a fundamental step between these two stages that is essential in preparing the judge to issue a criminal verdict, and that stage is the evaluation of evidence by the judge, which is also referred to as the stage of "convincing the judge's conscience". In this article, we aim to provide a detailed analysis of the concept and nature of evidence evaluation and conscience satisfaction and how to achieve it, and by examining the evidentiary standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the evidentiary standard in criminal cases in common law countries, the differences and similarities of these two evidentiary standards are revealed.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In this article, we aim to provide a detailed analysis of the concept and nature of evidence evaluation and moral conviction and how to achieve it, and by examining the evidentiary standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" as an evidentiary standard in criminal cases in common law countries, to demonstrate the differences and similarities between these two evidentiary standards.
Introduction The standard of proof in criminal cases in countries whose legal systems are based on the Romano-Germanic system is the judge's moral satisfaction, which is also referred to as freedom of evidence evaluation.
Furthermore, in this country, the undisputed principle of freedom of evidence evaluation is closely related to discussions about the standard of proof; that is, the degree of certainty that the judge must reach in order to issue a conviction (557, 2000, Walter).
Based on this, the standard of proof in criminal cases is the judge’s subjective conviction, which is achieved for him by evaluating the evidence presented in the case.
The judge’s subjective conviction is equivalent to “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is the standard of proof in criminal cases in common law countries, including England.
Regarding proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it should also be said that from the point of view of English law, this is a rule for evaluating evidence with the aim of determining the quality and quantity of necessary evidence, the reference to which enables the criminal justice system to convict the defendant.
(
, 
, 
)
