Abstract：[Objective] To maintain social justice and to prevent unjust cases, during the trial stage of social security cases, the criminal facts for case reasoning based on the “beyond a reasonable doubt” (BRD) standard must be determined. It is a crucial prerequisite for passing a judgment on whether the suspect is guilty under the principle of the presumption of innocence. BRD is an essential standard of proof in a criminal case, but its concept is relatively vague and abstract, which makes it challenging to implement in practice. Moreover, research regarding this issue is insufficient.[Methods] This study applies the chain rule and the Bayesian inference method to deeply analyze the BRD standard. The rationality of the causal logic is used to examine the rationality under the reverse causal logic and put forward the judgment rule of the rationality of the case facts. The rule states that the claim is reasonable given the evidence if and only if the claim is a priori reasonable and the claim can reasonably explain the evidence. Accordingly, the chain rule of evidence interpretation is proposed, which decomposes the interpretation of multiple pieces of evidence into the interpretation of a single piece of evidence, which can simplify the difficulty of analysis. Considering the above rules, a case reasoning model facing the BRD standard is proposed. The model exhibits the claims of the prosecution and defense in the case into a sequence of actions, defining the a priori reasonableness of the claims and the reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Moreover, the model further defines the independence between the evidence interpretation and the independent division of the evidence, and then the relationship between the independent division and the evidence can be reasonably explained.[Results] The proposed model is applied to two common criminal cases, vehicle collision and homicide. The prosecution and defense opinions of the cases are investigated through the reasoning model, and the model analysis results are compared with the actual case facts to verify the effectiveness of the model. The comparison between the analysis results and the facts shows that when the concerned case meets the BRD standard, the model can accurately determine the facts of the case, and the basis provided by the model is consistent with the reasons given in the actual trial. Furthermore, when the concerned case does not meet the BRD standard, the results obtained using the model inference are consistent with the actual trial results.[Conclusions] The results confirm that for the cases that meet the BRD standard and those that do not, the proposed models can provide the right judgment to assist in determining the facts of the case and the corresponding basis. The proposed model can provide robust help and support for professionals in the judicial field with the fact reasoning in the court trial.
王佳, 王维曦, 黄梦瑶, 王李韬, 申世飞. 面向“排除合理怀疑”标准的案件推理模型[J]. 清华大学学报（自然科学版）, 2023, 63(6): 951-959.
WANG Jia, WANG Weixi, HUANG Mengyao, WANG Litao, SHEN Shifei. Case reasoning model for the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. Journal of Tsinghua University(Science and Technology), 2023, 63(6): 951-959.
[1] 姜茂坤.审判中心视域下公安机关刑事立案模式:从因未刑事立案而宣判无罪一案切入[J].广西政法管理干部学院学报, 2022, 37(4):23-30. JIANG M K. On the mode of filing criminal case under the jurisdiction of public security organs from a trial-centered perspective:Starting from the case of acquittal due to not up to the criteria of criminal case filing[J]. Journal of Guangxi Administrative Cadre Institute of Politics and Law, 2022, 37(4):23-30.(in Chinese) [2] 热娜古·阿帕尔."以审判为中心"背景下我国刑事辩护制度改革存在的问题及其解决[J].长春大学学报, 2021, 31(11):88-95. RENAGU A. Problems and solutions to Chinese criminal defense system reform under the trial-centered background[J]. Journal of Changchun University, 2021, 31(11):88-95.(in Chinese) [3] 陈永生.排除合理怀疑及其在西方面临的挑战[J].中国法学, 2003(2):150-160. CHEN Y S. Beyond reasonable doubts and the challenge in western states[J]. China Legal Science, 2003(2):150-160.(in Chinese) [4] 孙婷."排除合理怀疑"证明标准适用状况的实证研究[D].蚌埠:安徽财经大学, 2021. SUN T. An empirical study on the application of the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt[D]. Bengbu:Anhui University of Finance and Economics, 2021.(in Chinese) [5] PRAKKEN H, SARTOR G. Law and logic:A review from an argumentation perspective[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2015, 227:214-245. [6] BEX F J, VAN KOPPEN P J, PRAKKEN H, et al. A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence[J]. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2010, 18(2):123-152. [7] FENTON N, NEIL M, LAGNADO D A. A general structure for legal arguments about evidence using Bayesian networks[J]. Cognitive Science, 2013, 37(1):61-102. [8] LAGNADO D A, FENTON N, NEIL M. Legal idioms:A framework for evidential reasoning[J]. Argument&Computation, 2013, 4(1):46-63. [9] GORDON T F, WALTON D. Proof burdens and standards[M]//SIMARI G, RAHWAN I. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Boston:Springer, 2009:239-258. [10] PARDO M S, ALLEN R J. Juridical proof and the best explanation[J]. Law and Philosophy, 2008, 27(3):223-268. [11] ALLEN R J, PARDO M S. Relative plausibility and its critics[J]. The International Journal of Evidence&Proof, 2019, 23(1-2):5-59. [12] JELLEMA H. The reasonable doubt standard as inference to the best explanation[J]. Synthese, 2021, 199(1):949-973. [13] BEX F, WALTON D. Burdens and standards of proof for inference to the best explanation:Three case studies[J]. Law, Probability and Risk, 2012, 11(2-3):113-133. [14] DHAMI M K. On measuring quantitative interpretations of reasonable doubt[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Applied, 2008, 14(4):353-363. [15] BEN-HAIM Y. Assessing "beyond a reasonable doubt" without probability:An info-gap perspective[J]. Law, Probability and Risk, 2019, 18(1):77-95. [16] STONE J V. Bayes'rule:A tutorial introduction to Bayesian analysis[M]. Sheffield:Sebtel Press, 2013. [17] PENNINGTON N, HASTIE R. The story model for juror decision making[M]//HASTIE R. Inside the juror:The psychology of juror decision making. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1993:114-121. [18] 聂庆.刑事诉讼中的疑案处理:以黄小峰故意杀人案为视角[J].法律适用, 2006(4):50-53. NIE Q. Handling of difficult cases in criminal proceedings:Take Huang Xiaofeng's intentional homicide case as the perspective[J]. Journal of Law Application, 2006(4):50-53.(in Chinese)
2023, Vol. 63 
