Please wait a minute...
 首页  期刊介绍 期刊订阅 联系我们 横山亮次奖 百年刊庆
 
最新录用  |  预出版  |  当期目录  |  过刊浏览  |  阅读排行  |  下载排行  |  引用排行  |  横山亮次奖  |  百年刊庆
清华大学学报(自然科学版)  2023, Vol. 63 Issue (6): 951-959    DOI: 10.16511/j.cnki.qhdxxb.2023.22.009
  公共安全 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
面向“排除合理怀疑”标准的案件推理模型
王佳, 王维曦, 黄梦瑶, 王李韬, 申世飞
清华大学 公共安全研究院, 北京 100084
Case reasoning model for the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard
WANG Jia, WANG Weixi, HUANG Mengyao, WANG Litao, SHEN Shifei
Institute of Public Safety Research, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
全文: PDF(1519 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 在社会安全案件审判阶段,对于案件推理依据“排除合理怀疑”标准认定案件事实,是在无罪推定原则下判定嫌疑人是否有罪的关键前提。针对这一问题的研究存在定量化不足的问题。该研究应用链式规则和Bayes推理方法,深入解析“排除合理怀疑”标准,通过理论和实证分析提出主张合理性的判断规则和证据解释的链式规则;定义解释间的独立性,提出证据的独立划分方法以判断主张能否合理解释证据,构建面向该标准的案件推理模型。将构建的案件推理模型应用于车辆冲撞案和故意杀人案2类频发的刑事案件,对控辩双方提出的主张进行模型推理分析,并对比模型分析结果与实际案件事实,验证模型的有效性。研究结果表明:对于达到“排除合理怀疑”标准的与未达到“排除合理怀疑”标准的案件,所提出的模型均能够协助认定案件事实,并给出相应依据。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
王佳
王维曦
黄梦瑶
王李韬
申世飞
关键词 社会安全合理怀疑案件推理证据解释链式规则    
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.
Key wordssocial security    reasonable suspicion    case reasoning    evidential interpretation    chain rule
收稿日期: 2022-11-18      出版日期: 2023-05-12
基金资助:国家自然科学基金面上项目(72174101)
通讯作者: 申世飞,教授,E-mail:shensf@tsinghua.edu.cn     E-mail: shensf@tsinghua.edu.cn
作者简介: 王佳(1993—),男,助理研究员。
引用本文:   
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.
链接本文:  
http://jst.tsinghuajournals.com/CN/10.16511/j.cnki.qhdxxb.2023.22.009  或          http://jst.tsinghuajournals.com/CN/Y2023/V63/I6/951
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
[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)
[1] 唐诗洋, 疏学明, 胡俊, 吴津津, 申世飞. 基于E-V融合的线上-线下联合监控技术[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 58(6): 576-580.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《清华大学学报(自然科学版)》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发 技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn