小狐先生

Given the situation at the end of the Ming Dynasty, Zhu Yuanzhang would choose to conquer the world again rather than putting out fires everywhere; the end of the Ming Dynasty had already rotted from beginning to end [eating melon]

Seeing a case circulated online, I initially thought it was fake, but found out it was real. The general case details are:
A 12-year-old girl accused her biological father of raping her. There was no physical evidence of the rape, only her own testimony. Although there were other witness testimonies, these testimonies were not independent; they all heard the girl say her father raped her, repeating what the girl claimed after hearing her accusations.
Her father denied the rape.
In essence, throughout the entire case, there was only the girl's testimony, with no other evidence, and the accused (her father) denied the allegations.
However, the court determined the rape charge was established for reasons that were 'unknowable without personal experience', and her father was sentenced to 14 years in prison.
Moreover, this case was included in the People's Court case database by the Supreme Court, published as a typical case for society, and used for reference in subsequent similar cases by other courts.
Personally, I do not agree with the court's reasoning in this judgment.
The 'unknowable without personal experience' rationale used in the ruling essentially abandons the burden of proof requirement in criminal cases, as well as the presumption of innocence, relying instead on the discretionary belief of the case handlers. That is, whoever they believe is guilty or innocent.
The correctness of the case result no longer depends on strict evidence rules but rather on the inner thoughts of the case handlers.
This approach, I believe, brings severe negative effects on the fairness, accuracy, and predictability of case adjudication.
Even in civil and commercial cases where the evidence requirements are not as high, there are rarely judges who dare to make final rulings based solely on their inner feelings and discretionary belief; however, in criminal cases where the evidence requirements are higher, judges can make rulings solely based on their inner feelings and discretionary belief—this practice is incomprehensible.
It even feels somewhat absurd.
In lawsuits, evidence matters.
When both parties in a case describe the same event in completely different ways, evidence should be examined.
The rules of evidence are the most just and effective method for fact determination before the invention of the time machine.
If there is evidence, a judgment can be made; if there is no evidence, no judgment should be made. This is a basic principle. If facts can be determined arbitrarily based on the inner feelings and discretionary beliefs of the adjudicator, it will bring subversive negative impacts on the predictability and accuracy of the entire system.
Furthermore, in situations where there is no physical evidence, only testimonies, and the testimonies of both parties are completely inconsistent, I again suggest that a cross-examination system should be introduced.
That is, both the prosecution and defense should cross-examine the witnesses one by one.
When two people have completely different accounts of the same event, one of them must be lying.
Lies can only be most likely exposed under cross-examination. The truth can only be most likely discovered in the context of cross-examination and confrontation.
It is not the case that without cross-examination and confrontation, you simply believe whoever you choose to believe.
The adjudicator should rule according to the rules, not according to their inner thoughts.
The former is rule of law; the latter is rule of man, even if they wear the robe of a judge.
$BNB $BTC $ETH