At present, there are some very worrying views and practical actions in the academic and judicial circles of evidence law in China when talking about presumption. One view is that judges should be encouraged to use the presumption of fact boldly. This view writes: "The law cannot elaborate the empirical rules that people can infer from the normal connection of things.

Moreover, the relationship between things is complex and changeable. If the judge's presumption based on facts is missing in litigation practice, the value of presumption will undoubtedly be damaged. As far as China's current situation is concerned, it can't be inferred simply by the empirical rules determined by law, but should be supplemented by various forms.

The question is: what kinds of "legal presumption" in China have not been systematically summarized and sorted out, how can they be supplemented? Therefore, the first task we face is to analyze various laws in China (civil procedure law and civil substantive law, criminal procedure law and criminal substantive law, administrative procedure law and administrative law, etc.). ).

Systematically sort out and analyze the prescribed presumption rules, keep the correct presumption rules and discard the incorrect presumption rules according to certain standards. On this basis, we can talk about developing other legal presumptions and factual presumptions.

Another point of view is that, in China's trial practice, "presumption is more and more widely used in trial, but the law does not clearly stipulate the presumption rules, but presumption appears arbitrary and irregular in concrete application, judges lack the restraint mechanism, and the discretion to apply presumption is too large. This situation does exist. On the one hand, the reason for the above situation is that the law does not clearly stipulate the presumption rule.

Expand knowledge:

On the other hand, in judicial practice, many judicial workers do not accurately grasp the spiritual essence of presumption (especially factual presumption), which seems bold and unfounded. In other words, they are blindly and recklessly practicing their assumptions. We have repeatedly criticized the abuse of discretion in trial practice. In fact, presumption (especially factual presumption) is the most likely to lead to the abuse of discretion.

Therefore, the application of presumption, especially factual presumption, should be strictly restricted. Presumption is a technique for judging cases. If properly used, it can effectively solve difficult problems in cases and play the role of presumption. Improper use will undermine laws and public policies and must be paid attention to. This is also the main reason why I made up my mind to study The Basis of Presumption.