(This article is sourced from Lawyer Tan Miao's Criminal Debate Heart Law, written by Tan Miao)

Following the law of contradiction is a necessary condition for correct thinking, while violating the law of contradiction will lead to widespread fallacies and sophistry. We should be good at using the law of contradiction, exposing fallacies and sophistry, and returning dialogue and debate to rationality.

1、 Analysis of Contradictory Words

To countrymen, the word "contradiction" is like a "familiar stranger". It is said to be familiar because we have known the fable of 'self contradiction' since childhood; It is called unfamiliar because in the context of our language, it has multiple meanings that are unclear without further investigation.

Firstly, 'contradiction' is a philosophical concept. Whether in classical German philosophy or Marxist philosophy, "contradiction" is a core category that reflects the philosophical relationship of unity and opposition within or between things, and the law of unity and opposition is the core law of dialectics;

Secondly, 'contradiction' is a political concept. In the process of the sinicization of Marxism, the CPC further upgraded "contradiction" to methodology, and applied contradiction analysis methods to analyze the Chinese revolution and Chinese society, thus deriving political concepts such as major social contradictions, contradictions among the people, class contradictions, etc;

Again, 'contradiction' is still a concept in daily life. According to the Modern Chinese Dictionary (7th edition), as a noun, contradiction refers to the estrangement or animosity caused by different understandings or conflicting words and actions, for example: their conflict is very deep. As a verb, contradiction refers to things that contradict or exclude each other, for example: self contradiction. As an adjective, contradiction refers to the mutually exclusive nature, such as whether to go or not, and he feels conflicted in his heart.

Therefore, some commentators argue that "contradiction" itself is not a complex term, but due to its triple role as a philosophical concept, political concept, and daily life concept, it becomes more complex.

In criminal justice interpretations, "contradiction" is also a high-frequency term. Taking the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (Fa Shi [2021] No. 1) as an example, the term "contradiction" has appeared a total of 16 times. In this judicial interpretation, the term "contradiction" can be roughly used in two ways: one refers to evidence that "contradicts" itself; The second refers to the "mutual" and "contradictory" relationship between a certain evidence and other evidence in this case.

1. Analysis of the first usage of 'contradiction'.

Example 1: Regarding the review and determination of testimony given by witnesses in court. Article 91 of the judicial interpretation stipulates: "If the testimony given by a witness in court is cross examined by both the prosecution and the defense and verified by the court to be true, it shall be used as the basis for determining the case. If the testimony given by a witness in court is' contradictory 'to their pre-trial testimony, and the witness can provide a reasonable explanation and is supported by other evidence, their pre-trial testimony shall be accepted; if they cannot provide a reasonable explanation and their pre-trial testimony is supported by other evidence, their pre-trial testimony may be accepted

The first usage of "contradiction" specifically refers to the phenomenon of inconsistent words and actions of the same subject. In this judicial interpretation, "contradiction" actually refers to the inconsistency between the testimony of the same witness appearing in court and their own pre-trial testimony. As for whether this "inconsistency" reaches the level of "self contradiction", a substantive judgment needs to be made.  

2. Analysis of the second usage of 'contradiction'.

Example 1 ️ Regarding the examination and determination of the defendant's confession and defense. Article 96 of the judicial interpretation stipulates: "The examination of the defendant's confession and defense shall be conducted in conjunction with all the evidence provided by both the prosecution and the defense, as well as all the defendant's confession and defense. If the defendant recaps his confession during the trial, but cannot reasonably explain the reasons for recapturing or his defense is' contradictory 'to the evidence in the entire case, and his pre-trial confession corroborates other evidence, his pre-trial confession may be accepted

Example 2: Regarding the review and recognition of witness testimony. Article 87 of the judicial interpretation stipulates: "When examining witness testimony, particular attention should be paid to the following: (8) whether the testimony can corroborate each other and with other evidence, whether there are any contradictions; if there are 'contradictions', whether they can be reasonably explained

Example 3: Regarding the review and recognition of appraisal opinions. Article 97 of the judicial interpretation stipulates: "When examining the appraisal opinion, particular attention should be paid to the following: (9) whether the appraisal opinion is' contradictory 'to other evidence such as investigation and inspection records and relevant photos; if there is a' contradiction ', whether a reasonable explanation can be obtained

The second usage of "contradiction" is equivalent to the concept of confirmation in evidential studies. Solitary evidence is not proof. Whether an evidence is true or not is not determined by itself, but depends on whether it can corroborate other evidence in the case. If no confirmation can be formed, it will be classified as a "contradiction". It is worth noting that in criminal justice interpretations, confirmation is a neutral term, while "contradiction" is a slightly derogatory term.

2、 The basic requirements of the law of contradiction

To ensure consistency in thinking, we must abide by the law of contradiction. The basic content of the law of contradiction is that in the same thinking process, two contradictory or opposing ideas cannot be true at the same time. In other words, an idea and its negation cannot be true at the same time. The formula for the law of contradiction is: not (A and not A). The "A" in the formula represents any proposition, while "non-A" represents a proposition that has a contradictory or opposing relationship with A. Therefore, 'not (A and not A)' means that the two propositions A and not A cannot be the same truth, meaning that one of them must be false.

The logical requirement of the law of contradiction is that two contradictory assertions cannot be made about the same object at the same time, that is, it cannot both affirm what it is and deny what it is. In other words, the law of contradiction requires that thoughts must be consistent throughout the same thought process and cannot contradict each other. A logical error that violates the law of contradiction is self contradiction.

In the pre Qin Dynasty's "Han Feizi: Difficulties", it is recorded that "the Chu people had a shield and a spear, and they praised it as: the strength of my shield is such that nothing can sink into it. They also praised its spear as: the advantage of my spear is such that nothing sinks into it. Or, what is it like to use the spear of my son to sink into the shield of my son? The person cannot respond to it. The shield that cannot be sunk by the husband and the spear that cannot sink into it cannot stand in the same world." Among them, "the strength of my shield is such that nothing can sink into it" actually negates the proposition that "nothing can pierce my shield", while "the advantage of my spear is such that nothing sinks into it" actually confirms that "my spear can pierce my shield". The proposition of 'My Shield' is affirmative. Due to his simultaneous affirmation of two contradictory propositions, he inevitably fell into a logical error and awkward situation of "self contradiction".

3、 The Application of Contradiction Law in Criminal Defense Practice

Violating the law of contradiction is a serious logical error, and people will consciously avoid such mistakes. Therefore, discovering such errors is not an easy task and requires in-depth thinking.

Firstly, the author provides a contradictory example at the normative level.

Article 236, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law of 1997 stipulates: "Whoever rapes a girl under the age of fourteen shall be deemed as having committed rape and shall be punished severely. The legislative intention of this regulation is to state that any sexual relationship with a young girl, regardless of whether violence, coercion, or other means are used, and regardless of whether the young girl herself wishes to do so, can constitute the crime of rape. The provision of criminal law is based on the special situation of immature physical and mental development and lack of sexual decision-making ability of young girls, completely denying their sexual decision-making rights and reflecting the absolute protection of their rights by the law.

But at the same time, the crime of soliciting underage girls also acknowledges that underage girls have sexual autonomy and the right to engage in prostitution. Article 360, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law of 1997 stipulates: "Whoever engages in prostitution with a girl under the age of fourteen shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years and shall also be fined." The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on whether the subjective element of knowledge is required to constitute the crime of prostitution with a girl under the age of fourteen (Gao Jian Fa Shi Zi [2001] No. 3, June 1, 2001) stipulates: "If the perpetrator engages in prostitution with a girl under the age of fourteen knowing that the victim is or may be a girl under the age of fourteen, the provisions of Article 360, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law shall apply, and criminal responsibility shall be pursued for the crime of prostitution with a girl under the age of fourteen

The crime of soliciting and sheltering underage girls acknowledges that underage girls have sexual decision-making power, while the crime of rape completely denies that underage girls have sexual decision-making power. Therefore, China's criminal law is contradictory on this issue. In order to address this logical error, on August 29, 2015, the Ninth Amendment to the Criminal Law abolished the crime of soliciting and employing underage girls at the legislative level, thus achieving logical consistency.

Secondly, the author will provide another factual example. This is a fraud case handled by the author in 2021. The victim claimed that the purpose of delivering property to the defendant was to help the defendant "settle" their involvement in the gang. The defendant consistently denied this matter, claiming that they were only helping the victim "inquire" about it. It can be seen that the focus of controversy in this case is whether the victim requested the defendant to inquire or settle the matter. In this case, the victim's statement is the key evidence for conviction, so how to deny the authenticity of their statement? Coincidentally, the author found that another court's effective criminal judgment determined that the victim also bribed the local county party secretary with the purpose of "inquiring" whether he was involved in organized crime. In other words, the victim faced the same problem and sent money to two people in succession. According to his own statement, the purpose of sending money to the county party secretary is to "inquire" whether he is involved in the underworld, while the purpose of sending money to the defendant in this case is to "settle" his involvement in the underworld. But in terms of chronological order, the victim sent money to the defendant in this case first and bribed the county party secretary later. According to the usual practice, it is necessary to inquire first and then settle the matter, rather than going against the norm. According to the law of contradiction in formal logic, there must be one falsehood between the two facts of "inquiring" and "settling" in the dispute focus of this case. Since the effective criminal judgment of the bribery case of the "victim" in this case has clearly identified it as "inquiry", as the same judicial organ, the court in this case should only identify it as "inquiry" rather than "settlement" in order to avoid contradictory logical errors in factual issues.

Based on my limited experience, the key to determining such self contradictory logical errors lies in determining whether they belong to the same subject. The implication of self contradictory fables is that the propositions "nothing can pierce my shield" and "my spear can pierce my shield" are directed towards the same subject, "my shield". Therefore, identity is the fundamental premise for us to clarify contradictions. It can be said that without identity, there can be no true contradiction. There are broad and narrow definitions of the same subject. From a narrow perspective, the same subject is a single subject, that is, the person in the self contradictory fable who sells both spears and shields. This situation is often easier to judge. The so-called broad sense refers to the fact that the subject is not singular, but plural. In this case, we need to determine whether these different entities in complex states can be attributed to the same entity at a higher level? For example, all levels of courts in our country belong to the same system of judicial organs. When handling this criminal case, the author opened up his mind and took a different approach, treating different courts as the same subject, and then examining whether there may be a risk of violating contradictory laws in the determination of the same factual issue by these two different courts. The way out is determined by the train of thought, and in the end, the author discovered significant factual issues and achieved ideal defense results.

4、 Conclusion

The three fundamental laws of formal logic are the law of uniformity, the law of contradiction, and the law of excluded middle, all of which serve to ensure that people's thinking is deterministic. These three basic laws have an inherent connection: uniformity requires that in the same thinking process, thoughts must maintain their own unity and cannot make logical errors of changing concepts; The law of contradiction requires that in the same process of thinking, the same idea cannot be both affirmed and negated, and that the idea should remain consistent throughout and not contradict itself; The law of excluded middle requires that in the same thought process, one of two contradictory ideas must be clearly affirmed as true, and ambiguous logical errors cannot be made. In practice, these three basic laws are never used alone, but play a comprehensive role. Only by simultaneously satisfying these three basic laws can thinking ensure its consistency and certainty.

references

[1] Li Shuangtao: "How Marxism Understands' Contradiction '", published in the 2nd edition of the Study Times on June 13, 2022.

[2] If used alone, the term 'contradiction' is a philosophical concept. When used in daily life, a fixed phrase is usually used, which is' self contradiction '.