本文選題：律師意見　切入點(diǎn)：司法回應(yīng)　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：律師制度是司法公正的重要保障機(jī)制，律師意見在司法判決中得到有效回應(yīng)是律師在訴訟中發(fā)揮作用的重要體現(xiàn)。法律雖然賦予了律師以辯護(hù)權(quán)，但對于庭審中未回應(yīng)律師辯護(hù)意見或者代理意見時，并不存在相應(yīng)的救濟(jì)機(jī)制。這是一個重大的制度缺陷，對司法公正會產(chǎn)生重要影響。 律師意見不被回應(yīng)，既有法律制度上的缺失，也有法官的觀念因素，在一定程度上是律師地位不對等的體現(xiàn)。律師意見不被回應(yīng)，不利于提高律師的法律執(zhí)業(yè)能力。當(dāng)事人主要關(guān)注律師與法官的私人關(guān)系，而不是其執(zhí)業(yè)能力，，促使律師更注重維系與法官的私人關(guān)系；律師意見不被回應(yīng)的最大危害還在于，它會造成司法對公正的背離，導(dǎo)致一些枉法裁判或者誤判，不能形成司法過程的權(quán)力制衡機(jī)制，對法官公正司法失去有效的監(jiān)督和制衡作用。而司法不公，必然危及社會穩(wěn)定，很多涉訴信服不能說完全與此無關(guān)。要求法院對律師意見進(jìn)行有效回應(yīng)，對不予回應(yīng)的充分說明理由，就成為司法過程中的重要訴求。 在強(qiáng)化法院回應(yīng)律師意見方面，一方面，要強(qiáng)化判決書的說理要求，對判決結(jié)論要進(jìn)行法律和事實(shí)方面的論證，對律師意見不予采信時要說明理由；另一方面，可以從制度上創(chuàng)設(shè)一項律師意見不被回應(yīng)的審查請求權(quán)，作為一項救濟(jì)性權(quán)利，以確保律師辯護(hù)權(quán)的實(shí)現(xiàn)，有效維護(hù)當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益。同時，還可以參照國外和我國香港地區(qū)的相關(guān)制度，設(shè)置律師意見不被回應(yīng)時的獨(dú)立上訴權(quán)，這是保證律師作用有效實(shí)現(xiàn)的重要制度機(jī)制。 通過強(qiáng)化律師意見對司法判決的影響力，能夠達(dá)成司法過程的制衡效應(yīng)，實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正，保障公民的合法權(quán)利；同時能夠促進(jìn)律師行業(yè)的良性競爭和健康發(fā)展，提升律師的執(zhí)業(yè)能力及其法律素養(yǎng)，對我國訴訟制度的完善也具有重要意義。
[Abstract]:The lawyer system is an important safeguard mechanism of judicial justice. The effective response of lawyer's opinion in judicial judgment is an important embodiment of the lawyer's role in the lawsuit. Although the law gives lawyers the right to defend, However, there is no corresponding relief mechanism when counsel's defense opinion or representation opinion is not answered in court, which is a major institutional defect and will have an important impact on judicial justice. The lawyer's opinion is not responded to, not only because of the lack of legal system, but also because of the concept factor of judge, which to a certain extent reflects the unequal status of lawyer, and the lawyer's opinion is not answered. It is not conducive to improving the legal practice ability of lawyers. The parties mainly focus on the private relationship between lawyers and judges, rather than on their ability to practise, which urges lawyers to pay more attention to maintaining personal relations with judges. The greatest danger of lawyers' opinions not being answered is that, It will cause judicial deviations from justice, lead to some judicial perversion or misjudgment, fail to form the power balance mechanism in the judicial process, and lose the effective supervision and check and balance function to the just administration of justice of the judge. And the unfair administration of justice will inevitably endanger the stability of the society. Many litigant persuasion cannot be said to have nothing to do with this at all. Requiring the court to respond effectively to counsel's opinion and to fully explain the reasons for not responding becomes an important demand in the judicial process. With regard to strengthening the court's response to counsel's opinions, on the one hand, it is necessary to strengthen the reasoning requirements of the judgment, to demonstrate the legal and factual aspects of the conclusion of the judgment, and to explain the reasons when the lawyer's opinion is not accepted; on the other hand, We can create a right of review and request that lawyers' opinions are not responded to, as a relief right, to ensure the realization of lawyers' right of defense, and to effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the parties. It is also possible to set up the independent right of appeal when lawyers' opinions are not answered by referring to the relevant systems in foreign countries and Hong Kong, which is an important institutional mechanism to ensure the effective realization of lawyers' role. By strengthening the influence of lawyers' opinions on judicial decisions, we can achieve the checks and balances in the judicial process, realize judicial justice, safeguard the legal rights of citizens, and promote the healthy competition and healthy development of the lawyer industry. It is also of great significance to improve the practice ability and legal literacy of lawyers in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D926.5

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 韓旭;;律師辯護(hù)意見為何難以被采納——以法院裁判為視角[J];法治研究;2008年04期

2 寧靜;王威;;中英律師制度比較[J];廣西政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年02期

3 蔣恩慈;析美國律師制度[J];法學(xué);1982年02期

4 楊根飛;楊長松;;辯護(hù)人上訴制度研究[J];法治研究;2011年11期

5 王衛(wèi)平;刑事審判忽視律師辯護(hù)意見的原因及對策[J];山西高等學(xué)校社會科學(xué)學(xué)報;2002年09期

6 李萍;GATS與我國法律服務(wù)業(yè)的開放[J];中國律師;2001年12期

7 樂瑞詳;;英美日蘇和中國的律師制度比較探索[J];國外法學(xué);1986年06期

本文編號：1633231