本文選題：刑事司法實(shí)踐 + 陪審制��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：自1949年我國(guó)實(shí)行人民陪審制來,該制度已在我國(guó)實(shí)行六十余年,因其在實(shí)際運(yùn)行中的象征意義大于實(shí)際意義,法學(xué)界與實(shí)務(wù)界就此展開了一場(chǎng)針對(duì)人民陪審制的存廢之爭(zhēng)。而支持人民陪審制保留或改革的文章大多是從陪審制的價(jià)值來談陪審制存在的必要,少有人分析到中國(guó)當(dāng)前的司法實(shí)踐是否需要陪審制的存在。本文行文的目的在于通過剖析中國(guó)當(dāng)前刑事司法實(shí)踐中存在的問題,從而來論證陪審制在中國(guó)存在的必要性。同時(shí)通過對(duì)目前所運(yùn)行的人民陪審制弊端的分析論證其改革的必要性,并提出簡(jiǎn)單的改革設(shè)想。 文章共分為四部分: 在第一部分,筆者結(jié)合案例從三個(gè)方面對(duì)當(dāng)前刑事司法實(shí)踐中存在的顯著問題進(jìn)行了剖析。首先,分析了影響我國(guó)司法獨(dú)立的主要原因,即受到強(qiáng)權(quán)干預(yù)和民意“綁架”。其次,針對(duì)我國(guó)的司法公正問題受到群眾高度關(guān)注的現(xiàn)狀,分析了影響我國(guó)司法公正的三項(xiàng)重要原因,即司法腐敗、“瘋狂”的民意以及缺乏中立意識(shí)的法官。最后,針對(duì)我國(guó)司法公信力受到空前質(zhì)疑的問題,分析了損害司法公信力的主要原因,即司法獨(dú)立性難以保障、公眾對(duì)司法公正缺乏信任、司法與社會(huì)未建立起有效的交流溝通機(jī)制。 在第二部分,筆者重點(diǎn)論述了陪審制在解決上述問題中所能發(fā)揮的重要作用。首先,分析了陪審制對(duì)于實(shí)現(xiàn)司法獨(dú)立所起到的作用,即陪審制能夠較好的處理司法與民意的關(guān)系,使司法免受民意“綁架”;陪審制能夠切斷地方權(quán)力與司法權(quán)的聯(lián)系,使司法免受外界干預(yù);陪審制能夠沖擊審判的行政化積弊,實(shí)現(xiàn)法官獨(dú)立與審級(jí)獨(dú)立。其次,分析了陪審制對(duì)于實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正所起到的作用,即除了有利于維護(hù)司法獨(dú)立外,還有利于防止司法腐敗,有利于遏制法官的追訴意識(shí)。最后,分析了陪審制在提升司法公信力方面所起到的作用,即除了有利于維護(hù)司法獨(dú)立、實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正外,還有助于使司法與社會(huì)相互融合、相互影響。 在第三部份,筆者從六個(gè)方面分析了我國(guó)人民陪審制的現(xiàn)狀及缺陷,并指出我國(guó)人民陪審制在維護(hù)司法獨(dú)立、確保司法公正、提升司法公信力方面難以發(fā)揮作用。首先,指出了我國(guó)人民陪審制法律地位日漸式微的現(xiàn)狀。其次,指出人民陪審員的資格設(shè)定及遴選程序缺乏民主性,難以體現(xiàn)陪審制的民主性,也難以維護(hù)司法獨(dú)立、實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正。第三,指出了人民陪審制的適用范圍過于隨意,導(dǎo)致陪審制難以發(fā)揮實(shí)效。第四,指出在當(dāng)前人民陪審制度的設(shè)計(jì)下,人民陪審員不具有真正意義上的獨(dú)立地位,人民陪審員對(duì)案件的裁決難以發(fā)揮實(shí)質(zhì)影響,導(dǎo)致人民陪審制的裁判亦缺乏權(quán)威性。第五,指出了人民陪審員的職業(yè)化現(xiàn)象突出,不利于人民陪審員對(duì)職業(yè)法官的監(jiān)督,增加了人民陪審員貪污腐敗的可能性,難以體現(xiàn)陪審制的民主內(nèi)涵,不利于對(duì)社會(huì)的普法教育。第六,指出了人民陪審員管理方式的弊端及其他問題。 在第四部分,針對(duì)人民陪審制難以在我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中發(fā)揮實(shí)際作用的問題,筆者提出了對(duì)人民陪審制進(jìn)行改革重構(gòu)的建議。首先,在陪審制模式的選擇上,筆者認(rèn)為受困于我國(guó)當(dāng)前的司法體制以及參審制固有的缺陷——否認(rèn)司法活動(dòng)中涉及法律問題的專業(yè)特征,參審制在我國(guó)難以發(fā)揮實(shí)際作用。而陪審制的二元裁判結(jié)構(gòu)有利于沖擊當(dāng)前的司法體制弊端,維護(hù)司法獨(dú)立、實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正、提升司法公信力。其次,鑒于我國(guó)與俄羅斯(前蘇聯(lián))同屬于大陸法國(guó)家,且在刑事訴訟制度特別是陪審制方面具有深厚淵源,筆者以俄羅斯的陪審制為藍(lán)本,提出了我國(guó)陪審制重構(gòu)的初步設(shè)想。 結(jié)語部分,筆者指出對(duì)陪審制的改革而言,無論是完善還是重構(gòu)都將是一項(xiàng)浩大而漫長(zhǎng)的工程,短期內(nèi)是無法實(shí)現(xiàn)的。但我們應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)陪審制進(jìn)行持之以恒的研究和宣傳,為陪審制將來的改革提供社會(huì)基礎(chǔ)與理論基礎(chǔ)。
[Abstract]:Since 1949 China's implementation of the people's jury system, the system has been practiced in China for sixty years, because of its symbolic significance in the actual operation is greater than the actual significance, the law circle and the practice circle started a fight against the people's jury system the abolition of the dispute. But support the people jury system to retain most of the articles or reform is to talk about the necessity of jury system from the value of the jury system, few people analyze whether the current judicial practice China need the presence of jury system. This dissertation aims to analyze the existence of China current criminal problems in the judicial practice, which proved the necessity of jury system in China. At the same time the necessity to demonstrate the reform through the analysis of people's jury system malpractice the, and puts forward some simple ideas for reform.
The article is divided into four parts:
In the first part, the author combines cases to analyze the problems existed in current criminal judicial practice from three aspects. Firstly, analyses the main reasons affecting judicial independence in our country, that is the power of intervention and public opinion "kidnapping". Secondly, according to the present situation of our country's justice problem is highly concerned by the masses and analysis of the impact of three important reasons of judicial justice in our country, namely the judicial corruption, "Crazy" public opinion and the lack of neutral sense of judge. Finally, in view of our country judicial credibility suffered serious doubts about the problem, analyze the main reasons of the damage the credibility of the judiciary, the judicial independence is not guaranteed, the public on judicial justice a lack of trust, justice and society did not establish effective communication mechanism.
In the second part, the author discusses the important role of the jury system can play in solving the above problems. Firstly, analysis of the jury system in the realization of judicial independence of the role, that the jury system can deal with the relationship between judicature and public opinion better, make justice from public opinion "kidnapping"; the jury system can cut off the place the power and judicial power, the judicial intervention from outside; administrative problems of the jury system can impact the trial, realizing the independence of judges and judicial independence. Secondly, analysis of the jury system in the realization of judicial justice to the role that in addition to help maintain the independence of the judiciary, and to prevent corruption in the judiciary, prosecution to curb the consciousness of judges. Finally, analysis of the jury system plays in improving the public credibility of the judiciary, that in addition to help maintain judicial independence, judicial justice, and help to make our Law and society blend and influence each other.
In the third part, the author analyzes the status and defects of China's jury system from six aspects, and points out that the Chinese people's jury system in the maintenance of judicial independence, ensure judicial justice is difficult to play a role in enhancing the credibility of the judiciary. Firstly, points out the status quo of China's jury system legal status is declining. Secondly, pointed out that the people's jury qualification setting and selection procedure is lack of democracy, it is difficult to embody the jury system of democracy, is also difficult to maintain judicial independence, judicial justice. Third, pointed out that the scope of the people's jury system is too arbitrary, leading to the jury system is difficult to be effective. Fourth, pointed out that in the design of the current people's jury system. The people's jury does not have a real sense of independence, the people's jury verdict on the case is difficult to play the actual effect, causes the people's jury system referee lack of authority. In fifth, the The people's juror occupation phenomenon prominent, is not conducive to people's assessors to supervise occupation judges, increase the possibility of people's juror corruption, it is difficult to reflect the jury's connotation of democracy, is not conducive to social education. Sixth, pointed out the shortcomings of the people's jury management and other problems.
In the fourth part, according to the people's jury system is difficult to play a practical role in the judicial practice of our country, the author puts forward the reform and reconstruction of the people's jury system. First of all, in the jury system mode selection, the author thinks that trapped in our current judicial system and the trial system of inherent defects, deny the professional characteristics of the legal issues involved in the judicial activities, the assessor system in our country is difficult to play a practical role. While the two yuan structure of the jury system is conducive to the impact of the current judicial system, judicial independence, judicial justice, improving judicial credibility. Secondly, in view of China and Russia (former Soviet Union) belong to the mainland law of the country, and in the criminal prosecution system especially the jury system has a deep origin, according to the Russian jury system is modeled, put forward the preliminary idea of jury system is reconstructed in our country.
In the conclusion part, the author points out that the jury system reform, whether it is perfect or reconstruction will be a huge and long project, the short term can not be achieved. But we should persevere in research and advocacy of the jury system, to provide social and theoretical basis for the reform of the jury system in the future.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D926.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉晴輝;;對(duì)人民陪審制運(yùn)行過程的考察[J];北大法律評(píng)論;2007年01期

2 彭小龍;;陪審團(tuán)審理微觀制衡機(jī)制考察——一個(gè)以美國(guó)為對(duì)象的分析實(shí)證視角[J];北大法律評(píng)論;2007年01期

3 趙國(guó)勇;;司法腐敗的成因分析[J];才智;2009年02期

4 "中國(guó)陪審制度研究"課題組;;中國(guó)陪審制度研究——以成都市武侯區(qū)人民法院陪審工作為對(duì)象[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2008年06期

5 何家弘;;中國(guó)陪審制度的改革方向——以世界陪審制度的歷史發(fā)展為借鑒[J];法學(xué)家;2006年01期

6 劉計(jì)劃;;我國(guó)陪審制度的功能及其實(shí)現(xiàn)[J];法學(xué)家;2008年06期

7 陳少林;完善中國(guó)刑事陪審制度之構(gòu)想[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2005年04期

8 謝佑平,萬毅;司法公正與群眾參與:陪審制度的理論分析[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年02期

9 汪祖興;趙信會(huì);;論人民陪審制改革的模式選擇——談“混合制”陪審模式的建立[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年04期

10 賀衛(wèi)方;;司法如何獲得國(guó)民的信賴——評(píng)孫偉銘案判決[J];西部法學(xué)評(píng)論;2010年03期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前3條

1 早報(bào)評(píng)論專欄作者 西南政法大學(xué)教授 高一飛;[N];東方早報(bào);2009年

2 何家弘邋中國(guó)人民大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授;[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

3 中國(guó)人民大學(xué)法學(xué)院博士生導(dǎo)師 何家弘;[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2001年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 金成;中國(guó)陪審制改革構(gòu)思[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2002年

2 楊凌;當(dāng)代陪審制的民主意義解讀[D];四川大學(xué);2003年

3 杜應(yīng)堯;論人民陪審制的價(jià)值[D];山西大學(xué);2005年

4 姜秀芳;陪審制研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2008年

5 侯艷;中國(guó)陪審制探析[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：1739540