本文選題：民意 + 司法　； 參考：《南京大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中,民意與司法一展現(xiàn)為一副相互沖突的圖景。民眾內(nèi)部——普通民眾、精英分子、新聞媒體之間對(duì)案件的觀點(diǎn)和看法常常會(huì)相互矛盾,但是民眾作為一個(gè)整體與司法機(jī)關(guān)和司法人員之間對(duì)案件的觀點(diǎn)和看法的對(duì)立更為嚴(yán)重。而民眾觀點(diǎn)的表達(dá),呈現(xiàn)出范圍廣和形式多的特點(diǎn)：從民事案件到行政案件再到刑事案件,從傳統(tǒng)的媒體到新興的媒體,到處都能看到人民對(duì)法院審理案件所提出的各種想法、各種質(zhì)疑和批判。不僅是在一般的新聞報(bào)道中,在法學(xué)理論研究中,“民意與司法的關(guān)系”也一直是研究的重點(diǎn)和熱點(diǎn),很多學(xué)者都在爭論民意是否干預(yù)司法、司法是否應(yīng)當(dāng)吸納民意,但是很多人都忽略了,司法中的“民意”與法學(xué)理論中一般意義上的民意是有區(qū)別的,是一種帶有自身特點(diǎn)的涉案民意,因此應(yīng)當(dāng)首先對(duì)民意和涉案民意進(jìn)行區(qū)別和界定,并厘清涉案民意有何種表現(xiàn)形式。經(jīng)過分析,涉案民意的特征在于非普遍性、非理性、易變性、片面性和破碎化的特征,涉案民意往往是在一種易被打亂、缺乏規(guī)范性和秩序性的環(huán)境下形成的,并且,涉案民意通常表現(xiàn)為民憤、精英意識(shí)和網(wǎng)絡(luò)民意三種形式。涉案民意與司法的“糾纏”往往表現(xiàn)為涉案民意對(duì)司法結(jié)果的不認(rèn)同,造成這種不認(rèn)同的原因是多方面的,首先是司法制度本身存在的問題和弊病,這其中包括法院管理行政化導(dǎo)致司法不公、法官缺乏責(zé)任感導(dǎo)致司法不公、司法腐敗導(dǎo)致司法喪失公信力、黨政機(jī)構(gòu)的不正當(dāng)干預(yù)導(dǎo)致司法不公；其次,涉案民意本身也具有不合理性,比如普通民眾對(duì)法官角色定位錯(cuò)誤、普通民眾對(duì)司法過程認(rèn)識(shí)錯(cuò)誤、普通思維與法律思維的不同、涉案民意容易被有意或無意的誤導(dǎo)等原因。解決涉案民意與司法結(jié)果沖突的問題,對(duì)于中國司法實(shí)踐活動(dòng)和司法審判工作具有重要的意義。這就需要我們在堅(jiān)持司法基本原則、堅(jiān)守司法原理的前提下,通過“法律的途徑”合理的吸收和引導(dǎo)涉案民意,比如,通過完善人民陪審員制度,完善審判公開制度,提高裁判文書的質(zhì)量,完善法律法規(guī),合理限制媒體的報(bào)道等一系列方法,使得民眾看到一個(gè)公正、透明、嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)乃痉ㄟ^程,重塑司法機(jī)關(guān)和司法人員在民眾心中的形象,重樹司法的權(quán)威和公信力。
[Abstract]:In real life, public opinion and justice show a picture of conflict. The views and opinions of the ordinary people, the elite and the news media on the case often contradict each other. But the people as a whole and the judiciary and judicial personnel view and view of the case more serious. And the expression of people's views shows a wide range of characteristics: from civil cases to administrative cases to criminal cases, from the traditional media to the emerging media, everywhere you can see the people's ideas about the court hearing cases. Questions and criticisms. Not only in general news reports, but also in the theoretical study of law, "the relationship between public opinion and justice" has always been the focus and hot spot of the research. Many scholars are debating whether public opinion interferes in the administration of justice and whether the judiciary should absorb public opinion. However, many people have neglected that there is a difference between "public opinion" in the judiciary and public opinion in the general sense of legal theory. It is a kind of public opinion involved with its own characteristics. Therefore, we should first distinguish and define the public opinion and the public opinion involved. And clarify the expression of public opinion involved in the form. After analysis, the characteristics of the public opinion involved in the case are non-universal, irrational, volatile, one-sidedness and fragmentation. The public opinion involved in the case is often formed in an environment where it is easy to be disrupted, lacking in standardization and order, and, Public opinion involved in the case is usually manifested in public anger, elite consciousness and network public opinion in three forms. The "entanglement" between the public opinion involved in the case and the administration of justice is often manifested in the disapproval of the public opinion involved in the judicial outcome. There are many reasons for this disapproval. The first is the problems and shortcomings of the judicial system itself. This includes that the administration of courts leads to judicial injustice, the lack of sense of responsibility of judges leads to judicial injustice, judicial corruption leads to the loss of judicial credibility, the improper intervention of party and government organs leads to judicial injustice; secondly, The public opinion involved in the case is also irrational, such as the common people's mispositioning of the judge's role, the common people's wrong understanding of the judicial process, the difference between the common thinking and the legal thinking, and the fact that the public opinion involved in the case is easily misled intentionally or unintentionally. It is of great significance to resolve the conflict between public opinion and judicial results for judicial practice and judicial trial in China. This requires us to, on the premise of upholding the basic principles of justice and upholding the principles of justice, reasonably absorb and guide the public opinion involved in the case through "legal channels", for example, by perfecting the system of people's assessors and perfecting the system of open trial. To improve the quality of adjudication documents, perfect laws and regulations, and reasonably limit media reports, etc., so that the public can see a fair, transparent and rigorous judicial process, and reshape the image of the judiciary and judicial personnel in the hearts of the public. Re-establish the authority and credibility of the judiciary.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D916;D913

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 羅朋;;“微”力量下的輿論審判——微博輿論對(duì)“藥家鑫案”審判影響辨析[J];當(dāng)代傳播;2011年05期

2 李德海;論司法獨(dú)立[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年01期

3 陳樂民;;論盧梭[J];讀書;2008年04期

4 鄭成良,陳海光;論法官職業(yè)思維方式的養(yǎng)成[J];法律適用(國家法官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2002年12期

5 張衛(wèi)平;論我國法院體制的非行政化——法院體制改革的一種基本思路[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2000年03期

6 陳柏峰;;法治熱點(diǎn)案件討論中的傳媒角色——以“藥家鑫案”為例[J];法商研究;2011年04期

7 馬駿駒,聶德宗;當(dāng)前我國司法制度存在的問題與改進(jìn)對(duì)策[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1998年06期

8 周葉中,江國華;法律理性中的司法和法官主導(dǎo)下的法治——佘祥林案的檢討與啟示[J];法學(xué);2005年08期

9 周永坤;;民意審判與審判元規(guī)則[J];法學(xué);2009年08期

10 嚴(yán)勵(lì);;地方政法委“冤案協(xié)調(diào)會(huì)”的潛規(guī)則應(yīng)該予以廢除[J];法學(xué);2010年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：2075572