本文選題：陪審制度　切入點(diǎn)：事實(shí)審　出處：《南京大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：人民陪審員制度是中國(guó)特色社會(huì)主義民主政治制度在司法領(lǐng)域的生動(dòng)實(shí)踐,意義深遠(yuǎn)且重大。從世界陪審制度實(shí)踐來(lái)看,陪審員的職能都包含了事實(shí)認(rèn)定問(wèn)題,各種制度的差異就在于是否包含決定法律適用問(wèn)題。黨的十八屆四中全會(huì)作出的《中共中央關(guān)于全面推進(jìn)依法治國(guó)若干重大問(wèn)題的決定》(以下稱《決定》)提出,逐步實(shí)行人民陪審員不再審理法律適用問(wèn)題,只參與審理事實(shí)認(rèn)定問(wèn)題。《決定》和方案的指出為人民陪審制度確定了司改方向,是對(duì)現(xiàn)行法律規(guī)范中人民陪審員參審職能的重大調(diào)整,"逐步實(shí)行"的表述既充分體現(xiàn)了審慎的態(tài)度,也暗含了對(duì)人民陪審制度"事實(shí)審"與"法律審"現(xiàn)實(shí)困惑之出路循序漸進(jìn)的探索。根據(jù)最高人民法院和司法部聯(lián)合印發(fā)的《人民陪審員制度改革試點(diǎn)方案》,人民陪審員在案件評(píng)議過(guò)程中就事實(shí)認(rèn)定問(wèn)題獨(dú)立發(fā)表意見(jiàn),不再對(duì)法律適用問(wèn)題發(fā)表意見(jiàn)。人民陪審員和職業(yè)法官開(kāi)始分工,由法官和陪審員對(duì)事實(shí)問(wèn)題共同負(fù)責(zé),法官對(duì)法律問(wèn)題獨(dú)立負(fù)責(zé)。對(duì)人民陪審制度中法律審和事實(shí)審分離機(jī)制的探討,有助于進(jìn)一步發(fā)現(xiàn)人民陪審員在事實(shí)認(rèn)定中遇到的困難和障礙,以提出有效的解決措施,保證人民陪審員在事實(shí)認(rèn)定方面真正發(fā)揮作用,改變長(zhǎng)期存在的"陪而不審"現(xiàn)象。本文從人民陪審員事實(shí)審與法律審分離的必要性、可能性、改革困惑、實(shí)踐路徑等角度揭開(kāi)人民陪審員的似顯非顯的深沉理論的面紗,結(jié)合當(dāng)前改革,探討人民陪審員法律審和事實(shí)審分離機(jī)制研究。論文分為四部分,第一部分講法律審與事實(shí)審分離的必要性和可能性,界定了法律審和事實(shí)審的概念,法律審有狹義和廣義之分,本文持廣義的法律審觀點(diǎn)。之后分別從三個(gè)方面分析了法律審與事實(shí)審分離的必要性和可能性。第二部分分析了法律審與事實(shí)審分離機(jī)制改革的困惑,結(jié)合改革的背景,探討事實(shí)審與法律審分離可能產(chǎn)生的法律沖突以及"事實(shí)問(wèn)題"與"法律問(wèn)題"難以區(qū)分。第三部分考察了域外法律審與事實(shí)審分離的路徑。大陸法系國(guó)家和英美法系國(guó)家對(duì)事實(shí)問(wèn)題和法律問(wèn)題認(rèn)識(shí)程度的不同,相對(duì)而言,英美法系國(guó)家對(duì)哪些問(wèn)題屬于案件的事實(shí)問(wèn)題,哪些問(wèn)題屬于案件的法律問(wèn)題比較明確。在分析了兩大法系的基礎(chǔ)上提出了對(duì)我國(guó)關(guān)于事實(shí)問(wèn)題與法律問(wèn)題區(qū)分的啟示。第四部分是關(guān)于法律審與事實(shí)審分離機(jī)制的完善。從制度保障和司法實(shí)踐兩個(gè)方面推進(jìn)人民陪審員制度法律審和事實(shí)審分離。
[Abstract]:The people's jury system is a vivid practice of the socialist democratic political system with Chinese characteristics in the judicial field. The difference between the various systems lies in whether or not the issue of deciding on the application of the law is included. The "decision of the CPC Central Committee on comprehensively promoting the Rule of Law" (hereinafter referred to as "the decision") made by the fourth Plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee was put forward. Step by step, the people's assessors will no longer try the application of the law, they will only participate in the determination of facts. The points out in the < decision > and the plan have set the direction for the reform of the department for the people's jury system. It is a major adjustment to the functions of the people's assessors in the current legal norms, and the expression of "gradual implementation" fully reflects a prudent attitude. It also implies a gradual exploration of the way out of the confusion over the reality of the "factual trial" and "legal trial" of the people's jury system. According to the "pilot Plan on the Reform of the people's jury system" issued jointly by the Supreme people's Court and the Ministry of Justice, people, In the course of the case review, the people's jurors independently express their opinions on the issue of finding the facts, No more opinions on the application of the law. The people's jurors and professional judges began to divide their work, and the judges and jurors were jointly responsible for the factual issues. Judges are independently responsible for legal issues. The discussion of the separation mechanism between legal and factual trials in the people's jury system is conducive to further discovering the difficulties and obstacles encountered by people's jurors in the determination of facts, in order to put forward effective measures to resolve them. To ensure that the people's jurors really play a role in the determination of the facts, and change the long-standing phenomenon of "accompany but not try". This paper discusses the necessity, possibility and reform of the separation of the people's jurors' factual trial from the legal trial. From the point of view of practice path, the author uncovers the deep theory of the people's jurors, discusses the separation mechanism between the legal trial and the factual trial of the people's jurors, and discusses the separation mechanism of the people's jurors' legal trial and the factual trial. The paper is divided into four parts. The first part talks about the necessity and possibility of separating the legal trial from the factual one, and defines the concepts of the legal trial and the factual trial, which are divided into narrow sense and broad sense. The second part analyzes the confusion of the reform of the separation mechanism between the legal trial and the factual trial, combining with the background of the reform, after analyzing the necessity and possibility of the separation of the legal trial and the factual trial from three aspects, the second part analyzes the confusion of the reform of the mechanism of the separation of the legal trial and the factual trial. This paper discusses the possible conflict of laws between the factual trial and the legal trial, and the difficulty of distinguishing between the "factual question" and the "legal question". The third part examines the path of the separation of the extraterritorial legal trial and the factual trial. The degree of understanding of factual and legal issues in the countries of the American legal system is different, Relatively speaking, common law countries are concerned about which issues belong to the factual issues of the case, On the basis of the analysis of the two legal systems, this paper puts forward the enlightenment to the distinction between the facts and the legal problems in our country. The fourth part is about the legal trial and the fact trial separator. From two aspects of system guarantee and judicial practice, the separation of legal trial and fact trial of the people's jury system is promoted.
【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】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D926.2
，

本文編號(hào)：1645949