本文選題：人民陪審員制度 + 法律問(wèn)題��； 參考：《中國(guó)法學(xué)》2017年01期

【摘要】：事實(shí)問(wèn)題具有法律性,法律問(wèn)題具有事實(shí)性,因此在理論上很難找到清晰而明確的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)準(zhǔn)確地區(qū)分刑事陪審中的法律問(wèn)題與事實(shí)問(wèn)題。境外刑事陪審實(shí)踐中對(duì)法律問(wèn)題與事實(shí)問(wèn)題之區(qū)分,主要是通過(guò)程序機(jī)制的方法明確法官和陪審員的具體職責(zé),由此形成了一般裁定和問(wèn)題清單兩種不同的模式。我國(guó)刑事陪審中法律問(wèn)題與事實(shí)問(wèn)題的區(qū)分,既要遵循法哲學(xué)上有關(guān)訴訟中區(qū)分法律問(wèn)題與事實(shí)問(wèn)題的基本規(guī)律,又要充分考慮我國(guó)法律傳統(tǒng)和司法實(shí)踐等因素。
[Abstract]:The fact question has the legal nature, the legal question has the fact nature, therefore in the theory, it is very difficult to find the clear and clear standard accurately to distinguish the legal question and the fact question in the criminal jury trial. The distinction between legal issues and factual issues in the practice of overseas criminal jury is mainly to clarify the specific duties of judges and jurors by means of procedural mechanism, thus forming two different modes of general ruling and list of questions. The distinction between legal problems and factual issues in criminal jury trial in our country should not only follow the basic law of distinguishing legal issues from factual issues in legal philosophy, but also fully consider the legal tradition and judicial practice of our country.
【作者單位】： 對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【基金】：國(guó)家2011計(jì)劃“司法文明協(xié)同創(chuàng)新研究中心” 中國(guó)法學(xué)會(huì)2015年重點(diǎn)課題“我國(guó)刑事陪審中法律問(wèn)題與事實(shí)問(wèn)題的區(qū)分”[項(xiàng)目批準(zhǔn)號(hào):CLS(2015)B11]的研究成果
【分類號(hào)】：D926.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 方麗冬;盧婧Z，

本文編號(hào)：1847535