本文選題：法官豁免權(quán) + 錯(cuò)案責(zé)任追究��； 參考：《上海師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著我國司法改革的深化,對(duì)法官的各方面要求也是越來越高,法官越來越精英化、職業(yè)化,但是面對(duì)這一新職業(yè)群體,我國法律中并沒有給予足夠的權(quán)利保障,相反,隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)的全球化,犯罪種類的多樣化以及司法公正與社會(huì)公正的不平衡,法官面臨的職業(yè)壓力倒是有增無減。近年來,隨著法治的進(jìn)步,訴訟中出現(xiàn)的冤假錯(cuò)案不斷的被糾正,糾正冤假錯(cuò)案的同時(shí),引起了社會(huì)對(duì)司法公平正義的質(zhì)疑,一定程度上損害了我國法律的權(quán)威和公信力。為了提高辦案質(zhì)量,維護(hù)司法公正,我國法院在實(shí)行審判改革過程中,設(shè)立了法官錯(cuò)案責(zé)任追究制度。我國設(shè)立的法官錯(cuò)案責(zé)任追究制度在保證法官于訴訟中正確行使審判權(quán),實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正方面,具有一定的積極意義。但是,其弊端也是顯露無疑,只要訴訟中出現(xiàn)冤假錯(cuò)案,加上社會(huì)輿論的傾向,就會(huì)不分青紅皂白的追究法官的責(zé)任。這樣就忽視了對(duì)法官職業(yè)群體的權(quán)利保障,使法官們?cè)趯徟邪讣䲡r(shí),置自己于不可測的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)之中。這種情況體現(xiàn)在了最近幾年的司法實(shí)踐過程中,法院內(nèi)部出現(xiàn)法官消極判案,提交審判委員會(huì)集體討論的案件數(shù)量一番再番,同時(shí)法官也因行使職權(quán)卻得不到強(qiáng)有力的保護(hù)而憂心忡忡,這種現(xiàn)象導(dǎo)致法官不敢獨(dú)立審案而不求進(jìn)取,司法人員素質(zhì)也無法提高,從而形成一種惡性循環(huán)。這種現(xiàn)象的出現(xiàn)說明我國在對(duì)法官職業(yè)群體的權(quán)利保障方面并沒有給予足夠的重視,在法官的任免、薪資待遇、責(zé)任等方面依然亟需改善。給法官足夠的職業(yè)保障,是為了保證法官的獨(dú)立地位,使其能夠獨(dú)立公正執(zhí)法不受外在影響,不偏不倚的作出裁判,維護(hù)司法公正。在司法過程中,法官的獨(dú)立性地位是司法公正的基礎(chǔ),而目前,由于保障缺失,法官的司法行為正在受到越來越多的干擾,所以,構(gòu)建我國的法官責(zé)任豁免制度已經(jīng)迫在眉睫。本文結(jié)合近年來司法實(shí)踐,除第一章的緒論外,從四個(gè)部分展開論述:第一部分為“法官責(zé)任豁免制度的起源和發(fā)展”。主要闡述了法官豁免制度的產(chǎn)生和發(fā)展以及當(dāng)代的法官責(zé)任豁免制度的發(fā)展趨勢與變革。西方國家從歷史上就對(duì)法官職業(yè)的權(quán)利保障比較重視,而我國從歷史上就缺乏對(duì)法官的權(quán)利保障,由于缺乏這種保障,才有沈家本所言:“時(shí)人視秋曹為畏途”。然后分析了從我國建國至今法官豁免權(quán)空間的有限性。也進(jìn)一步闡述了各國法官責(zé)任豁免制度的發(fā)展趨勢,同時(shí)指出了我國法官責(zé)任豁免制度的發(fā)展現(xiàn)狀。第二部分為“構(gòu)建法官責(zé)任豁免制度的依據(jù)”。主要闡述了構(gòu)建法官責(zé)任豁免制度的理論基礎(chǔ)以及現(xiàn)實(shí)需要。構(gòu)建法官責(zé)任豁免制度是一種權(quán)利控制與保障的統(tǒng)一,法官作為消極中立的裁判者的有限理性以及司法的不確定性,需要有一種制度來將這種不確定性帶來的后果與法官個(gè)人責(zé)任隔離開來,同時(shí)也促進(jìn)法官獨(dú)立判案,維護(hù)司法公正和司法權(quán)威。實(shí)踐中錯(cuò)案責(zé)任追究的模糊界限以及各地做法不一,導(dǎo)致不少法官蒙冤受屈,所以為了保障法官的權(quán)利,加強(qiáng)法官的職業(yè)榮譽(yù)感,必須要建立一套科學(xué)有效的法官責(zé)任豁免制度。第三部分為“法官責(zé)任豁免制度的域外考察”。主要闡述了英美法系和大陸法系國家的法官責(zé)任豁免制度的起源、發(fā)展以及適用,同時(shí)也分析了國際規(guī)范中一些關(guān)于法官責(zé)任豁免制度的演變和適用,通過對(duì)比分析各國以及國際上的法官責(zé)任豁免制度的共性和差異,來探尋該制度的內(nèi)在機(jī)理及其運(yùn)行規(guī)律,為我國法官責(zé)任豁免制度的構(gòu)建提供借鑒。第四部分為“我國法官責(zé)任豁免制度的構(gòu)想”。通過加強(qiáng)立法,在法律上肯定法官的豁免權(quán),并具體的規(guī)定法官的豁免內(nèi)容及其界限。十八大以來,不少冤假錯(cuò)案得以糾正,但是筆者認(rèn)為錯(cuò)案責(zé)任追究與豁免是相輔相成的,對(duì)故意或者重大過失造成的錯(cuò)案予以追責(zé),體現(xiàn)了問題意識(shí),有利于促進(jìn)司法人員增強(qiáng)責(zé)任心,以臨淵履薄的心態(tài)對(duì)待每一個(gè)案件,全面收集、精心審查每一個(gè)證據(jù),從而提高案件質(zhì)量和司法公信力;同時(shí),錯(cuò)案是司法規(guī)律中的一個(gè)正常現(xiàn)象,對(duì)無故意或重大過失造成的錯(cuò)案豁免是為了促進(jìn)法官獨(dú)立,維護(hù)司法公正和權(quán)威,遵循司法規(guī)律,是符合現(xiàn)代司法理念的。筆者通過分析錯(cuò)案的種類,明確了哪些錯(cuò)案需要追究責(zé)任、哪些錯(cuò)案要給予法官以豁免權(quán),并提出了在中級(jí)以上法院建立法官評(píng)審委員會(huì),為構(gòu)建我國法官責(zé)任豁免制度提供程序上的保障。法治是現(xiàn)代國家所追求的的共同目標(biāo),而法官責(zé)任豁免制度是現(xiàn)代法治文明國家的標(biāo)志之一。這一制度關(guān)系著一國的法官能否獨(dú)立行使裁判權(quán),司法是否公正以及司法過程中當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益是否得到保證等問題。法官責(zé)任豁免制度產(chǎn)生于西方英美法系國家,它的出現(xiàn)與西方司法獨(dú)立運(yùn)動(dòng)有著密切的內(nèi)部聯(lián)系。因此,想要將具備深厚西方司法獨(dú)立思想的制度自如的運(yùn)用于我國司法體制中,不僅要深入的研究法官責(zé)任豁免制度的內(nèi)在機(jī)理,還需要對(duì)各國的法官責(zé)任豁免制度加以全面分析和比較,同時(shí)還要兼顧我國的國情以及歷史以來的司法運(yùn)行規(guī)律。
[Abstract]:With the deepening of China's judicial reform, the requirements for all aspects of the judges are becoming higher and higher, and the judges are becoming more and more elite and professional. But in the face of this new professional group, there is no sufficient protection for the rights of our country. On the contrary, with the globalization of the economy, the diversity of the types of crimes and the impartiality of judicial justice and social justice. In recent years, with the progress of the rule of law, with the progress of the rule of law, the wrongful and false cases in the lawsuit have been constantly corrected, and the wrong cases are corrected. At the same time, the judicial fairness and justice are questioned by the society. To some extent, the authority and credibility of the law in our country are damaged to some extent. In order to improve the quality of the case and maintain the Department of maintenance. In the process of judicial reform, the court of our country established the system of investigating the miscase of judges in the process of trial reform. The system of investigating the miscase responsibility of judges in our country has certain positive significance in guaranteeing the judges' right to exercise the trial right in the lawsuit and to realize judicial justice. However, the malpractice of the judges is also obvious, as long as there is an injustice in the lawsuit. The false case, coupled with the tendency of public opinion, will be indiscriminate in investigating the responsibility of the judges. This ignores the protection of the rights of the judges' professional groups and makes the judges put themselves in an unmeasurable risk in the trial cases. This is reflected in the judicial practice in recent years. At the same time, the number of cases submitted to the trial committee is repeated, and the judges are also worried because of the lack of strong protection for the exercise of their powers. This phenomenon leads the judge to dare not to examine the case independently and not to seek progress, and the quality of the judiciary can not be improved, thus forming a vicious circle. This phenomenon shows the appearance of this phenomenon. Our country has not given enough attention to the rights protection of the judges' professional groups, and still needs to be improved in the appointment, removal, salary, and responsibility of the judges. The sufficient occupational security for the judges is to ensure the independent status of the judges and make them independent and impartial and independent of the external influence. Judicial justice. In the judicial process, the independence of the judge is the basis of judicial justice. At present, because of the lack of security, the judicial act of the judge is being disturbed more and more. Therefore, it is imminent to construct the system of exemption of the judges' responsibility in our country. In this paper, in combination with the judicial practice in recent years, the first chapter, in addition to the introduction of the four, is from the first chapter. Part one is: the first part is "the origin and development of the system of exemption of judges' responsibility". It mainly expounds the emergence and development of the system of judge immunity and the development trend and reform of the exemption system of judges' responsibility. For the protection of the rights of the judge, because of the lack of this guarantee, Shen Jiaben said, "the time people look at the autumn Cao as the road". Then the limitation of the space for the exemption of judges from the founding of our country is analyzed. The development trend of the exemption system of the judges' responsibility in various countries is further elaborated, and the development of the exemption system of the judges' responsibility in China is also pointed out. The second part is the basis of "building the system of exemption of judges' responsibility". It mainly expounds the theoretical basis and practical needs of constructing the system of exemption of judges' responsibility. There is a system to separate the consequences of this uncertainty from the personal responsibility of the judge, at the same time, it also promotes the judge to judge the case independently, and maintains judicial justice and judicial authority. In practice, the fuzzy limits of the misjudged case responsibility and the different practices in various places have caused many judges to be wronged, so to guarantee the rights of the judges, the law should be strengthened. The sense of professional honor of the official must establish a set of scientific and effective exemption system for the responsibility of judges. The third part is "the extraterritorial investigation of the exemption system of judges". It mainly expounds the origin, development and application of the exemption system of judges' responsibility in common law and civil law countries, and also analyses some of the judges in international norms. The evolution and application of the system of liability exemption, through the comparison and analysis of the commonness and difference of the exemption system of judges' responsibility in various countries and countries, to explore the internal mechanism and running rules of the system, and provide reference for the construction of the exemption system of judges' responsibility in our country. The fourth part is "the conception of the exemption system of the responsibility of judges in our country". Strong legislation affirms the immunity of judges in law, and specifically stipulates the exemption of judges and their limits. Since eighteen, many false cases have been corrected, but the author thinks that the investigation of miscase and exemption is complementary to each other, and it is responsible for the miscase caused by deliberate or major negligence, which embodies the problem consciousness and promotes the promotion of the problem. The judicial personnel should strengthen their sense of responsibility, treat each case with a thin attitude towards the abyss, collect and examine every evidence in an all-round way, so as to improve the quality of the case and the credibility of the judiciary. At the same time, the miscase is a normal phenomenon in the law of judicature, and the miscase immunity caused by unintentional or major negligence is to promote the independence of the judge and the maintenance of the Department. The law justice and authority, following the law of judicature, is in line with the modern judicial idea. Through the analysis of the types of misjudged cases, the author makes clear which cases need to be held accountable, which cases should be exempt from the judges, and put forward a judge Review Committee in the intermediate and above courts to provide a procedure for the construction of the exemption system of the judges' responsibility in China. The rule of law is the common goal pursued by the modern state, and the exemption system of the judge's responsibility is one of the symbols of the modern and civilized country. The system is related to whether the judges of a country can exercise the jurisdiction independently, whether the judiciary is fair and whether the legitimate rights and interests of the parties in the judicial process are guaranteed. The emergence of the exemption system in the Western Anglo American legal system countries has a close internal connection with the western judicial independence movement. Therefore, it is necessary to not only deeply study the internal mechanism of the exemption system of the judges' responsibility, but also to the law of various countries. The system of exemption from official liability should be comprehensively analyzed and compared. At the same time, we should also take into account the situation of our country and the law of judicial operation since the beginning of history.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D926.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 祁若冰;;論反壟斷法豁免制度[J];河北法學(xué);2006年04期

2 朱樟坤;;完善我國反壟斷法豁免制度的幾點(diǎn)建議[J];法制與社會(huì);2007年11期

3 張潔;;試論反壟斷法豁免制度適用范圍的確立[J];太原師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年03期

4 金瑞琴;;論我國的反壟斷法豁免制度[J];管理觀察;2008年17期

5 董溯戰(zhàn);論反壟斷法的適用豁免制度[J];南京大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué).人文科學(xué).社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年04期

6 唐要家;;反壟斷法豁免制度的比較分析[J];中南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2006年01期

7 游國城;鄭賽花;;論反壟斷法適用豁免制度[J];重慶工商大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年04期

8 祁歡;;公共服務(wù)與反壟斷法豁免制度[J];政法論壇;2007年04期

9 鄒利;黃曉珍;;我國法官豁免制度的構(gòu)建[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年15期

10 王清;陳凌云;;中美版權(quán)法之公益圖書館豁免制度比較[J];圖書館雜志;2008年09期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 任超;黃敏;;刑事作證豁免制度訴訟原理探析[A];全國外國法制史研究會(huì)學(xué)術(shù)叢書——20世紀(jì)外國刑事法律的理論與實(shí)踐[C];2005年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 呂青;《反壟斷法》：謹(jǐn)防豁免制度被濫用[N];上海證券報(bào);2008年

2 呂青;謹(jǐn)防豁免制度被濫用[N];中國改革報(bào);2008年

3 陳霞;立法莫忘作證豁免制度[N];人民法院報(bào);2007年

4 浙江省嘉興市中級(jí)人民法院 姚一鳴邋曹書瑜;執(zhí)行豁免制度簡析[N];人民法院報(bào);2008年

5 陸利兵;執(zhí)行豁免制度的構(gòu)建[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

6 天津市西青區(qū)檢察院 張艷紅;建立證人豁免制度需解決四個(gè)問題[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

7 江媛;行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)壟斷現(xiàn)象及規(guī)制[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2011年

8 陳霞;怎樣確保舉報(bào)人積極性[N];保定日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

9 本報(bào)記者 鄭昭 包騫;點(diǎn)擊立法三大關(guān)鍵詞[N];福建日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

10 楊瀟;外國的證人作證豁免制度[N];人民政協(xié)報(bào);2010年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 鐘剛;反壟斷法豁免制度研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 謝騰飛;論我國法官責(zé)任豁免制度的構(gòu)建[D];上海師范大學(xué);2017年

2 李暢;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)眾籌法律問題研究[D];中國社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2015年

3 饒志龍;中小企業(yè)卡特爾豁免制度研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2014年

4 羅躍霏;英國集體爭議中的民事豁免制度研究及借鑒[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

5 雷夢覺;我國法官責(zé)任豁免制度的構(gòu)建[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

6 陳丹妮;法官責(zé)任追究問題研究[D];貴州民族大學(xué);2016年

7 郭倩倩;論我國股權(quán)眾籌豁免制度的構(gòu)建[D];廣東外語外貿(mào)大學(xué);2016年

8 李沐陽;公募股權(quán)眾籌的豁免規(guī)則研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2017年

9 張桐;反壟斷法綠色豁免制度研究[D];昆明理工大學(xué);2017年

10 陳希;股權(quán)眾籌注冊(cè)豁免制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2016年

，

本文編號(hào)：1981368