論民事訴訟中法律審與事實審分離陪審模式的構(gòu)建
發(fā)布時間：2018-07-15 07:37
【摘要】：本文從法律審與事實審分離陪審模式的原因背景出發(fā),探究這一模式的現(xiàn)實運行情況,并在考察和借鑒英美法系國家陪審團制度的基礎(chǔ)上,提出在民事訴訟中構(gòu)建法律審與事實審“相對分離”的陪審模式的思路和制度設(shè)計。文章第一部分以民事訴訟中法律審與事實審分離陪審模式構(gòu)建的背景開篇,分四個部分介紹。首先,分析人民陪審員制度的積弊及改革原因,主要從制度、司法和社會三個方面闡述。其次,對法律審與事實審的基本定義進行明確,認為在刑事訴訟中與民事訴訟中兩者的定義是有所區(qū)別的。再次,追溯人民陪審員制度改革的實踐探索。最后,介紹法律審與事實審分離陪審制改革的試點方案的推出。文章第二部分對民事訴訟中法律審與事實審分離陪審模式的實踐情況進行介紹和分析。首先,分析實踐中法律審與事實審分離陪審模式的具體設(shè)計。其次,從理論、制度、程序和人員等四個方面分析法律審與事實審分離陪審模式存在的障礙。文章第三部分主要是對英美法系國家陪審團制度的考察和借鑒。首先是考察主要英美法系國家和地區(qū)的陪審團制度。其次是將人民陪審員制度和陪審團制度進行橫向比較,從正反兩方面進行借鑒,認為既要汲取陪審團制度的優(yōu)勢,也要回避其缺陷。文章第四部分提出民事訴訟中法律審與事實審分離陪審模式的構(gòu)建建議。首先是確認相對分離機制的地位,概括并比較“絕對分離”理論和“相對分離”理論,認為需在民事訴訟中構(gòu)建法律審與事實審“相對分離”的陪審模式,即提升人民陪審員在特定的案件中事實認定的主導(dǎo)權(quán),但法官并不因為主導(dǎo)權(quán)的失去而必然被排除在事實認定的過程之外。接下來,從立法完善、程序設(shè)計和配套制度完善等三方面對這一模式進行具體的設(shè)計和構(gòu)建。
[Abstract]:Based on the background of the reason why the jury system is separated from the fact trial, this paper probes into the actual operation of this model, and on the basis of investigating and drawing lessons from the jury system in the common law countries, This paper puts forward the train of thought and system design of constructing the jury mode of relative separation between the legal trial and the factual trial in the civil action. The first part of the article begins with the background of the construction of the judicial trial and the factual trial separation jury mode in civil litigation, which is divided into four parts. First of all, it analyzes the disadvantages and reform reasons of the people's jury system, mainly from the system, judicial and social three aspects. Secondly, the basic definition of legal trial and factual trial is clear, and the definition of the two is different from that of civil action. Thirdly, tracing back to the practice of the reform of the people's jury system. Finally, the introduction of the trial and the trial of the fact of the trial system reform pilot program. The second part introduces and analyzes the practice of separating the trial of law from the trial of fact in civil litigation. First of all, it analyzes the concrete design of the judicial trial and the factual trial in practice. Secondly, the author analyzes the obstacles in the separation of the trial of law and the trial of fact from four aspects: theory, system, procedure and personnel. The third part is mainly about the investigation and reference of jury system in Anglo-American law system. The first is to investigate the jury system in the main common law countries and regions. The second is to compare the people's jury system with the jury system horizontally, draw lessons from both positive and negative aspects, think that we should not only absorb the advantages of the jury system, but also avoid its defects. The fourth part of the article puts forward the construction suggestion of the judicial trial and the fact trial in the civil action. The first is to confirm the status of relative separation mechanism, summarize and compare the theory of "absolute separation" and "relative separation", and think that it is necessary to construct the jury mode of "relative separation" between legal trial and factual trial in civil litigation. That is to promote the people's jurors in a specific case of the fact of the dominant right, but judges are not necessarily excluded from the process of fact determination because of the loss of the dominant power. Then, this model is designed and constructed from three aspects: legislative perfection, program design and supporting system perfection.
【學位授予單位】：寧波大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.1
本文編號：2123341
[Abstract]:Based on the background of the reason why the jury system is separated from the fact trial, this paper probes into the actual operation of this model, and on the basis of investigating and drawing lessons from the jury system in the common law countries, This paper puts forward the train of thought and system design of constructing the jury mode of relative separation between the legal trial and the factual trial in the civil action. The first part of the article begins with the background of the construction of the judicial trial and the factual trial separation jury mode in civil litigation, which is divided into four parts. First of all, it analyzes the disadvantages and reform reasons of the people's jury system, mainly from the system, judicial and social three aspects. Secondly, the basic definition of legal trial and factual trial is clear, and the definition of the two is different from that of civil action. Thirdly, tracing back to the practice of the reform of the people's jury system. Finally, the introduction of the trial and the trial of the fact of the trial system reform pilot program. The second part introduces and analyzes the practice of separating the trial of law from the trial of fact in civil litigation. First of all, it analyzes the concrete design of the judicial trial and the factual trial in practice. Secondly, the author analyzes the obstacles in the separation of the trial of law and the trial of fact from four aspects: theory, system, procedure and personnel. The third part is mainly about the investigation and reference of jury system in Anglo-American law system. The first is to investigate the jury system in the main common law countries and regions. The second is to compare the people's jury system with the jury system horizontally, draw lessons from both positive and negative aspects, think that we should not only absorb the advantages of the jury system, but also avoid its defects. The fourth part of the article puts forward the construction suggestion of the judicial trial and the fact trial in the civil action. The first is to confirm the status of relative separation mechanism, summarize and compare the theory of "absolute separation" and "relative separation", and think that it is necessary to construct the jury mode of "relative separation" between legal trial and factual trial in civil litigation. That is to promote the people's jurors in a specific case of the fact of the dominant right, but judges are not necessarily excluded from the process of fact determination because of the loss of the dominant power. Then, this model is designed and constructed from three aspects: legislative perfection, program design and supporting system perfection.
【學位授予單位】：寧波大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.1
【相似文獻】
相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前9條
1 方宇強;論民事訴訟中法律審與事實審分離陪審模式的構(gòu)建[D];寧波大學;2017年
2 王Pr;論我國民事訴訟庭審功能的發(fā)揮及完善[D];華中師范大學;2017年
3 賈根甫;淺析妨害民事訴訟罰款制度[D];湘潭大學;2017年
4 劉涌海;我國人民陪審員的選任與管理制度研究[D];寧波大學;2017年
5 陳霞;論我國民事訴訟責問權(quán)制度的構(gòu)建[D];寧波大學;2017年
6 劉紅;反壟斷法私人實施法律問題研究[D];蘭州財經(jīng)大學;2017年
7 周優(yōu)菊;民事訴訟中電子截屏證據(jù)的審查判斷研究[D];廣西大學;2017年
8 宋娟;民事訴訟送達難及其對策研究[D];鄭州大學;2017年
9 周鑫霖;論我國民事訴訟立案登記制度的完善[D];華中師范大學;2017年
，本文編號：2123341
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2123341.html
