本文關(guān)鍵詞： 司法 民主 審判組織 民意 司法大眾化　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：2010年3月11日,最高人民法院院長王勝俊在工作報告中提出“完善司法公開和司法民主機(jī)制,進(jìn)一步發(fā)揮人民陪審員作用,加強民意溝通,做到透明公開、陽光司法”,最高院首次將“司法民主”寫入報告。 在司法民主的大旗下,河南等地方法院也開始對審判組織方式進(jìn)行嘗試性改革。類似河南法院的改革,在話語上似乎順應(yīng)了“人民司法”、“司法民主”的潮流。但其是否就真的是司法民主,還是值得商榷的。因為,司法民主在我國雖然得到廣泛的倡導(dǎo),但是對于司法民主的實質(zhì)內(nèi)涵和理論基礎(chǔ)卻缺乏深入的剖析。司法民主在現(xiàn)實在更多的是一句口號,這容易導(dǎo)致司法民主的盲目性和產(chǎn)生誤導(dǎo),甚至容易出現(xiàn)群眾運動式的所謂“司法民主”。本文將探尋司法民主的本質(zhì)與理論基礎(chǔ),并就司法民主與審判組織形式的關(guān)系及如何改進(jìn)審判組織形式作一番探討。 本文第一部分論述司法民主的含義。民主是體現(xiàn)人民主權(quán)的政治制度,司法民主是民主政治制度的一環(huán)。本文認(rèn)為司法民主的含義就由人民掌握司法權(quán),控制司法活動的過程與結(jié)果,使司法活動本身符合人民意志與利益;并通過司法機(jī)關(guān)的司法活動實現(xiàn)或保障國家的民主政體。司法活動的民主是是國家民主的重要保障手段,而國家民主是司法民主的目標(biāo)。立法民主是司法民主的前提,司法民主是立法民主的保障,二者共同服務(wù)于國家民主。本文還對輿論與民意對司法的干預(yù)進(jìn)行了討論,認(rèn)為司法民主就應(yīng)當(dāng)遵從民意,但是輿論與所謂的網(wǎng)絡(luò)“民意”并不是真正的民意,它們的正當(dāng)性與真實性尚需檢驗,不能理所當(dāng)然地以“民意”自居,更不能左右司法。而憲法與法律才是真正的民意,司法民主就應(yīng)當(dāng)依法辦事。 第二部分論述了司法民主與審判組織形式的關(guān)系。首先,司法民主與審判組織方式是內(nèi)容與形式的關(guān)系,二者不能等同。形式可能有助于民主,亦可能完全無助于司法民主。其次,司法民主區(qū)別于司法集體決策制,本文批判了那種將多數(shù)表決制視為民主的慣性思維。 在第三部分,作者對幾種主要審判組織形式的產(chǎn)生、運作及民主性情況進(jìn)行了考察,以期成為中國審判組織改革的參考。 第四部分批判了把司法民主等同于司法大眾化的理論錯誤,并指出我國現(xiàn)行審判組織形式中主要存在合議庭合而不議、陪審員陪而不審、審委會審判分離等問題,這些理論錯誤與現(xiàn)實問題都是妨礙我國司法民主化進(jìn)程的因素。 第五部分針對我國審判組織改革存在的理論與現(xiàn)實問題,主要論述了如何通過改革審判組織形式促進(jìn)司法民主。內(nèi)容決定形式,形式亦可反作用內(nèi)容。本文分別從審判中的事實認(rèn)定與法律適用著手,詳細(xì)分析了審判各階段的審判組織原則,認(rèn)為事實認(rèn)定應(yīng)以有利于真相為原則,而法律適用以符合立法意志為原則,符合這兩個標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的審判組織形式將有利于司法民主;同時,制度的實際執(zhí)行比制度的設(shè)立更為重要,欲發(fā)揮審判組織的設(shè)計功能,還應(yīng)當(dāng)注重執(zhí)行環(huán)節(jié)的制度配套。 司法民主是國家民主制度的一環(huán),審判組織形式是司法民主的一環(huán),因此,是否有利于國家民主是檢驗司法民主與審判組織形式的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。司法民主涉及面極廣,單從審判組織的討論并不能揭示司法民主的全貌,促進(jìn)司法民主需要多途徑共同努力。
[Abstract]:On March 11 , 2010 , Wang Shengjun , President of the Supreme People ' s Court , said in his report on the work of the Supreme People ' s Court , " Improving the judicial openness and judicial democracy mechanism , further giving full play to the role of the people ' s jury , strengthening the communication of public opinion , achieving transparency and openness , sunshine justice " , and the Supreme Court for the first time writing the " judicial democracy " into the report . The reform of the judicial democracy in China , such as the big part of the judicial democracy , Henan and other local courts , seems to conform to the trend of " people ' s justice " and " judicial democracy " . But whether it is really judicial democracy is still worth discussing . However , the essence and the theoretical foundation of judicial democracy can easily lead to the blindness and misleading of judicial democracy and the so - called " judicial democracy " of mass movement . This article will explore the essence and theoretical basis of judicial democracy and discuss the relationship between the form of judicial democracy and trial organization and how to improve the form of trial organization . The first part of this article deals with the meaning of judicial democracy . Democracy is the political system embodying the sovereignty of the people . The judicial democracy is one of the democratic political system . The article thinks that the meaning of the judicial democracy is the goal of the democratic political system . The democracy of the judicial activity is the objective of the democracy . The democracy of the judicial activity is the guarantee of the democracy of the nation . The democracy of the judicial activity is the guarantee of the democratic political system . The second part discusses the relationship between the judicial democracy and the form of trial organization . First , the relationship between the judicial democracy and the way of trial organization is the relation between the content and the form . The form may be helpful to democracy and may not help the judicial democracy completely . Secondly , the judicial democracy is different from the system of collective decision - making of the judicial system . In this paper , the author has criticized the inertia thinking which regards most of the table decisions as democracy . In the third part , the author investigates the production , operation and democracy of several main trial organizations , with a view to becoming a reference for the reform of China ' s trial organization . The fourth part criticized the theoretical error of bringing judicial democracy equal to the popularization of justice , and pointed out that the main problems existed in the current trial organization form of our country were not discussed , the jury was accompanied by the jury , the trial and separation of the trial committee , and so on . These theoretical errors and the real problems were the factors which hindered the process of judicial democratization in our country . The fifth part focuses on the theoretical and practical problems existing in the reform of the trial organization in China . It mainly discusses how to promote the judicial democracy through the reform of the trial organization . The judicial democracy is a ring of the national democratic system , the form of the trial organization is a ring of the judicial democracy , therefore , it is beneficial to the national democracy to be the standard for the examination of the form of judicial democracy and trial organization .

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D926.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 余力;;“人民陪審團(tuán)”與司法民主[J];世界博覽;2009年10期

2 劉建明;;民意與“多數(shù)暴政”的誤讀[J];當(dāng)代傳播;2009年02期

3 何兵;人民群眾進(jìn)法院[J];法律適用;2005年03期

4 韓建國;異哉!如此司法民主論 與何兵先生商榷[J];法律適用;2005年11期

5 夏菁;;完善陪審制度,實現(xiàn)司法民主[J];法學(xué)家;2005年04期

6 周永坤;;我們需要什么樣的司法民主[J];法學(xué);2009年02期

7 宋媛媛;論司法民主的具體內(nèi)容[J];河北法學(xué);1999年02期

8 周永坤;;違憲審查的民主正當(dāng)性問題[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2007年04期

9 劉哲瑋;;人民陪審制的現(xiàn)狀與未來[J];中外法學(xué);2008年03期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 郭光東;陪審團(tuán)的歷史與價值[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2004年

，

本文編號：1471639