陪审团模式之行为实验比较研究

发布时间：2018-04-24 12:35

本文选题：陪审模式 + 行为实验　；参考：《学术月刊》2017年01期

【摘要】：陪审制是司法民主的重要体现。在陪审制改革与试点的今日,我们进行陪审制的实验测试,以同一刑事案件的证据材料,对"十二人陪审团""六人陪审团"和"4+3陪审团"三种陪审模式进行实验比较分析,并对一批司法审判人员的个体进行参照测试。通过三种陪审团的集体合议和表决结果,我们发现陪审团在事实认定方面并不逊色于法学专业人士。我们进一步发现陪审员个体在证据证明力的认知以及罪名是否成立的判断方面,与法学专业人士的差距也不大,而且陪审员的工作积极性也很高。实验和实证调研表明,法官指示、证据规则和陪审团合议过程等要素,显著影响了部分陪审员对证据的认知和最终事实判断。这些对于我们今后的陪审制改革和探索,具有不小的参考意义。
[Abstract]:Jury system is an important embodiment of judicial democracy. Today, when the jury system is being reformed and experimented, we have carried out an experimental test of the jury system. With the evidence materials of the same criminal case, we have made an experimental comparative analysis of the three jury modes of "12-member jury", "six-member jury" and "43 jury". And the individual of a group of judicial judge carries on the reference test. Through the collective panel and voting results of three kinds of juries, we find that juries are not inferior to legal professionals in fact finding. We further find that jurors do not have much difference from legal professionals in the cognition of evidential power and the judgment of whether the charges are proved or not, and the jurors are also highly motivated to work. The experimental and empirical research shows that the judge's instruction, the rules of evidence and the process of jury collegiate affect the cognition and the final fact judgment of some jurors. These for our future jury system reform and exploration, has no small reference significance.
【作者单位】：厦门大学法学院;
【基金】：教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目“司法公正之行为实验研究”(14YJC820055) 厦门大学人文社会科学“校长基金·创新团队”课题《法理学前沿问题研究》(20720171006)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D926.2

【相似文献】