人民法院审判委员会制度的实践与再造——基于A省B市中院审委会案件回流与分流的样态

发布时间：2018-04-08 13:42

本文选题：审委会改革　切入点：回流与分流　出处：《中国刑事法杂志》2017年02期

【摘要】：长期以来,学界对审委会制度存废的讨论热度不减。为了确保案件处理经得起法律和历史检验,党的十八届三中全会和四中全会均提出了完善主审法官和合议庭办案责任制度。由此,审委会制度的深层次改革势在必行。通过A省B市中级人民法院审委会11年间讨论案件呈现的样态来看,不难发现审委会越来越偏离"一锤定音"的传统角色,而是频繁地作出"案件不定""向高院请示""发回重审"等结论,这显示审委会在法律逻辑与实践困境间进行了一定程度的自我调适和完善。但是,无论如何,应对审委会改革进行顶层设计,使其职能最终从案件裁决到案件指导;同时对于特殊类型案件,可由审委会组成合议庭进行直接审理,并完善相应的责任追究制。
[Abstract]:For a long time, the debate on the system of the CRIC has not been reduced.In order to ensure that the handling of cases can stand the examination of law and history, the third and fourth Plenary sessions of the 18th CPC Central Committee both proposed to perfect the system of responsibility of the presiding judges and collegial panels in handling cases.As a result, the deep-level reform of the system is imperative.Judging from the manner in which the trial committees of the Intermediate people's Court of Province A and City B discussed cases in the past 11 years, it is not difficult to find that the adjudication committee is increasingly deviating from the traditional role of "fixing the tone with one blow."Instead, the conclusion of "indeterminate cases" and "asking for instructions from the high court" and "returning to trial" is frequently made, which shows that the reexamination committee has adjusted and perfected itself to a certain extent between the legal logic and the practical difficulties.In any case, however, the reform of the CRIC should be designed at the top level, so that its functions ultimately range from case adjudication to case guidance; at the same time, in the case of special types of cases, a panel of adjudicators may conduct direct hearings,And perfect the corresponding accountability system.
【作者单位】：中国社科院法学研究所;安徽财经大学法学院;
【分类号】：D926.2

【参考文献】