法官错案责任追究的法理分析

发布时间：2018-05-08 11:41

本文选题：法官责任 + 错案责任　；参考：《中共中央党校》2014年博士论文

【摘要】：错案问题是我国目前社会尤其是司法界较为关注的热点问题之一。在司法领域出现错案的新闻报道经常出现，社会上要求防范错案并追究错案责任的呼声不断，各级法院系统为提升司法公信力也在不断出台法官错案责任追究制度。但是这一制度无论是在理论界还是在实践领域均存在较大争议。为此笔者在本文中对该问题从法理的角度进行了深入探讨，分析了我国目前追究法官错案责任的可行性与必要性。同时，对于我国目前法官错案责任追究制度也进行了适当分析，并针对法官责任追究的制度建设，提出了自己的建议。本文第一章对法官错案与法官错案责任进行了概括介绍。错案一词在我国并非严格意义上的法律概念，因为没有任何法律层面的规定对错案做出明确界定。但在我国的司法实践或社会生活领域，错案一词却被广泛使用。纵观对错案的不同定义，大体上可以将错案分为两类，一类是广义上的错案，系指公安机关、检察机关、法院系统的工作人员在案件的侦查、起诉、审判以及执行过程中，违反相关的程序性及实体性法律规定，导致案件的受理、处理、决定、裁判以及裁决发生错误的情况。另一类是狭义上的错案，系指法院的审判人员在案件审判过程中，错误地认定事实或适用法律，造成裁判结论出现错误的案件。本文分析的即是狭义错案。本文的第二章介绍了目前理论界在法官错案责任追究方面存在的争议。当前理论界的主流观点是，不应当追究法官的错案责任，因为法官的判决不存在“唯一正确的判断”，其理论依据主要集中于三个方面：法律规定的不确定性、事实的不确定性以及推理标准的不确定性。正是由于前述三个方面的不确定性，才导致法官的判决不可能存在“唯一正确的判断”。“唯一正确的判断”与错案相对，没有“唯一正确的判断”何谈错案？以此为基础，不同意追究法官错案责任者进一步指出了当前我国现有的法官错案责任追究制度存在的几方面缺陷：价值取向偏差、理念上形而上学以及归责原则错误等。此外，针对法官错案责任追究制度，反对者还指出追究法官错案责任会产生如下负面作用：抑制法官的积极性；违背司法活动规律，，制约司法作用发挥；造成更严重的司法不公，滋生司法腐败。本文第三章，对能否追究法官的错案责任进行了可行性分析。该章是本文的重点章节。在本章中首先分析了法官裁判是否存在“唯一正确的判断”这一法理学界争议已久的问题，系统介绍了法律形式主义、法社会学、实用主义法学、自由主义法学、现实主义法学、新分析法学以及新自然法学对司法确定性的观点。在此基础上，对司法的确定性进行了深入分析，探讨了法律与司法确定性的意义以及司法确定性在现实中面临的困惑。在前述分析的基础之上，笔者提出，在司法裁判领域，完全确定的司法裁判结论是不存在的，只存在相对确定的裁判结论。这种相对确定的裁判结论即为法律共同体的共识。法律共同体的共识也不可能存在唯一正确的答案，但这种共识却存在相对一致的领域。如果法官的裁判结论与这个相对一致的范围不一致，则法官的裁判即为错案。本文第四章在分析追究法官错案责任可行性的基础上，首先论述了追究法官错案责任的正当性。深入分析了我国目前法官错案产生的原因，其中既有法律文化、法官素质方面的原因，同时也涉及我国目前法官责任追究制度方面的原因。接着，又论述了追究法官错案责任的因素考量，从理论依据、司法因素、社会因素以及政治因素等角度分析了追究法官错案责任的必要性与重要性。本文的第五章主要涉及如何完善目前我国的错案追究制度。首先介绍了世界主要国家当前采用的法官责任追究制度，其中包括美国、德国以及日本是如何追究法官责任的，内容涉及法官责任追究的理由、主体、程序以及处理方式等。接着，在该章中分析了目前我国在法官错案责任追究制度方面存在的问题。针对这些存在的问题，最后就我国目前法官错案责任追究制度的改进与完善提出了自己的建议。
[Abstract]:The wrong case is one of the hot issues in our society, especially in the judicial circle. The news reports of miscase in the field of justice often appear, and the voice of the social needs to guard against misjudged cases and investigate the responsibility of miscase is constantly being demanded. In this paper, the author makes an in-depth discussion on the question from the perspective of jurisprudence and analyzes the feasibility and necessity of investigating the miscase of judges at present in our country. At the same time, the system of investigating the miscase of judges in our country is also appropriate. It also puts forward some suggestions for the system construction of judges' accountability.
The first chapter of this article is a brief introduction to the miscase of judges and the miscase of judges. The word miscase is not a strict legal concept in our country, because there is no definite definition of the wrong case without any legal level. But in our judicial practice or social life, the word "wrong case" is widely used. In the same definition, the wrong case can be divided into two categories in general. One is the wrong case in the broad sense. The staff of the public security organs, the procuratorial organs and the court system violate the relevant procedural and substantive legal provisions in the investigation, prosecution, trial and execution of the cases, resulting in the admissibility, processing, decision, referee and Adjudication of the case. The other is the wrong case in the narrow sense, which refers to the case that the court's judge wrongly identified the facts or applied the law in the course of the trial, which caused the wrong conclusion of the referee's conclusion.
The second chapter of this article introduces the current disputes in the theoretical circle of the judge's miscase. The mainstream view of the current theorists is that the judge's miscase responsibility should not be investigated, because the judge's judgment does not exist "the only correct judgment", and its theoretical basis is mainly concentrated in three aspects: the uncertainty of the law and the facts. Uncertainty and uncertainty of reasoning standard. It is the uncertainty of the three aspects that lead to the judgment that the judge cannot have "the only correct judgment". "The only correct judgment" is relative to the wrong case, and there is no "only correct judgment" on the wrong case? Based on this, it does not agree to investigate the miscase of the judge. The author further points out some defects in the current system of judges' miscase investigation in our country: deviation of value orientation, metaphysics in concept and error of imputation principle. In addition, the opponents also point out that the following negative effects of investigating judges' miscase responsibility will be as follows: restraining judges It violates the law of judicial activities, restricts the exertion of judicial function, and causes more serious judicial injustice, thus causing judicial corruption.
The third chapter of this article is to analyze the feasibility of investigating the miscase of a judge. This chapter is the key chapter of this article. In this chapter, the first analysis of whether a judge's referee has a "only correct judgment" has a long dispute in the jurisprudence. It systematically introduces legal formalism, sociology of law, pragmatism law, and freedom. On the basis of an in-depth analysis of the certainty of the judicature, the significance of the certainty of law and judicature and the perplexity faced by the judicial certainty are discussed on this basis. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the author puts forward that in the judicature. In the field of refereeing, the conclusion of a fully determined judicial referee is nonexistent and only has a relatively definite conclusion of the referee. This relatively determined conclusion is the consensus of the legal community. The consensus of the legal community can not be the only correct answer, but the consensus exists in a relatively consistent field. If the judge's referee is in the field. On the contrary, the judge's decision is misjudged.
On the basis of the analysis of the feasibility of investigating the miscase of judges, the fourth chapter discusses the legitimacy of the judges' miscase, and analyzes the reasons for the miscase of judges in our country, including the legal culture, the reasons for the judges' quality, and the reasons for the present system of investigating the judges' responsibility in our country. Then, it also discusses the factors of investigating the judges' miscase, and analyzes the necessity and importance of investigating judges' mishandled cases from the theoretical basis, judicial factors, social factors and political factors.
The fifth chapter of this article mainly deals with how to improve the current system of miscase investigation in China. First, it introduces the system of investigating the responsibility of judges in the main countries of the world, including how the United States, Germany and Japan are responsible for the judges' accountability. The content involves the reasons for the accountability of judges, the main body, the procedure and the way of handling. In this chapter, the problems existing in the system of investigating the miscase responsibility of judges in China are analyzed. In the end, some suggestions are put forward for the improvement and improvement of the system of investigating the miscase responsibility of judges in our country at the end.

【学位授予单位】：中共中央党校
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D926.2

【参考文献】