论司法民主与审判组织形式

发布时间：2018-01-28 21:50

本文关键词： 司法民主审判组织民意司法大众化　出处：《西南政法大学》2011年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：2010年3月11日,最高人民法院院长王胜俊在工作报告中提出“完善司法公开和司法民主机制,进一步发挥人民陪审员作用,加强民意沟通,做到透明公开、阳光司法”,最高院首次将“司法民主”写入报告。在司法民主的大旗下,河南等地方法院也开始对审判组织方式进行尝试性改革。类似河南法院的改革,在话语上似乎顺应了“人民司法”、“司法民主”的潮流。但其是否就真的是司法民主,还是值得商榷的。因为,司法民主在我国虽然得到广泛的倡导,但是对于司法民主的实质内涵和理论基础却缺乏深入的剖析。司法民主在现实在更多的是一句口号,这容易导致司法民主的盲目性和产生误导,甚至容易出现群众运动式的所谓“司法民主”。本文将探寻司法民主的本质与理论基础,并就司法民主与审判组织形式的关系及如何改进审判组织形式作一番探讨。本文第一部分论述司法民主的含义。民主是体现人民主权的政治制度,司法民主是民主政治制度的一环。本文认为司法民主的含义就由人民掌握司法权,控制司法活动的过程与结果,使司法活动本身符合人民意志与利益;并通过司法机关的司法活动实现或保障国家的民主政体。司法活动的民主是是国家民主的重要保障手段,而国家民主是司法民主的目标。立法民主是司法民主的前提,司法民主是立法民主的保障,二者共同服务于国家民主。本文还对舆论与民意对司法的干预进行了讨论,认为司法民主就应当遵从民意,但是舆论与所谓的网络“民意”并不是真正的民意,它们的正当性与真实性尚需检验,不能理所当然地以“民意”自居,更不能左右司法。而宪法与法律才是真正的民意,司法民主就应当依法办事。第二部分论述了司法民主与审判组织形式的关系。首先,司法民主与审判组织方式是内容与形式的关系,二者不能等同。形式可能有助于民主,亦可能完全无助于司法民主。其次,司法民主区别于司法集体决策制,本文批判了那种将多数表决制视为民主的惯性思维。在第三部分,作者对几种主要审判组织形式的产生、运作及民主性情况进行了考察,以期成为中国审判组织改革的参考。第四部分批判了把司法民主等同于司法大众化的理论错误,并指出我国现行审判组织形式中主要存在合议庭合而不议、陪审员陪而不审、审委会审判分离等问题,这些理论错误与现实问题都是妨碍我国司法民主化进程的因素。第五部分针对我国审判组织改革存在的理论与现实问题,主要论述了如何通过改革审判组织形式促进司法民主。内容决定形式,形式亦可反作用内容。本文分别从审判中的事实认定与法律适用着手,详细分析了审判各阶段的审判组织原则,认为事实认定应以有利于真相为原则,而法律适用以符合立法意志为原则,符合这两个标准的审判组织形式将有利于司法民主;同时,制度的实际执行比制度的设立更为重要,欲发挥审判组织的设计功能,还应当注重执行环节的制度配套。司法民主是国家民主制度的一环,审判组织形式是司法民主的一环,因此,是否有利于国家民主是检验司法民主与审判组织形式的标准。司法民主涉及面极广,单从审判组织的讨论并不能揭示司法民主的全貌,促进司法民主需要多途径共同努力。
[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 .

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D926.2

【参考文献】