论文部分内容阅读
On March 12， Zhou Qiang， President of the Supreme People’s Court （SPC）， delivered the SPC’s work report at the annual legislative session in Beijing. “We feel a deep regret for wrongful convictions. Courts at all levels should learn a profound lesson from mistakes， and further improve the mechanism to effectively prevent wrongly judged cases and timely rectify them，” he said.
In 2014， courts across China retried and changed the sentences of 1，317 criminal cases， including the case of Hugjiltu， an 18-year-old man who was wrongly convicted of murder and executed 18 years ago， and the case of Nian Bin， who was suspected of poisoning a former neighbor’s two young children， but was released after eight years of imprisonment because of“the facts were not clear and the evidence insufficient.”
Judicial authorities’ courage in correcting their own mistakes has elevated public confidence in the system. At this year’s session of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference（CPPCC）， members of China’s social science circles offered suggestions on how judges can be more just.
Responsibilities
According to China’s Criminal Procedural Law， trials shall be conducted by a collegial panel whose members are either all judges or a combination of judges and people’s assessors. Cases in a county-level people’s court may be tried by a sole judge.
The law stipulates that after holding a court session and conducting deliberations， a collegial panel will render a sentence. If a collegial panel deems it too difficult to make a decision on complicated case， the collegial panel can request the president of the court to submit the case to a judicial committee for further discussion and decision.
The judicial committee is a court’s leading organization， whose main tasks include summarizing trial experiences， discussing important or difficult cases and other trial-related issues.
The Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China was focused on comprehensively deepening reform. At the session， the central leadership decided to “reform the judicial committee system， improve the responsibility system of handling cases by the presiding judge and the collegiate bench， by which the judge hands down verdicts and the collegiate bench is responsible for carrying them out.”
“Only through trials in court where public prosecutors and defenders can debate on the evidence， are judges able to hear their opinions and give verdicts，” said Shi Jie， a CPPCC member and Director of Sichuan Dingli Law Firm. Shi believed that judges are crucial to pushing forward with the trial-centered litigation system reform， yet problems with the judicial committee system to some extent have prevented judges from dealing with cases as they should be.
Shi illustrated the problems with the judicial committee system with some examples. First， a judicial committee sometimes makes decisions according to a judge’s oral or written reports， while such decisions violate the principles of direct trials and open trials.
Second， China’s Criminal Procedural Law stipulates that a collegiate bench can submit a difficult， complicated， or significant case to a judicial committee， yet such cases have not been well-defined， so there is some randomness in selecting the cases to be submitted to a judicial committee， Shi said.
Third， a judicial committee makes collective decisions and assumes collective responsibility. Judges might shirk their responsibilities in judging individual cases by transferring them to the judicial committee， he added.
At the National People’s Congress annual session in 2014， Shi tabled a motion to reform the judicial committee system. He received a reply from the SPC， informing him that a series of reform measures have been designed， such as clearly specifying the types of cases that can be submitted to a judicial committee and limiting the judicial committees’ power to conduct trials of law.
Shi said that although the judicial committee system has already been heavily reformed， there is still much more work to be done. He said that giving judges more adjudicating power could prevent abuses of power.
Nonetheless， with great power comes great responsibility. As for whether judges are ready to take on such responsibility， Xie Shanghua， a CPPCC member and Vice President of Sichuan People’s Higher Court， expressed her concerns.
“Currently， professional qualifications of judges vary widely， and their capabilities still fall significantly short of what would be needed after this reform. In this situation， completely delegating power might compromise the handling of cases and undermine social stability，”she said.
In addition， social support and institutional guarantees are necessary to improve the responsibility system of handling cases by the presiding judge， she added.
One way to improve judges’ professional capability is to improve the selection process， Xie said.
On February 26， the SPC released a circular on comprehensively deepening the reform of the court system. It stressed that judges at high-level courts should be selected from those in lower-level courts， or from outstanding legal professionals in legislative， procuratorate and law enforcement organizations. Professionalism
“A strict judge selection system that will recruit judges who can independently adjudicate cases and shoulder that responsibility is crucial to improving judges’professionalism，” Cao Yisun， a CPPCC member and a legal professor with the Chinese University of Political Science and Law， told Beijing Review.
Shi with the Sichuan Dingli Law Firm said that currently， judges are selected from university graduates who have passed the civil servant and bar exams. Although they have a good grasp of the theory， they lack practical experience.
“To make independent judgments， judges must be impartial， capable and experienced，”Shi said. Lawyers with long work history have relatively rich legal knowledge， experience and track records for evaluating their qualification， so selecting them as judges is more reasonable， he said.
“Judges at higher-level courts have to handle complicated and sometimes entirely new types of cases. Their decisions inform and direct the work of lower-level courts， so they need to be the very capable and professional，” Xie said. She said that implementing a proper judge-selecting system is a pressing issue.
Although judges are required to possess esteemed professional qualifications and a strong sense of responsibility， currently， they do not enjoy the prestige or compensation that these skills would get them elsewhere， said Xie.
“For instance， in Sichuan Province， many community judges are doctors of law who have passed strict screening exams. Every year， every judge hears more than 200 cases on average—more than one case every work day. In addition， they handle other work such as attending meetings， conducting research and engaging in publicity activities. Nonetheless， their average monthly wage is little more than 3，000 yuan （$484），” she said.
This situation has dampened judges’ work enthusiasm and led to difficulties in attracting talent， Xie said.
She said that reducing judges’ work load by hiring assistants and increasing their pay will help promote their professional development.
In 2014， courts across China retried and changed the sentences of 1，317 criminal cases， including the case of Hugjiltu， an 18-year-old man who was wrongly convicted of murder and executed 18 years ago， and the case of Nian Bin， who was suspected of poisoning a former neighbor’s two young children， but was released after eight years of imprisonment because of“the facts were not clear and the evidence insufficient.”
Judicial authorities’ courage in correcting their own mistakes has elevated public confidence in the system. At this year’s session of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference（CPPCC）， members of China’s social science circles offered suggestions on how judges can be more just.
Responsibilities
According to China’s Criminal Procedural Law， trials shall be conducted by a collegial panel whose members are either all judges or a combination of judges and people’s assessors. Cases in a county-level people’s court may be tried by a sole judge.
The law stipulates that after holding a court session and conducting deliberations， a collegial panel will render a sentence. If a collegial panel deems it too difficult to make a decision on complicated case， the collegial panel can request the president of the court to submit the case to a judicial committee for further discussion and decision.
The judicial committee is a court’s leading organization， whose main tasks include summarizing trial experiences， discussing important or difficult cases and other trial-related issues.
The Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China was focused on comprehensively deepening reform. At the session， the central leadership decided to “reform the judicial committee system， improve the responsibility system of handling cases by the presiding judge and the collegiate bench， by which the judge hands down verdicts and the collegiate bench is responsible for carrying them out.”
“Only through trials in court where public prosecutors and defenders can debate on the evidence， are judges able to hear their opinions and give verdicts，” said Shi Jie， a CPPCC member and Director of Sichuan Dingli Law Firm. Shi believed that judges are crucial to pushing forward with the trial-centered litigation system reform， yet problems with the judicial committee system to some extent have prevented judges from dealing with cases as they should be.
Shi illustrated the problems with the judicial committee system with some examples. First， a judicial committee sometimes makes decisions according to a judge’s oral or written reports， while such decisions violate the principles of direct trials and open trials.
Second， China’s Criminal Procedural Law stipulates that a collegiate bench can submit a difficult， complicated， or significant case to a judicial committee， yet such cases have not been well-defined， so there is some randomness in selecting the cases to be submitted to a judicial committee， Shi said.
Third， a judicial committee makes collective decisions and assumes collective responsibility. Judges might shirk their responsibilities in judging individual cases by transferring them to the judicial committee， he added.
At the National People’s Congress annual session in 2014， Shi tabled a motion to reform the judicial committee system. He received a reply from the SPC， informing him that a series of reform measures have been designed， such as clearly specifying the types of cases that can be submitted to a judicial committee and limiting the judicial committees’ power to conduct trials of law.
Shi said that although the judicial committee system has already been heavily reformed， there is still much more work to be done. He said that giving judges more adjudicating power could prevent abuses of power.
Nonetheless， with great power comes great responsibility. As for whether judges are ready to take on such responsibility， Xie Shanghua， a CPPCC member and Vice President of Sichuan People’s Higher Court， expressed her concerns.
“Currently， professional qualifications of judges vary widely， and their capabilities still fall significantly short of what would be needed after this reform. In this situation， completely delegating power might compromise the handling of cases and undermine social stability，”she said.
In addition， social support and institutional guarantees are necessary to improve the responsibility system of handling cases by the presiding judge， she added.
One way to improve judges’ professional capability is to improve the selection process， Xie said.
On February 26， the SPC released a circular on comprehensively deepening the reform of the court system. It stressed that judges at high-level courts should be selected from those in lower-level courts， or from outstanding legal professionals in legislative， procuratorate and law enforcement organizations. Professionalism
“A strict judge selection system that will recruit judges who can independently adjudicate cases and shoulder that responsibility is crucial to improving judges’professionalism，” Cao Yisun， a CPPCC member and a legal professor with the Chinese University of Political Science and Law， told Beijing Review.
Shi with the Sichuan Dingli Law Firm said that currently， judges are selected from university graduates who have passed the civil servant and bar exams. Although they have a good grasp of the theory， they lack practical experience.
“To make independent judgments， judges must be impartial， capable and experienced，”Shi said. Lawyers with long work history have relatively rich legal knowledge， experience and track records for evaluating their qualification， so selecting them as judges is more reasonable， he said.
“Judges at higher-level courts have to handle complicated and sometimes entirely new types of cases. Their decisions inform and direct the work of lower-level courts， so they need to be the very capable and professional，” Xie said. She said that implementing a proper judge-selecting system is a pressing issue.
Although judges are required to possess esteemed professional qualifications and a strong sense of responsibility， currently， they do not enjoy the prestige or compensation that these skills would get them elsewhere， said Xie.
“For instance， in Sichuan Province， many community judges are doctors of law who have passed strict screening exams. Every year， every judge hears more than 200 cases on average—more than one case every work day. In addition， they handle other work such as attending meetings， conducting research and engaging in publicity activities. Nonetheless， their average monthly wage is little more than 3，000 yuan （$484），” she said.
This situation has dampened judges’ work enthusiasm and led to difficulties in attracting talent， Xie said.
She said that reducing judges’ work load by hiring assistants and increasing their pay will help promote their professional development.