论文部分内容阅读
现行定罪证明标准表述存在过于抽象、不足以弥合不同主体的认识差异,主观性强、缺乏具体操作性的内在缺陷。合议制的群体决策特征能够弥补作为个体心理要求的定罪证明标准的不足。合议制的群体评议规则能够将主观性的定罪证明标准转化为具有可操作性的程序问题。证明标准的层次性可以通过调整合议人数和表决规则来实现。因此,应当根据案件复杂程度划分轻罪、重罪,合理分配独任制和合议制的适用范围;合理分配合议成员中的职业法官和非职业法官比例;针对不同复杂程度的案件设置不同的合议庭人数和表决通过比例。
The current conviction prove that the standard expression is too abstract, not enough to bridge the cognitive differences between different subjects, subjectivity is strong, the lack of specific operational inherent defects. The collegial group decision-making features can make up for the lack of standards of conviction as an individual psychological requirement. Collective bargaining rules translate subjective conviction criteria into actionable procedural questions. The standard of proof can be achieved by adjusting the number of sponsors and voting rules. Therefore, misdemeanors, felony counts, the reasonable application of the system of exclusive and collegiality should be divided according to the complexity of cases; the proportion of professional judges and non-professional judges among members of the collegial panel should be rationally distributed; the number of collegial panels be set at different levels of complexity And vote by the ratio.