摘要
长期以来,基于不同的价值理念和研究方法,司法理论界与实务界围绕审判委员会制度的改革方向产生了较大分歧。由于审判委员会运作的公开性不够,既有的研究存在不少误读与偏见。实证研究发现:审判委员会委员兼具知识技术的专业性和政治上的官僚性,很难简单地对其人员构成状况予以消极评价;审判委员会只是极少数案件而非所有重大案件的最终决策者,且其功能发挥在不同级别、不同地域的法院之间存在较大差异;审判委员会的议事程序相对制度化,在讨论内容上事实问题与法律问题并重,讨论结果在整体上趋向于认同合议庭或审判法官的意见。审判委员会制度未来的改革方向是:大幅限缩审判委员会讨论常规案件的范围,审慎处理审判委员会对案件事实的讨论,分层级、分区域区别化界定审判委员会的功能,进一步构建制度化、民主化和公开化的议事讨论机制。
For a long period of time, there have been big differences between the studies on the judicial committee system carried out by judicial theorists and those carried out by practitioners, which are based on different values and research methods. Since the operation of judicial committee is not open enough, there are many misunderstandings and prejudices in existing studies. Empirical study shows that members of a judicial committee possess professional knowledge, expertise, as well as political bureaucracy, so it is difficult to simply negate the role played by the committee; judicial committee is the ultimate decision maker in only a handful cases, rather than in all major cases, and its function is very different in courts at different levels and in different regions; the procedure of deliberation at judicial committee is relatively institutionalized; its deliberation is focused on both facts and legal issues, and the result of its deliberation tends to accord with the view of the judge handling the case on the whole. Of course, issues relating to judicial committee need to be dealt with through reform. The future direction of reform is to substantially narrow down the scope of ordinary cases delib- erated by judicial committee, carefully deal with the committee＇ s deliberation on the facts of the case, differentiate the functions of judicial committee by the hierarchy and region, and continue to build an institutionalized, democratization and open deliberation mechanism.
出处
《法学研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2016年第3期159-173,共15页
Chinese Journal of Law
基金
最高人民法院与四川大学中央高校科研业务费项目的支持
关键词
审判委员会
权力运作
实证研究
judicial committee, operation of power, empirical study
