新疆大学学报(哲学·人文社会科学版)
新疆大學學報(哲學·人文社會科學版)
신강대학학보(철학·인문사회과학판)
Journal of Xinjiang University (Philosophy, Humanities & Social Science)
2015年
5期
53-59
,共7页
秩序再造%民事误判%司法结构%审前程序%再审
秩序再造%民事誤判%司法結構%審前程序%再審
질서재조%민사오판%사법결구%심전정서%재심
Order reconstruction%Civil justice miscarriagek%Judicial structure%Pretrial procedure%retrial
对408件民事再审案件的统计学分析表明,我国为民事误判支付了过高成本.究其原因,最根本的因素在于司法体制和司法程序上的结构性扭曲——不等边四边形诉讼结构.控制民事误判,必须从秩序再造角度重构司法结构.在宏观上应强化法院的独立性;将检察监督限制在"违法监督"范畴之内;改两审终审制为三审终审制,并切实实现法官独立.在微观上应借助案例指导制度增强司法判决的标准;强化判决书说理;审判程序重心前移至审前程序;构建当事人自我责任机制;约束再审,废除本院依职权再审和上级法院指令再审两种再审启动权.
對408件民事再審案件的統計學分析錶明,我國為民事誤判支付瞭過高成本.究其原因,最根本的因素在于司法體製和司法程序上的結構性扭麯——不等邊四邊形訴訟結構.控製民事誤判,必鬚從秩序再造角度重構司法結構.在宏觀上應彊化法院的獨立性;將檢察鑑督限製在"違法鑑督"範疇之內;改兩審終審製為三審終審製,併切實實現法官獨立.在微觀上應藉助案例指導製度增彊司法判決的標準;彊化判決書說理;審判程序重心前移至審前程序;構建噹事人自我責任機製;約束再審,廢除本院依職權再審和上級法院指令再審兩種再審啟動權.
대408건민사재심안건적통계학분석표명,아국위민사오판지부료과고성본.구기원인,최근본적인소재우사법체제화사법정서상적결구성뉴곡——불등변사변형소송결구.공제민사오판,필수종질서재조각도중구사법결구.재굉관상응강화법원적독립성;장검찰감독한제재"위법감독"범주지내;개량심종심제위삼심종심제,병절실실현법관독립.재미관상응차조안례지도제도증강사법판결적표준;강화판결서설리;심판정서중심전이지심전정서;구건당사인자아책임궤제;약속재심,폐제본원의직권재심화상급법원지령재심량충재심계동권.
The statistical analysis of 408 civil retrial cases shows that China has paid a high cost for the civil justice miscarriage. The fundamental factor lies in the structural distortions of the judicial system and the judicial procedure – not an equilateral quadrilateral litigation structure. To control the miscarriages means that the judicial structure must be reconstructed in light of order reconstruction. At the macro level, the independence of the court should be strengthened; the procuratorial supervision should be limited in the category of "illegal supervision"; the system of two trial final should be changed to that of three trial final, and the judge should be independent in practice. At the micro level, cases should be used to guide the system so as to enhance the standard of judicial judgment;the verdict reasoning should be strengthened;the gravity of the trial procedure should be forwarded to the pretrial procedure;the party's self-accountability mechanism should be set up;the retrial should be constrained;the retrial—the accountable court conducts a retrial according to its function and power or by the order from the superior court—should be abolished.