法学研究

文章摘要

刑事审判组织表决规则研究

A Study on Decision-making Rule of Criminal Trial Organization

DOI：

英文关键词: trial organization;decision-making rule;majority rule;unanimity rule

基金项目:

作者	单位
姚莉	中南财经政法大学法学院

摘要点击次数: 1142

全文下载次数: 681

中文摘要:

表决规则是审判组织运行机制的重要组成部分。各国司法制度中存在着一致裁断规则、严格多数裁断规则、简单多数裁断规则和相对多数裁断规则等不同的表决规则，许多国家针对不同的审判组织人数构成、不同的裁判事项、不同的审级等因素而采取不同的表决规则，构建包括多种规则的表决规则体系，以体现司法权运作的内在规律，实现多重价值目标。中国刑事审判组织长期采用简单多数的单一表决规则，这种表决规则无法容纳刑事诉讼制度所追求的多元价值目标，因而有必要对审判组织的表决规则进行系统的研究，并在此基础上对中国刑事审判中的表决规则制度进行反思和重构。

英文摘要:

As an important component of the operation mechanism of criminal trial organization, the decision-making rule refers to how can the trial organization composed by plural members render a decision, if there are different opinions among the members. From a worldwide view, there exist different decision-making rules in different judicial systems, including the unanimity rule, the strict majority rule, the simple majority rule, and the minority being subordinate to majority rule, etc. Many countries have adopted different decision-making rules and established different decision-making systems according to different member number requirements of trial organizations, different items being adjudicated or judged, different trial instance systems, and so on. The decision-making system not only reflects the interior nature of judicial power, but also aims to realize the multiple values of the judicial system. Due to the influence of democratic centralism, which suggests that the majority’s opinion has precedence over the minority’s , the criminal trial organization of China has for a long time adopted the simple majority rule as its decision-making rule. This simple majority voting rule has ever played a positive role in the specific litigation cultural tradition and social environment of China. However, with the social development and the change of litigation ideology, this decision-making rule of simple majority could not effectively realize the multiple values of the criminal procedure system. Meanwhile, it has also many systematic or non-systematic deficiencies. Consequently, it is necessary to make comparative studies on the decision-making rule of trial organization and hereupon reflect and reconstruct Chinese decision-making rule in criminal litigations. On the whole, in order to establish a diverse decision-making rule in China, we should take the values of judicial justice and efficiency into account, balance many considerations, such as different member number requirements of trial organizations, different items being adjudicated or judged, different trial instance systems, etc., and make the overall reform.

查看全文下载PDF阅读器

关闭