Judge Misjudgments Pursue Legal Analysis

Wrongful conviction is one of the hot topics that draw attention of the society,especially in the judicial circles. The wrongful conviction made by the judges arefrequently reported in the media, while at the same time, the courts at different levelsare formulating new regulations to claim responsibilities for the wrongfulconvictions so as to increase the judicial credibility. However, such kinds ofregulations have caused great controversy in both theoretical and practical sector. Inthis paper, the writer will analyze this issue from the perspective of jurisprudence,illustrating the feasibility and necessity for claiming responsibilities for the wrongfulconviction made by the judges. At the same time, the writer anaylizes in a properway the responsibility claim systems for wrongful conviction in China and provieshis suggestions for the improvement of such regulations.In the first chapter, the writer provides a general description of the wrongfulconviction and responsibilities arising therefrom. Strictly speaking, wrongfulconviction is not a standard legal concept, for there is no specific legal regulationthat clearly defines this concept. However, in the judicial practice and social life, theconcept of wrongful conviction is widely mentioned. Based on the differentdefinitions, wrongful conviction can be divided into two categories, the first one isthe broad definition, in which the wrongful conviction refers to cases wronglyhandled by the judiciary staffs in the course of case acceptance, trial and execution.During such courses, the judiciary staffs will breach the procedural law andsubstantive law to make wrong decisions, judgment and treatment of cases. Suchcases include the wrongful conviction made by the staffs from the police,Procuratorate and the Court in the course of investigation, prosecution, trial andexecution of cases. Another one is the narrow definition, in which the wrongfulconviction refers to the cases misjudged by the judges by breaching the substantivelaw to make wrong decisions in determining facts and application of law during thetrial of cases. In this paper, focus will be put on the wrongful conviction in thenarrow sense.In the second chapter, the writer elaborates on the controversies over affixingresponsibilities for wrongful conviction. The prevailing point is that noresponsibilities shall be affixed for wrongful conviction, for there is no “sole rightdecision” for the case judgment. Such theory is based on the uncertainty of law,uncertainty of facts and uncertainty of legal reasoning. Just due to such uncertainties,there is no “sole right decision” for the judgement made by the judges. Wrongfulconviction are corresponding to “sole right decision”, without “sole right decision”,there shall be no wrongful conviction. The opponents who are against affixingresponsibilities for wrongful conviction further point out that the current regulationaffixing responsibilities for the wrongful conviction have the following shortcoming,i.e. wrong value-orientation, metaphysics of idea and wrong principles in liabilityaffixation. If responsibilities will have to be affixed for the judges, it will have thefollowing adverse effects: dampening the initiatives of the judges, running against the judicial rules, restricting the effect of judicial activities, causing more seriousunjust and judicial corruption.In the third chapter, the writer analyzes the feasibility for affixing responsibilitiesfor the wrongful conviction made by the judges. This chapter is the most importantpart of the paper. In this chapter, the writer first analyzes the controversial issue ofwhether there is a “sole right decision” for the judgment made by the judges. To thisend, the writer introduces in a systematic way how the legal formalism, sociology oflaw, judicial pragmatics, liberalism, realism jurisprudence, new analytical positivistjurisprudence and new natural law jurisprudence view the issue of certainty ofjudgment. On the bases of such analysis, the writer elaborate on the certainty ofjudgment, probes into the importance of certainty of law and judgment and thedifficulties faced by the certainty of judgment in the judicial practice. On the basesof such analysis, the writer draws the conclusion that there is no absolutely rightjudgment in the trial of cases, while there is only relatively right judgment. Suchrelatively right judgment is just the consensus of legal community. Even theconsensus of the legal community will have no “sole right decision”, on the contrary,it has only relatively agreeable category. If the judgment made by the judges is notwithin such relatively agreeable category, it will be treated as misjudged case.In Chapter Four, the writer elaborates on the justifiability to affixresponsibilities for wrongful conviction. The reasons causing the wrongfulconviction made by the judges are different, including legal culture, quality andproficiency of judges and lack of effective legal regulation relating to affixingresponsibilities for the judges. Then, the writer elaborates on the different factorswhich make it necessary to claim responsibilities for wrongful conviction, includingbasic theory, judicial factor, social factor and political factor.Chapter Five mainly involves the improvement of current legal regulationsrelating to control and management of wrongful conviction. Efforts are first made tointroduce the responsibility regulations of judges in major Western Countries, suchas America, Germany and Japan. Then, the writer analyses the problems that exist inthe current regulations in our country relating to affixing responsibilities forwrongful conviction. In the final part, the writer puts forward suggestionsconcerning how to improve the current regulations to regulate how to affixresponsibilities for wrongful convictions.