Allocation Of Powers And Program Guarantee For People's Assessors

Since the decision of the fourth plenary session of the 18th central committee of the CPC put forward that "people's jurors will no longer try the issues of legal application and will only participate in the trial of the fact determination",China has opened a new chapter of jury system reform.From the trial reform in 2015 to the enactment and implementation of the people's juror law in 2018,the trial reform has always focused on the allocation of jurors' power.The distribution of juror's power is directly related to the capacity and limit of jury's participating in judicial trial.As the judicial trial revolves around the two major issues of the determination of facts and the application of law,how jurors hear facts and legal issues are the core content of the allocation of jurors' powers and powers.Judging from the vicissitude of the power of the people's assessors,the people's assessors have experienced three phases,namely,the trial of the facts and the trial of the law,and the coexistence of the two modes.From the revolutionary base period to the reform trial in 2015,China's people's juror system always adopts the power allocation model of jurors to hear both facts and legal issues.This practice achieved good results in the revolutionary base period and the early period of the founding of new China,however,with the improvement of the legal system,the strengthening of legal professionalism and the diversification of public ideology,the practice of juries to examine both the facts and the law has presented difficulties in implementation.In the practice of judicature,the phenomenon of jury professional and accompanying but not being judged and agreed are more and more obvious.Theoretical and practical circles once believed that the emergence of this phenomenon is not only related to the imperfect operation mechanism of jury system and the fact that judges do not pay attention to it,but also because jurors do not have the ability to hear legal issues.However,the reform plan of juries only trying facts does not solve the long-standing problem of jury system in our country.Under the existing legislative and judicial modes in China,the factual and legal issues are not separable.The model of distribution of powers that jurors hear only facts seems reasonable,but it is not feasible.In the people's juror law,the juries in the three-person collegiate court not only examine the facts,but also examine the law,and in the seven-member collegiate panel,the jurors only hear the facts,and even makes the development of jury system in China fall into "Dilemma" situation.Judicial practice shows that there are certain problems in the above two modes of power allocation,Therefore,paralleling the two problematic practices does not activate the internal motivation of China's jury system development,and it is even more difficult to solve the current ills of jury system in China.The reform of juror's power should be based on the consideration of multiple factors such as institutional background and objective reality.At present,the distribution of juror's power in China must conform to China's existing legislative and judicial models,and the second is to conform to the cognitive law of jurors.Because our country has no tradition of distinguishing fact from law,it is not feasible to take a juror to judge only fact.Judging from the pattern of allocation of powers and powers for non-regional public participation in judicial trials,jurors are more or less involved in the adjudication of legal issues and have the ability to understand basic legal issues.Therefore,in the process of the reform of juror's power,the problem of fact and law should not be opposed to each other,but should be based on the juror's cognitive ability to seek questions suitable for jury adjudication.Theoretical research and practical experience show that jurors have the ability to hear facts.As for legal issues,they vary from case to case and from juror to jury.But generally speaking,the legal issues obviously not suitable for jury's decision include the following three,one is the confirmation of the evidence qualification,two is the legal nature of the facts of the case,and three is the litigation command.In addition,the judge may also exclude other legal issues which are not suitable for jury adjudication based on individual cases.In order to give consideration to both the effect of jury trial and the judicial efficiency,the application scope of jury trial should be strictly limited to the major cases,family cases and special cases that can be understood by jurors,and it should be made clear that jurors are mainly involved in the trial stage and do not participate in the pretrial and execution procedures.In conclusion,the distribution of jury power in China should adopt the mode of "equal rights and equal rights" with conditions for jurors and judges,on the one hand,it ensures that jurors can grasp and understand the case as a whole,on the other hand,eliminating issues that are clearly inappropriate for jury adjudication enables jurors to function to the maximum extent possible.The reform of juror's functions and powers should be complemented by a sound procedural mechanism.On the one hand,the fair and open procedure should be ensured and the right of participation of jurors should be fully guaranteed.On the other hand,necessary restrictions should be imposed on the jury's participation by defining the scope of participation,the direction of the judge and the list of questions system to prevent unnecessary procedural delays.