On Judicial Democracy And The Trial Organization

On March 11, 2010, Wang Shengjun, the president of Supreme People's Court, in his work report said that"Improving democratic mechanisms to make the justice open, and further play a role in people's jurors, strengthen public communication, to achieve transparency and openness of justice."This is the first time that the Supreme Court write"Justice Democracy"into the report.Under the banner of democracy , some local courts began to try on reform of the judicial organization. Similar to the reform of the court in Henan, in the words seem to conform to the"people's justice", "judicial democracy " trend. But is it really a judicial democracy? It is questionable. Because, although the judicial democracy has been widely advocated in China, but it's substance and theory lacked in-depth analysis.Judicial democracy is more a slogan in the real world, which may lead to blindness and judicial democracy misleading, and even prone to mass movement style called"judicial democracy".This article will explore the nature and theory of judicial democracy, the relationship between the trial organization and judicial democracy, and how to improve the trial organization.The first part discusses the meaning of judicial democracy. Democracy is the embodiment of political system, judicial system, democracy is a part of democratic politics.This paper argues that the meaning of judicial democracy is that the people hold judicial power, control the process and outcome of judicial activities, and the judicial activities meet the people's will and interests of their own; and through the judiciary or judicial activities to achieve the protection of national democracies. Judicial activities of the democracy is an important guarantee for national democratic means, but the state of democracy is the goal of judicial democracy. Legislative Democracy is the premise of judicial democracy, judicial protection of democracy is the Legislative Democracy, both of common services in the state of democracy.The second part discusses the relationship between the judicial democracy and the trial organization. First, they are the relationship between content and form, the two can not be equated. Forms may contribute to democracy, he trial organization may not help democracy. Second, the judicial democratic collective decision-making system is different from judicial democracy.In the third section, the author talk about the production ,operation and democratic conditions of several major trials organization in order to become the reference for the organizational reform of the trial.Part IV criticize the view that take the Democratic equivalented to the popular justice; and discusses te the main problems of current trial organization, the error in theories and the practical problems is the main impeding factors in the democratization process of justice.Part V, the reform of the trial organizations for the existence of the theoretical and practical problems, mainly discusses how to promote judicial reform and judicial organization in the form of democracy. Content of the decision form, the form can also be counter-productive content. This paper finds that the facts from the trial to proceed with the application of law, a detailed analysis of the various stages of the trial judge organizing principle that findings of fact should be conducive to the principle of truth, and the law will apply in line with the principle of legislation, in line with the two standards Organizational form of the trial will be conducive to judicial democracy; system, the actual implementation is more important than the establishment of the system, the organization would like to play a trial design features, also should focus on supporting the implementation of aspects of the system.Democracy is the country's democratic system of justice a part of the trial form of organization is a part of judicial democracy, therefore, is conducive to the country of democracy and democracy is the test of judicial standards of judicial organization. Judicial democracy involves a very wide discussion of judicial organization alone can not reveal the full picture of judicial democracy, democracy needs more ways to promote judicial efforts.