Reasons And Resolution To Judicial Corruption

As the acceleration of socialist legal construction, people's sense of law is being awakened. They expect to see social equality and justice in the judicial process, however, they have found more and more phenomena of judicial corruption, which, in recent years, have been exposed by the strengthening anti-corruption campaign of the central government. Judicature is the last defensive line of social justice, abuse of which will have seriously bad effect on judicial authority and judicial credibility, leading to public doubt whether the judicature can defend judicial justice. Judicial system, a guarantee of social equality and justice, is an important component of legal construction and political civilization construction, and also the essential content and guarantee of the all-around construction of the society with moderate prosperity. Enhancing supervision of judicial work and punishing those involved in judicial corruption are the necessary measures to implement the rule-by-law strategy, and to promote the co-ordinate development of economy, politics and culture. Seriously punishing those involved in judicial corruption can only bring about a temporary solution, while prevention will get the root of the problem. Any feasible system must be able to nip judicial corruption in the bud, which is an urgent matter of the anti-corruption campaign. Every kind of corruption has its breeding soil, therefore, we must firstly make a penetrating analysis and identification of causes lying under judicial corruption in order to uproot it.There are several causes leading to judicial corruption. Firstly, there is a lack of judicial independence, which is caused by both internal and external factors. Externally, the judicial setup is along the same line with the administrative division, which in some degree has a control over the selection and evaluation of judicialpersonnel. Furthermore, the funds of court are controlled by the local finance. Internally, the judicial administration and the jurisdiction always interact each other. The second reason is the power litigation model, within which the jurisdiction is centered on the court and the judge plays the leading role, which hinders the protection of the litigants' legal rights. At the same time, the judge's right to choose the trial way often causes the principle of openness to become a mere formality and the contentious procedure somewhat exclusive, and this, as a result, will induce judicial corruption. Thirdly, the judicial supervision department neglects its supervisory duties. The court's speech priority as for judicial supervision, the trial in written way which causes the principle of openness to became a mere formality, the weak supervision of the prosecutorial organ whose function is influenced by its own corruption and the lack of administrative supervision have all connived at judicial corruption. The fourth reason is that punishment and prevention are far from enough and the judge is free from a reasonable responsibility system. Another factor lying under judicial corruption is that identity of judge and the economic profits can not be ensured. The judge is tempted to pursue more economic benefits, and thus the judicial act becomes an object of market bargain, which also endangers judicial justice. And finally, low quality of the judges in a judicial system which is not sound at all is another important reason which induce judicial corruption.There are some structural strategies for preventing or radically curing the judicial corruption. Construction of the judicial team needs to be strengthened and the average quality of the judicial personnel must be greatly improved, which makes reform of court staff setup and judge selection necessary. Secondly, professional insurance system for judges should be set up so that there will be no chance for judicial corruption. Furthermore, the power litigation model must be reformed so as to improve the litigants' status in the judicial process and arouse their zeal to join the supervision party. And, of course, it's advisable to reform and protect the judicial supervision system and develop a multi-channel supervision system.