Use Of Judicial Resources In The Process Of The Rule Of Law

China's " law popularization" has gone through 20 years from the onset. What makes China's legal publicity education convert into a "Party-leading, government-implementation, NPC-supervision, society-participating" social systematic project. "Law popularization" campaign is put on propaganda agenda in accordance with "strike hard" (a typical model of governance), and plays fundamental rule in legal publicity. Opposite to western natural evolution of the rule of law, China chooses the model of government promotion which states that government leads the rule of law and is the main promoter, and the rule of law is formed under the guidance of governmental objectives. Its completion is finished with the control by the government and local political resources, and with the characteristics of man designing and constructing. Five"Five-Year Plan" of law popularization embodies this kind of law rule. From 1986 to 2006,China has enacted five "Five-Year Plan" successively, thus formed panorama-design, step-by-step situation with different emphasis in each period.Government, as the main body of law popularization, launched the campaign to lead law popularization into movement governance. If during the 20 years' process of practice, the focus is just laid on knowledge level, then, law popularization is only a certain form or channel to educate people which is monotonous lacking in vividness and variety. The cost of 20 years' law popularization has to be taken into consideration when we evaluate this system.The ultimate goal of law popularization is to improve people's quality concerning law, maintain social norm and upgrade the entire level of law management comprehensively. However, due to the limitation of main body, content, form and methods, the social effects demonstrate two prominent "deviation" phenomena. The first phenomenon is that the whole community's sense of justice, integrity deviates from law knowledge growth. The second, the purpose deviates from pragmaticity when law popularization is prosecuted. These are all the questions deserve our exploration that whether it is necessary for us to carry on this law popularization campaign since we entered post law popularization era. So long as the ideological investment and movement system remains, "useless" practice unabandons, law propaganda will not receive the expected effects and limited judicial resources tend to be squandered day after day."Introduction" succinctly introduces the significance of this paper, makes a literary review of law popularization. Regarding this social phenomenon with Chinese characteristics, the paper adopts "narrative insignificant events, extend from grand perspective" research methods from a quantity of official documents and media reports. The methodological basis includes political system analysis, social input control, operation of the power of law in law economics and law sociology.SectionⅠ, "30 years of China's legal system" adopts pure description to briefly summarize the processes since 1978, selects the part of law propaganda from law construction, introduces the background from the time of the fault and then the characteristics of china's law popularization. The comparison of five "Five-Year plan" provides pertinent background for the following analysis.SectionⅡ, " On the input of law popularization" extracts four quantitative indicators based on the previous comparison: main body, audience, methods, costs, and tries to make the cost of " law popularization" more quantitative according to the collection and comparison of documents from many perspectives including official obvious, resessive.From the analyses, it is argued that " law popularization" is a movement governance in our country. The planned audience has not accomplished the preset blue print from the "Five-Year plan", and the methods adopted lacks variety and vividness which makes it trapped in a vicious circle of formalism. Moreover, the time, financial, material costs documented are costly, not to mention these that can not be traced and quantitizedSectionⅢ, " To challenge ' law popularization' " selects two representative " one significant one trivial" examples of adolescents and Zhongnanhai. The analyses of these two examples, in turn questions law popularization comprehensively. The "paternity Akiko" case reveals the important position of law awareness and " Zhongnanhai lecture on the 'legal system'" reveals the importance of creativity. Meanwhile, these two cases raise two prominent "deviation" phenomena. One is the growth of knowledge of law deviation from citizen's sense of integrity. The other is that the purpose deviates from pragmaticity when law popularization is prosecuted.SectionⅣ, "Way out of law popularization" analyzes the original intention, sees the limitation of "government promotion" in post law popularization era from the errors both in theory and in practice. In the methods adopted, the reasons why old forms failed are elaborated, "better social effects and lower costs" methods are proposed concerning the reform of the form. Finally, the paper tries to predict the consequences of law popularization, reveals that citizens' abiding by law does not depend on their knowledge of law, instead , it depends on the establishment of law awareness. Thus, law popularization must take pains in law awareness if greater breakthrough is expected in the future.Conclusion, So long as the ideological investment and movement system remains, "useless" practice unabandons, law propaganda will not receive the expected effects and limited judicial resources tend to be squandered. Neither is the introduction of content-year plan, but also non-law popularization of the key targets in the January 1, 2008 implementation of the "Labor Contract Law" examples. From employers and employees both positive and motivated to study this method for its entry into force after the employer and the interests of the game, or circumvent the law. Government's initiative " Popularization " and the people's consciousness "study" here constitutes a sharp contrast. Reveal how people understand, accept and apply the law. According to the last public choice theory, that the interests of their own people most clearly, learning what, what should be decided by themselves to wipe out the bottlenecks encountered, but also should change their tactics now.