Mystery Of The Judgment Of Open And System Building

Publicity of the modein free basic meaning of evidence, its role is to try the case through the judicial process of the public judges of evidence to the judge to prevent the possible application of the relevant facts and the law arbitrary, so as to effectively protect the parties legal rights. Implementation of Open the rule of law in modern countries such as USA, Germany, Japan, the common practice. Since the reform and opening up of China since the rule of law has been in rapid development, the gradual acceptance of evidence in the proceedings open, but has been in exploratory stage.Today the Chinese judicial proceedings demonstrates the complicated, difficult and so on, and the imperfections of the judicial system and the scarcity of judicial resources, the formation of prominent contradictions. With the popularization of information and promoting knowledge of law, more and more of the Mystery decision to the judicial system from a closed society, and increasingly into the public view and become a part of the social hot topic. But in the vast majority, particularly in difficult cases the hearing, the judge simply happy to permit unfair process, the results of the open of evidence is very vague and open grounds of evidence is often a basis for certain articles and over them, resulting in the court process, the trial judge himself appears often, the parties to defend himself, the referee made the final status of the party shouted accident, then the parties raised objections to the judge the results, to a certain extent, even led to negative social effects, leading into a long case second trial, retrial, which greatly waste litigation resources, in violation of the principle of legal efficiency. To this end, the paper will be of Open and perspective of the relationship between social effects to explore the center of our Mystery sentence of Open System.Thus, in addition to thesis introduction, the main contents of this paper is as follows:The first part of the heart is open and system changes. This section introduces the public the meaning of evidence, the origin and evolution of the system, and the public face of evidence of China’s legal difficulties. Mind the meaning of Open this part of the author on "Evidence" meaning analysis, pointed out that "of Open" was essentially a public judge’s "discretion", precisely judge the "discretion" of the restrictions. Then, the author of Open the system origin and evolution of the sort, "discretion" is the first made by the French jurist Duport, followed by Europe and the United States have adopted legislation on the "discretion" is to be provided. After a legal evidence, after the free evaluation of evidence, resulting in a more fair and transparent public system of evidence, European and American countries have developed their own national conditions consistent with the open system of evidence. Finally, the author, through the case of the difficult cases in our judicial problems are analyzed. Through analysis, the author discovered that the mystery of the trial in China in a serious phenomenon of evidence does not open, which has induced a negative social effect, and negative social effects of another reaction in the case, ruling the case led to changes in great waste of judicial resources, reduce the effectiveness of the proceedings, but also on the credibility of our judicial produced adverse effects. Therefore, the author pointed out that out of this predicament, only by constructing sentences in our Mystery of Open system to limit the judge’s "discretion" can guarantee justice, to achieve the maximization of the positive social effects.The second part of the United States and Germany on the judicial application of the Publicity and systems. By the author of Los Angeles "white policemen beat up a black case" analysis, that the motion system, also known as summary justice system and the pre-trial review system consisting of pre-trial conference system and the jury system as the United States of Open specific systems, administration of justice during the trial of cases by the parties request, the judge passive open heart card, so the judge can better understand the case, with the parties and their representatives to strengthen communication, increase efficiency and trial case trial of quality. In Germany, the performance of Open mode "Stuart Ghat mode" and "Summary of amendments to Law", although somewhat cumbersome procedure, but has played a dynamic role of judges, judges active disclosure of evidence, in consultation with the parties put forward reconciliation programs for clients to select, on the distribution of property inheritance disputes the trial is applicable not only accelerated the pace of the trial of the case and ensures impartial justice. Japan very early on "power of interpretation" makes provision, although there are repeated, but in the end be clearly defined in legislation, and is widely used in civil cases. Especially for complex commercial cases legal relationship, the judge can make a prompt release out of the party to guide the parties and change the demands of proof, the complexity of a simple, protected the legitimate rights and interests. Finally, the author summarizes the system of three countries that the three current open system of evidence that judges are able to more deeply involved in the proceedings, effectively preventing the attack referees, the case is conducive to the promotion of reconciliation, achieved positive social effects maximization.The third part of the ruling center in China Mystery System of Open Building. In the first section, I believe that the establishment of the open system of evidence purposes can not simply start from the jurisprudence, the law should also be considered social. As justice, the legal effect of a positive, positive social effects of identity, therefore, our open system of evidence should be when the purpose of building a positive social effect is to protect the maximum. In section II, I believe that as a judge of evidence is subjective, taking into account the complexity of difficult cases, it should establish "any public" and "statutory public" legislation combining the principle of an open mind on whether to card, and the public what kind of content, the degree of public and publicly make clear the scope of the law. In the third section, the author judges, Mystery, and the case itself has the characteristics of the social effects of three aspects of evidence explained the object of public reason is the difficult cases. That their case is complex and difficult case, a lot of doubts and difficult, difficult trial, the judge’s "free discretion" prone to bias, open heart card, helps to better limits the judge’s "free discretion" to ensure the impartiality of the trial of cases, but also make the public understand the proceedings before the Tribunal, trust ruling, resulting in a positive social effect, In section IV, the author centers on the Mystery of Open defines the scope of that except those involving state secrets and personal privacy of content, including the process of judges and judges of evidence of evidence results should be public. Judges should be guided through the preliminary hearing of evidence necessary to clear the focus of the controversy over the case and published views on the facts of the case to open the process of evidence, through the end of the debate before the end of the trial and verdict in two stages to complete a thorough public evaluation of evidence results. In sectionⅤ, the author expounds the way of Open Heart, that consultations should be taken instead of the judge orders the traditional inquisitorial approach, at the same time follow the neutral expressions, tone of pertinent principles, pre-trial preparation, trial and debate After the evaluation of evidence can be public, but not yet fully express their views in person, and that their views of evidence before the public. In SectionⅥ, the author talked about the Mystery of the "collegial" open. As China’s "collegial" principle is "majority rule", and the majority of evidence form a sentence, it should open the majority of evidence. For the minority of evidence, considering the case after the decision could have significant social impact, if open, may be those who know and understand simply because there was no "bad faith" bias of the judge impact, and therefore should not be public. In sectionⅦ, I believe that the parties should be established within the Court direct supervision and oversight monitoring system combining. To a statement given to the parties the right to dissent and the right to appeal, while the judge to strengthen internal oversight, especially in the second trial and the retrial the trial court’s supervision of the court, but the trial judge as long as there is no malicious or intentional, then there is no right or wrong, its Evidence should be respected.Based on the interpretation of the relevant literature, and drawing cards at home and abroad are concerned about public research results to the analysis of the case on the basis of justice, combined with the Publicity of the current situation in China, started his own research approach. Hope in our country, the public position of evidence based on a certain understanding, explore our Mystery ruling center Construction of Open road, ultimately seeks to make the mystery of the actual situation in line with our ruling center card, open system architecture. As China has yet to have an open system of evidence, therefore, this ruling on the Mystery of the Publicity and system building of research, for our construction of the open system of evidence of positive significance.