Jury System, Responsive Adjudication And Public Opinion

The reforms of jury system in different areas often fail to meet their goals. Due to the tension between the court opinions and the public opinions, the author manages to explore the reform of jury system through the mode of the responsive adjudication in order to bridge the judiciary and the general public.The dissertation includes5parts.Part Ⅰ introduces the research question. The adaptation of public opinion in the adjudication process contradicts sharply the declination of judicial authority, while existing scholarships mechanically localize foreign systems under neo-pragmatism. It is necessary to find a new break point to set the reform path right.Part Ⅱ constructs the theoretical framework, which uses the theory of responsive adjudication to replace "hard rule of law" with "soft rule of law". The legitimacy and purpose of the law should be focused. The adoption of "communicative rationality" and the public opinion mitigate the contradictions of responsive adjudication, and the jury system, as a public domain, bridges the public and the judiciary.Part Ⅲ explains the reasons behind the plights in the jury system reform of China. Originally, the jury system in China was found to serve the political purpose and was developed through "political movements". The judiciary was the only beneficiary in the movements. Nowadays, the contradictions in a transitional society have refuted the existing development mode of the jury system. Previous reforms that focus on the political stability benefited the judiciary, but failed to meet the demands of the general public.Part Ⅳ analyzes the empirical status of District A Court. The jury system draws little attention from the public, and many people are hesitant in recognizing the system. Despite the effort to pursue generosity and randomness, the interferences from the court can hardly be avoided, which result in the existence of the "specialized" jury and the "mediatory" jury. It is hard to examine the effect of the jury system in the adjudication process. The above analysis supports the reasons explained in the previous part that the failure of the jury system reform should be attributed to the false response to the demands of the government and the judiciary and the ignorance of the public demand.Part V raises the prospect of the jury system reform. It includes understanding the demands of the general public, guaranteeing the interactions between different subjects in the adjudication process, and enhancing decision-making democracy. The reform should stand on the cross point of different subjects, ensure the dominant position of the public, externalize the function of the jury, and set up specifications of the procedural safeguards.