| The judicial publicity in the Internet environment needs the support of fourfactors: the court itself, judicial resource, network platform and judiciaryinformation.On the basis of dividing the network platform into independent networkplatform and unitive network platform, dividing the judiciary information into staticjudiciary information and dynamic judiciary information, this article has did astatistical analysis about the condition on the construction of courts’ network platformand the disclosure of the judiciary information.At present, we could not be optimistic about the courts’ work on the judicialpublicity of Internet environment. On the construction of network platform,existingproblems such as each court does its work in its own way, the number is too big, thefunction and construction are overlapping and so on between different district courts.Lacking effective integration leads to defects as dispersion of the judiciaryinformation and waste of the judicial resource.On the disclosure of judiciary information, existing problems such as lowerdisclosure proportion of static judiciary information, the disclosure proportion islower than the undisclosed proportion on dynamic judiciary information, the style forthe publicity of judicial documents is non-standard and non-uniform,the disclosurework has not been normalization, no effective integration among messages and so on.On the reason why come to so much problems, the writer believe that they are causedby following conditions: firstly, the judicial resource is limited; secondly, the districtcourts’ external pressure is not strong enough; thirdly, lacking detailed normativedocuments for guidance; fourthly, the district courts think little of the publicity workand put the news propaganda on the first place. Those superficial reasons reflectssome underlying problems about the system and mechanism of justice.To solve the above-mentioned problems, the writer advanced five principles tothe work of judicial publicity on the basis of consulting relevant research with thetheory of right to know, and to further build the perfection of measures in accordancewith the above principles.The contents of this article is divided into four parts: Part One, to overview the condition of the judicial publicity of courts in ournation, including to present Internet environment, to present the start, developmentand detailed contents of the judicial publicity in the Internet environment.The Internet have infiltrated into every field of human society and every aspectof our life. It can overcome the limitation of time and space on the releasement andsharing of information, and this superiority makes the Internet to play an importantpart in the judicial publicity. The Internet public opinion not only can promote therealizing of justice, but will go against the independence.In June2007, the Supreme Court has published the “Several opinions aboutenhancing the work of public trial of the people’s court”,which demanding the courtsto set up network stations, and reinforcing the publicity of the binding judicativepapers gradually, regulating the system about the trial live and recorded broadcast.This document marked that the Internet was bringing into the field of judicialpublicity. Soon afterwards, the Supreme Court released a series of reform files,covering six aspects of filing cases, court trial, judicative papers, implementation,hearing and court affairs relevant the trial.The writer divided the matters of the work on judicial publicity into two aspects:one is the construction of the network platform, the other one is the work of theinformation publicity. The main contents of the construction of the network platformis the construction of platforms for case information inquiry, platforms for carry caseinformation inquiry and platforms for making public the judicative papers. No rigidrequirements are setted on constructions of any platforms except for the website andthe platform for making public the judicative papers. The main contents of theinformation publicity are the six aspects of filing cases, court trial, judicative papers,implementation, hearing and court affairs relevant the trial, and the regulations aboutthe publicity of the court trial and the judicative papers are relatively particular.Part Two, through some detailed figures to describe the condition of constructionon the network platform for disclosing the judiciary information, indicating theexisting problems and analyzing their impacts.The writer divided courts’ platforms into independent network network platformsand unitive network platforms. To the construction of the independent platforms, thepopularizing rate of the website has reached90%, and the difference betweendifferent districts and different grades are obvious; with the popularization ofmicro-blog, the courts set up their own micro-blog gradually, but the differences are still existing, and the level and effect of utilizing are not very well, the informationpublished lack classifying, and the advantage of the micro-blog is not been fully used;other independent platform such as the platform for searching cases’ flow information,inquiring the carry cases’ information and the platform for publishing the judicaturepapers and so on, their each own covering ratio is12%,7%,64%and13%.To the construction of unitive network platforms, with the publishing of theSupreme Court’s “opinions about promoting the construction of three platforms forthe judiciary publicity”, most districts’ courts start the construction of unitivenetwork platforms, but the problems behind them can not be neglected, the problemsare courts each does things in its own way, lacking necessary exchange andcommunication, rising the waste of judicial resources and decentralization ofinformation, increasing by the difficulty of inquiring judicial information for theparties and public.Part Three, representing the condition of the disclosure about the static judiciaryinformation and dynamic judiciary information by using some detailed figures andcharts, pointing up the existing problems and analyzing their reasons.This article divided the judicial information into two aspects, including staticjudiciary information and dynamic judiciary information. To the static judiciaryinformation, in spite of the cost of judicial resources are very little, the disclosure rateof the static judiciary information is lower than its undisclosed rate. The writerbelieves it is caused by the functional localization of the courts’ website is centralizedon the news propaganda; as the dynamic judiciary information, because the contentsof the regulations are not detailed, the courts payed little attention on the judiciarypublicity and their apprehension are too many for maintaining their interests andauthority, leading to the problems such as the number of the disclosed information islittle, the work for disclosing the information is not normalization and unification, andlacking integration between information and so on.Part Four, to solve the problems mentioned by Chapter One and Chapter Two,the writer has advanced some relevant suggestions from the technology, idea andmechanism level.The writer advanced five principles to the work of judicial publicity on the basisof consulting relevant research with the theory of right to know, and to further buildthe perfection of measures in accordance with the above principles, includingformulating and perfecting the relevant regulations, establishing a system of applying for opening judiciary information, setting up a network platform for integratedinformation, formulating some criteria of assessment, establishing and perfecting thesystem for reporting and appealing, and setting up the mechanism for exchanging andextending the experiences between courts.On the establishing and perfecting of the regulations about the judiciarypublicity,the writer proposed to formulate some regulations to normalize thedisclosure work on the micro-blog, and formulating relevant detailed operatingstandards and requirements on the basis of the above-mentioned principles; on thesystem of applying for opening judiciary information, the writer advanced that theparties and the public have the right to apply to courts for making the informationwhich should be disclosed public when the courts did not do like that, but as theinformation which is not be regulated to disclose, just only the parties have the rightto apply for partial contents, such as the forming process of the case results, thedissents proposed during the panel discussion, and the public have no such right.Otherwise, the writer advanced his own suggestions on the forms and approaches forapplying.On the network platform for the integrated information, the writer proposed anassumption about establishing an Information Retrieval System and an unifiedinformation publishing system and uniting them into the same website. It is becausethe obstacle from the system in solving the problems on the technology level is smalland can be overcome, and we can take example by foreign ripe experiences. Thisnetwork platform can promote the centralization of the information, be convenient tothe parties and the public to receive and obtain informations, and could also undertakethe function of making the information public, being easy to separate the function ofbroadcasting and publicity. On the formulating of the relevant criteria of assessment,the writer believe that to increase the attention that courts payed to the judiciarypublicity, we should link the publicity work with courts and judges’ interests, andformulate reasonable criteria of assessment system, attaching the publicity work to thedaily job rating system. On this aspect, there are already some courts are taking thepractice, like the “open justice index” formulated by the Zhejiang Provincial higherpeople’s court.On the system of reporting and appealing, the writer believed that it is necessaryto establish and perfect the system for reporting and appealing based on the principalof “No remedies, no rights”, when the courts publicity work go against with relevant regulations and principals, the parties and the public should be conferred the right toreport. And when the parties and the public’s replies are rejected, they have the rightto appeal to relevant institutions or organizations. The writer think that based on thecurrent institution setting, the leading group of judiciary publicity of higher courtsshould be conferred the power to accept reports and appeals. At the same time, weshould offer various and convenient approaches for reporting and appealing, and limitthe time of feedback with results and reasons.On the mechanism of exchanging and extending the ripe experiences, the writerbelieve that to improve the condition about the courts do each own things by theirown way, and the efficiency in the judiciary publicity work is low, it is necessary toestablish and perfecting a mechanism for exchanging and extending ripe experiences.Although the Supreme Court has done some relevant work, such as publishing someresearch achievements and different district courts’ practical experience, but has notyet formed a long-term mechanism, some ripe experiences has not been introducedand extended. The writer think that we could make use of the chance of establishingthe platform for making integrated information public, setting up a board forexchanging and extending experiences, introducing different district courts’ ripeexperiences, and refresh it frequently. |
PDF Full Text Request