Font Size: a A A

An Empirical Study Of The Pronouncement Of Criminal Judgment In Court

Posted on:2015-10-24Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:G Z SongFull Text:PDF
GTID:2296330467965218Subject:Procedural Law
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
Pronouncing judgment is the last stage in a criminal trial.Chinese Criminal Procedure law has provided two kinds of sentencing.One of them is the in-court judgment pronouncement and the other one is pronouncing a judgment on a fixed day. Criminal in-court sentencing is an important part of the trial process but it doesn’t have enough attention in our country. However, the details of this procedure in criminal directly or indirectly relates to the many problems of criminal proceedings. For example, it is related to the Principle of Open Trial and the Timely Procedure Principle and the Principle of Trial-centered Criminal Procedure and so on. We should design the system of the in-court sentencing scientifically and implement this procedure strictly. One hand can guarantee the realization of the principle of open trial, and enhance public trust in the judiciary. On the other hand it helps to establish the principle of trial-centered in Criminal Procedure and promote the independence of judges. This paper uses a combination of theory and practice methods, trying to demonstrate the issues of the in-court judgment pronouncement system. In favor of the improvement and implement of the in-court judgment pronouncement system.To promote judicial reform about the trial operation mechanism and the realization of Judicial Openness and justice.Apart from the introduction and the conclusion this paper is divided into four parts about more than28,000words.The first part is the theoretical basis of criminal in-court sentencing. First, the most basic content is to carry out the Principle of Centralized Hearing and integrate the trial and the judgment as a precondition. The judges should review the case instantly after the court hearing and then the judgment was declared by the judge in court. It is a legal way of sentencing and has declared openness and continuity of time and space and other features. Secondly, the principle of open trial, the principle of centralized hearing and timely action are the three principles of the theoretical basis of the criminal in-court sentencing. Finally, China’s criminal sentencing system germinated in the Western Zhou Dynasty. Although in the Qin and Han dynasties pronouncement of a judgment has become a necessary procedure. But the in-court sentencing did not exist in ancient China in the strict sense. About the legal and regulatory system of the in-court sentencing gradually built up in the modern period. However only on the normative level, there is no concrete implementation. Until1979, Criminal Procedure Law was formally established the criminal in-court sentencing system.The second part of the paper is the review of the current situation and problems in criminal court for sentencing. From the legal basis, the current legislation of Criminal Procedure provided the criminal court sentenced as one of the statutory sentencing way and define the procedures and content of the in-court sentencing. The Supreme People’s Court is also promoting the pronouncement of judgment in court by case’s quality assessment. Due to the fragmented and broad of law, coupled with lack of rigid regulations, judges can not strictly implement it in judicial practice. Although some cases to achieve the sentencing in court, but there are still many problems and shortcomings. Finally, the paper noted that the current constraints of criminal in-court sentencing factors are the vacancy of legal standards and case assessment, the limited functionality of the first trial proceedings and to make a judicial decision by the administrative examination and the risk aversion by criminal judges.The third section discusses the necessity of implementation of the criminal in-court sentencing. For the following reasons, it is a concrete manifestation of the principle of open trial, but also to enhance the transparency of the criminal judgment and the inevitable requirement of justice. It is conducive to creating high-quality judges and to promote the independence of judges. In addition, the Principle of Trial-centered Criminal Procedure certainly means that the fact-finding should evolve around the first-instance trial through the ongoing proceedings. The case should be reviewed by a judge in a timely manner to keep fresh the memory, and return to court to pronounce the judgment by the judge instantly.The fourth part describes the implementation of specific initiatives in the pronouncement of a judgment in court. This part of the analysis on the basis of the previous text, proposed the idea to implement its system. First, it should improve legislation relating to the criminal in-court sentencing and determine the scope of the criminal case. To refine the procedures and content of in-court sentencing and to improve the assessment and other measures followed by refining pretrial procedures and to build the mechanism for forming a judgment by trial and promote the responsibility of chief judge. Finally, we establish correction mechanism and to implement and promote the construction of professional judges. Furthermore, it should be to strengthen the supervision of its internal and external aspects.
Keywords/Search Tags:Pronouncement of A Criminal Judgment in Court, Principle ofTrial-centered Criminal Procedure, Principle of Concentrating Hearing, PresidingJudge Responsibility System
PDF Full Text Request
Related items