A Research On The Exemption Treatment For Judges’Adjudicative Comments

Since judicial review and prosecution are both conditions for ultimate adjudication, of which the purpose is to provide legal factual premise for judicial acts, adjudicative proceeding is definitely the most important step and its decisions are the final ones of the whole trial. From the perspective of social justice, the procedure of adjudication are exactly that of judiciary and whether the adjudication itself is just or not directly determines the degree of justice of judicial acts. Judges, being the ultimate manipulators of adjudication, directly and concretely hold the initiative of it. The initiative, on the one hand, is the adjudication itself, on the other hand, is reflected in the points of view voiced to support the results, attitudes and comments in the adjudication. Though both serve the rulings, the attitudes which the judges hold and their comments provide premise for adjudication rulings as well. Therefore, comments given by a judge, including those supporting his attitudes, determines the public opinion on the justice of the whole judiciary act. Meanwhile, the act of adjudication is either the confirmation or denial of existing facts-a consequent configuration of interests which does not generate social welfare or improve it on the whole. In other words, judges’act of adjudication is a behavioral process to rectify justice. However, though judges, being the subject of adjudication, hold the scale of social justice and shoulder the duty of maintaining judicial fairness, they exist as social beings in the first place and are influenced by social environment and cultural notions since their birth. While judges are analyzing facts of a case, they are also distracted by his bread and butter.However, in China’s judicial practice, the present security system for judges doesn’t take the premise that judges are social beings into consideration to ease their pressure in adjudication. On the contrary, defective mechanisms such as misjudged law case responsibility cause more pressure to judges and add factors which harm the principle of independent judgment. Therefore, it is especially significant to explore exemption system for judges’behavior and comments in the process of trial and ease their burden and thus guarantee the justice of judicial proceedings. Of course, the author’s suggestion to give judges exemption for their adjudicative behaviors does not apply to all their behaviors and comments. Instead, such exemption must be confined to a certain limit and does not indicate that judges can be exempted from all comments in all occasions. For example, judges are not exempted for criticizing or denounce other judges, lawyers or parties involved. In a word, such exemptions cannot surpass the principles and baseline of law.