From The Comprehensive Trial To Trial Of Fact

The people’s jury system is a power to restrict judger’s authority, maintaining the credibility of justice and judicial authority of the judicial system, but for a long time in our country jury’s work is not good, the situation of "accompany without trial" in the people’s jury is worried. The CPC Central Committee eighteenth plenary session formulate "the rule of law and certain major issue decision", put forward: "to improve the people’s jury system, and gradually make people’s assessor only participate judging the facts." The policy in order to reform the people’s jury system our country, pointing out a new idea and method. With the new environment and legal policy changing, the people’s jury system has to change, and the change not to weak jury’s power, otherwise it is difficult to achieve the purpose of improving the people’s jury system. In the conditions of people’s assessors only participate judging the fact jury how to work good, make the people’s jury system can ensure the national judicial justice and safeguard judicial credibility play its due role is the main issues discussed in this paper. The people’s jury only judge the facts, how to strengthen the people’s jury trial of powers in the cognizance of facts, so that the people’s jury can judge by virtue of justice and the normal values, epistemology exerts its effect can play a role in the field of professional judges, to restrict the power, safeguard judicial justice that is to improve the credibility of the judiciary.This paper starts with introduction, the main body of the article is divided into four chapters, the last to the end.The first chapter of this article by comparing the Anglo American jury system and method, the assessor system in the criminal procedure, we can find that formed of two kinds of system and its domestic legal and cultural traditions are closely linked. Especially the formation of the assessor system is compromised the product of the British jury system and the traditional culture of French law. Considering the actual situation of our country, the system of people’s assessors reform of Anglo American jury model may not be able to play a very good effect, to maintain the existing assessor system and on the basis of reform is more feasible and effective at the present stage.In determining the direction of reform, the second chapter analysis of the survey data show our people’s jury judge all possible problems,but because of assessor lacking of capacity, positioning is not clear that can not play a good effect. According to the analysis to illustrate why the people’s jury is only responsible for the comprehensive review to a certain extent, increased the situation of "accompany without trial". And the reasons for these problems are explained, in order to explain why the jury has to only judge the facts.The third chapter explains the people’s jury trial is only responsible for the fact that the significance of the reform, and explores the people’s jury concrete should play what role in the reform of trial of fact finding. In order to achieve this goal, we need to make sure the people’s jury’s authority, grasp the key link in the determination of facts, give the people’s jury the advantage position in the collegiate bench, let them come to a decisive role in the key link. So the key chain is what? Fact finding area and how to define?The fourth chapter mainly answer the problem, The Anglo American jury system separate the factual and legal issues, clearly defines what is fact, the jury can really play an important role in which area, but we can not completely imitate definition of fact in Anglo American jury system. First of all, our country and that of Anglo American jury in different in some ways, if the assessor even have no right in the admissibility of the evidence, especially have no right in the decision of the exclusion of illegal evidence, the jury will not play a role in court hearing. Secondly, China and Anglo American jury system is different in the rules of evidence system, Britain and the United States’ s rules of evidence are more completer and complex than China’s evidence system.Professional judges according to the need of such a rule of evidence in the evidence be adopted to judge, the discretionary power is small, do not need to restrict the jury. But civilian jury who dot not learn professional legal knowledge, can not master such a system of rules, so the Anglo American jury system, the admissibility of the evidence is considered as a problem of application of law by the judge handling behoove. In China, the rules of evidence is relatively simple, a lot of regulations is only the principle elements, so the judger play a role like a God, at the same time, such a rule of evidence system, ordinary people also can master the basic professional judge necessary guidance, based on the rules of judgment. Therefore, our country’s criminal procedure of the hearing shall be limited to the fact that all the relevant facts in the trial activities, including evidence of illegal evidence exclusion procedure and special procedure.Therefore, our country’s criminal procedure of the hearing shall be limited to the fact that all the relevant facts in the trial activities, including evidence of illegal evidence exclusion procedure and special procedure.The conclusion part in determining the people’s jury power range, you need to power and effect, in the case of information obtaining evidence review identified and voting key facts of case finally clear the people jury. Back from the overall trial to trial of fact purpose, this policy orientation clear requirements in fact finding problems in people’s assessors should play a leading role, occupation judges should only play a guiding role and to prevent extreme cases there, the people’s jury focus on confirming the fact the trial judge occupation, focus on the application of law issue of the final. That is, along with the first occupation judge people’s jurors to determine the syllogistic reasoning "minor premise", and then to find the major premise, and ultimately to make inferences. Since so, just to be clear of people’s assessors in confirming the fact trial power is not enough, but also to change people’s jury collegial panel of judges and occupation proportion and number of people’s assessors can ensure for absolute majority, ensure the fact finding pending a final decision rights and advantage position.This paper mainly focuses on how to rationally construct an effective operating mechanism of the collegial panel, but limited to the length limit not to the people’s jury selection, the people’s jury verdict force protection and other content of some support of any elaborate. And these same contents on the people’s jury system operation has an important role, even is the prerequisite conditions for effective operation of this system.