| Misjudged-case-investigating system is a system investigating the judge’s illegal trial liability. With the advance of the reform of the judicial system, the drawbacks of the system have become increasingly prominent. The theory circles and judicial practice circles also exist different points whether the system would be abolished. Misjudged- case-investigating system’s reform and improvement are related to our country’s judicial system problems.This paper starts from the "Vocative giller pattern", introducing the development history of misjudged-case-investigating system and the creation of original intention. There was more comprehensive provisions for the misjudged case investigation system in ancient China. In 1980s, in order to prevent the occurrence of judicial corruption and the miscarriages of justice, the courts all over the country began to try out misjudged case investigation system. Misjudged case investigation owns the social existence value, so from three aspects this paper analyzes the value of misjudged-case-investigating system:Firstly, it urges judges to strengthen the business of learning, enhance the sense of responsibility of the judge; Secondly, it lets the judge strictly abide by the professional ethics of judges, prevent judicial corruption; Thirdly, it is conducive to improving the quality of trials and to promote the process of the rule of law in China.Although the misjudged-case-investigating system has certain social value, but in the implementation process the system has produced contradiction between high-exposure-rate individual cases and zero misjudged rate pursed by most courts. At the same time, in the judicial practice, the disadvantage of the system gradually highlights: how to hold the responsibility of the judge after "misjudged case"? Who should be responsible for investigating and affixing "misjudged case"? Is the same level of the court or superior court, or by which department of the court? Currently China has not been established a set of scientific and reasonable and accountability misjudgments procedures, in practice various court practice is also different and accountability misjudgments procedures are not sound enough; in judicial practice, in order to evade responsibility, civil and commercial case judges in handling cases choose mediation instead of judgment, criminal case judges usually choose a lenient sentence; at the same time, sometimes in order to pass the responsibility, some judges will submit the case to the audit committee or refer to a higher court for referrals so as to weaken the judge’s enthusiasm handling the case and reduce handling efficiency. There are many problems behind the main reason for the result of misjudged case investigation in the operation:courts’ misjudged cases standards are not uniform and the definition is vague so that local people’s courts at various levels are fragmented. From the rules on the wrong cases cited by the Supreme Court and the local court can see the different court’s rules; deep-seated reason is the cognitive behavioral uncertainty for law and the uncertainty of judge’s the behavior. For different cases, different judges in the ascertainment of facts and the application of the law will have different points of view.In view of this, by drawing the world’s major countries adopting the’judge disciplinary system, including the United States, Germany and Japan, the paper introduces the reasons, the main body, procedures, etc. For our country’s judge responsibility of misjudged- case-investigating system, the paper puts forward improving suggestions:establish the standards and scope of strong accountability operation, a combination of internal and external supervision mechanism, construction and integration into the external supervision mechanism; unify the power for investigating the liability of misjudged cases and revert to the independent department; protect judges independent exercise judicial power in the judicial process. |
PDF Full Text Request