Research On Liability System Of Misjudged Case

Misjudged case remains one of the most popular hot issues in the areas of judicature in public, misjudged cases are often arise in the news headlines, such as the Case of She Xianglin, Zhao Zuohai, Xu Jingxiang, pick a fair and impartial judicial tight nerves,undermined the administration of justice. For this problem, standing explore value-based perspective, combined with extra-regional countries misjudgments accountability of law and practical experience, summed up their similarities and differences, while the misjudged case for the status quo of the current accountability system conducted analysis, and finally, we put forward a series of specific initiatives. This treaty is divided into four parts:The first part is an overview of the theory about misjudged case accountability system.Research any issue must to clear a definition. Currently, whether theorists or practitioners accountability for wrong still not have a clear idea, this is the misjudged case current accountability system is difficult to form an important reason system. How to define misjudgments accountability system? In practice there are three views, I believe that these three views there are some flaws. I believe that to be misjudged case should be the main,subjective and objective aspects finds misjudged case should refer to the judicial officers or persons associated with the trial activities, judicial activities, due to intentional or gross negligence, breach of procedural or substantive law, damage justice Responsibility should be the case. Indeed, misjudged case accountability system is the misjudged case for individual accountability system. In addition, the abolition of controversial author in the text of the theorists accountability system exists misjudged cases were analyzed, and the perspective of standing on the basis of the value of the role of the judicial system of the misjudged case to China's current accountability system, the abolition of the misjudged case refuted accountability system voice.The second part is the extraterritorial national legal basis of the system for analysis. The main civil law cited France, Germany, the UK common law, the United States, mixed legal system in Japan, Italy misjudged case responsibility concerning the legal basis and practical experience, concluded that these major countries outside the rule of law on this issue Similarities and differences, in order to provide reference for the Improvement of misjudged cases accountability system.The third part is the analysis of the predicament facing the misjudged case accountability system and causes. Judicial practice, the misjudged case responsibility is difficult to put in place, the disciplinary body lack of neutrality, accountability procedures are not standard is the misjudged case current predicament facing the accountability system. Investigate the main reason is lack of legislation, accountability misjudged case law content shall not detailed, not unified, lower legal status. Secondly, court management, there is still serious administrative management tendencies. Finally, law enforcement is not in place is also facing difficulties misjudged case accountability is an important reason.The fourth part drawing on the useful experience of foreign countries, and proposed specific measures to improve the basis of our present situation the misjudged case analysis on accountability, including improvement of relevant legislation, the correct boundary points "misjudged case" concept and recognized standards, the establishment of an independent misjudged case accountability institutions, norms misjudged case accountability procedures,strengthening the construction of related mechanisms and so on.