The Research On Power Restriction Of Grassroots Judges Under Judicial Reform Background

Since the 18th CPC National Congress,the central government launched a new round of judicial reform.In this judicial reform,how to restrict the power of judges and realize judicial justness is the main direction.Power and interests are closely related,besides,depends on discretionary power.The features make power to become a tool for individuals to achieve personal goals,thus,the power must be restricted.Previous study about this topic is mainly from the macro perspective,static perspective,making the solution is too general to lose operability.On the contrary,the solution should be concrete.Judicial power is the power to resolve specific disputes,making specific impact to the people's rights,at the same time,the uncertainty of law also provides the possibility for judicial corruption.Most of the judges are from the jurisdiction of the courts,and it is easy to encounter the relationship case,which makes judicial corruption and judicial injustice is more likely to occur.Besides,Considering that the judges at the grassroots level need to be sentenced to a large number of cases every year,it makes the judicial corruption of grassroots judges have serious social harmfulness.Due to the grassroots judge's ability,even if there is no corruption,if their powers not to be supervised,it is also likely to lead to judicial injustice.Therefore,it is necessary to restrict the power of grassroots judges.Specifically,In the process of trial,the composition of the collegial panel should be improved,the procedural rights of the parties should be protected,and substantive trial is realized.In the case of the decision stage,the detailed reason should be given to restrict the judges' discretion.In the case of supervision,the news media should be guided to report the case orderly and legally,and the parties may exercise the right of appeal to supervise grassroots judges.In terms of judicial punishment,minor corruption should be punished and shoulder the responsibility for life,at the same time,misuse of law and miscarriage of justice should be distinguished.