Research On The Accountability System For Judges' Wrong Cases

Since the fouding of the People’s Republic of China, the country has been devoted to building a socialist country under the rule of law. The strategy of ruling the country by law became a part of the constitution. To build a socialist country, the justice is a vital factor. Thus, how to standard judicial acts, how to aviod mistakes in judicial field is necessary issue which need to solve. In the recent year, society called upon correct wrong cases and punish the judges that make mistakes. Because miss judged cases such as Nie shubin,Zhao zuohai, and She xianglin, occured frequently.The central and local governments have issued a series of relevant laws and regulations.However, comparing with society’s expect, it arouse controversy among theoretical realm. Whether call to account should be exist, and exist by what kind of form, all these issues may worthy of research.Under the circumstances, the purpose of the research is to explore why to blame the judges who make mistakes is necessary through analyzing theory and practice of current judge responsibility. Besides, base on the combination of the foreign countries’experience and China’s specific situation, the research try to provide how to make the judge responsibility more impeccable.The first section introduces the origin of the judge responsibility. By discriminating misjudgements accountability’s related conceptions, the research gave the definition of ’misjudged cases’. Then, discussing the necessity of the misjudgement accountability system upon the theoretical level .Punishing the judges who make mistakes is necessary,so that justice independence can be guaranteed.In addition, the research explained punishing these judges who make mistakes can prevent judicial corruption and protect the legal right as well.The second section pointed out that there are misjudgement accountability system since ancient time. Both western countries and China hold the same opinions on punishing these judges who make mistakes. The research selected the U.S., Japan and Germany as comparison object,because of their advanced misjudgement accountability system. Through comparing and contrasting the reason of accountability, agencies and process, the research try to find the appropriate system which China could learn and inspire.In the third section, firstly, the current situation of misjudgement accountability system in China has been introduced. It is pointed that misjudgement accountablity’s subject is unscientific, and also contrary to the natural justice principle.Moreover,misjudgement accountability’s confirm is vague and the standard is unclear while practice. It becomes another debatable issue. Further, process’s unscientific parts and penalties’s irrationality also become an influential factors. All the issus mentioned before may cause many problems, such as low efficiency of handling the case and judge’s negative attitude towards work. Accordingly, the current misjudgement accountability system have not achieve the expected effect. It may even have negative impact on judicial independence and the misjudged cases’s correcting.In the last section,literature review has been done. Different relevant theories has been analyzed and discussed. In conclusion, the misjudgement accountability system is not only necessary, but also feasible.As to how to perfect the misjudgement accountability system,the first thing is to improve the legal hierarchy.Then the process and standard of punishing these judges who make miatakes.Aiming at the prolems existing in the implrmentation,it is necessary to build a scientific process.At the same time,we have to give corresponding relief for these judges who are punished.The angency should be neutral,so the judge disciplinary agent that belong to the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress is a good chioce.Besides,reforming the qualifications of judges and perfect the judge identity protection system is also an integral of the misjudgement accountability.The judge identity protection is including salary guarantee,job security and judicial immunity.