On The Perfection Of The Mechanism Of People’s Jury Only Participating In Fact Trial

In 2018,China passed the Law of the People’s Republic of China on People’s Jurors(hereinafter referred to as the Law on People’s Jurors),which stipulates that under the seven-member collegial system,jurors only participate in factual trials and no longer have authority over the application of law.The judicial interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court also preliminarily established the judge instruction system and the list of questions model.But there is no clear stipulation about the distinguishing standard between facts and legal issues in our country’s legislation,and the instructions of judges and the list of issues system are only provisions in principle and lack of specific content.This paper intends to analyze the jury participation only in fact trial from the legal perspective,introduce the practice of jury system and participation system,clearly distinguish the rules and procedures of fact and legal issues,strengthen the guiding role of judges,and explore the establishment of a list of questions template and negative list system.The full text is divided into four parts: the first part,first of all,from the legislative background of people’s assessors participate in fact only review mechanism,then according to the time order of the relevant documents is pointed out that the establishment process of the mechanism,and then introduced the legislation content,points out that it is extremely has the Chinese characteristic mode of jury,finally expounds the significance of this mechanism.The second part points out that there are still defects in this mechanism,including the fuzzy boundary between the fact and legal issues,the unclear scope of jurors’ participation in the trial of cases under the mechanism,the unsound participation procedure and the difficulty in ensuring jurors’ participation in the trial.The third part mainly introduces the practice of jury system and participating trial system countries in the fact trial,and sums up the practice that Our country can use for reference,such as from the pragmatic point of view to distinguish between the two,improve the operation environment of jury system,etc..The fourth part is the focus of this paper,in view of the problems mentioned above,put forward feasible methods.Firstly,for the distinction between facts and legal issues,from the perspective of substantive law,it is necessary to formulate rules of fact determination,and establish dispute resolution procedures from the perspective of procedural law.Secondly,the scope of application of the mechanism should be clarified and try to explore the negative list system.At the same time,it is necessary to improve the procedure of the participation review system,make a pretrial conference work and intensify the cultivation of jurors.Finally,it is necessary to perfect the juror’s power guarantee,strengthen the judge’s guiding function and control the cost of juror mechanism.In short,hope that through the above measures,further improve our jury system.