本篇论文目录导航：

【第1部分】 中国法官错案责任追究制度的构建
【第2部分】我国法官错案责任追究制度现状
【第3部分】建立错案责任追究制度应遵循的原则
【第4部分】错案责任承担方式
【第5部分】错案责任追究的实施程序
【第6部分】法官错案追究法律制度的建设结语与参考文献

　　摘要

　　法制是法治国家的永恒话题。随着中国改革开放的步伐加快,物质文明迅速发展,政治文明也应配套而上,司法审判体制在实践中形成的法官错案责任追究问题就凸显起来,我国的法官错案责任追究机制的缺失和完善关系到国家司法审判体制体系是否健全;同时法官制度是实现社会公正的最后一道屏障。

　　法官制度是否完善关系到社会公正能否实现,社会公正秩序也随之建立,相反,如果法官制度不完善那么社会公平正义就很难有所保障,会导致社会诸多的不公正产生。因此,作为法官监督的法官错案责任追究制度就显得更为重要。

　　法官依据法律享有独立审判不受任何机关干预的权利。但所谓“审判独立”并非“审判孤立”,更非“审判独裁”。基于权力制约的原理,法官自应有适当的监督机制,以免法官违法失职或有不当言行影响其公正形象和独立行使职权。因此,法官错案追究责任制就是这种监督机制之一。

　　在我国古代的法制文明中早已有了成熟地司法官吏错案责任追究体制,中华法系的核心《唐律疏议》中就明确规定了司法官吏的违法失职行为应当承担“出入人罪"的具体适用情形。我国现今的错案追究制度源于特定的历史条件,跟随着时代的发展,其不合理的责任认定标准以及制度设计引发的一系列现实弊端日渐凸显,错案追究制度作为我国法官惩戒制度的主要内容,法律依据就目前而言仅限各地方及各法院内部的规定。显而易见,这项制度虽然到目前为止适用的时间很长,范围也很广,但却仍未形成统一的规范。导致了我国对法官错案责任追究始终处于混乱不堪地状态,没有确切的追究原则去遵循,责任承担方式也畸重畸轻,从另一方面也加剧了冤假错案的出现。

　　相比之下,英、美、德、日等西方发达国家,针对法官失职行为均采用法官弹劾与法官惩戒两阶段的处理模式,并且,惩戒措施也比较灵活多样。这一处理模式能够较好的起到实质意义上的法官惩戒的作用。由于法制环境及发展的特殊性,我国现行的法官责任追究制度是一种追究与处罚捆绑的混合模式,从整体运作而言更倾向于西方国家的法官惩戒制度。比较之下,暴露了我国错案责任追究制度中的很多问题,错案责任追究体制在程序上应当从错案受理、错案审查、审核抄送、责任追究四个方面入手,充分利用我国权力结构中的独特性,发挥人大常委会的监督职能,以权力制约权力,在保障法官独立审判的同时,有效监督法律适用及审判程序,减少冤假错案的产生。在未来的错案追究体制地改进中应当借鉴我国古代的优秀经验,吸取西方法官弹劾惩戒两阶段模式的合理性,结合本国的国情,创制一套符合我国法制环境的法官错案责任追究制度。

　　关键词:法官错案追究机制司法公正

　　Abstract

　　The rule of law is the eternal topic in the country under the rule of law. With theacceleration of China's reform and opening up,rapid development of materialcivilization, political civilization should also form a complete set,the judicial systemin practice of the judge wrong case responsibility problem was highlighted, and thejudge in our country the lack of misjudged cases responsibility mechanism andperfect the system of the relationship to the national judicial system is sound; At thesame time,the judge system is the last barrier to realize social justice. Judge whetherthe system to perfect the related to the realization of social justice, social justice andorder is established, on the contrary, if the judge system is imperfect social equity andjustice is hard to guarantee, will lead to many social injustice.

　　Judges according to law shall have the right to independent trial is not affectedby any authority intervention. But the so-called "trial independence" is not isolated"trial", more than "dictatorship" trial. Based on the principle of power restriction,thejudge should have the appropriate monitoring mechanisms, so as to avoid the judgeillegal dereliction of duty or improper words and actions affect the justice image andindependently exercise their functions and powers. As a result,the judge misjudgedcases shall be investigated for responsibility system is one of the supervisionmechanism.

　　In the ancient civilization of the legal system in our country has already beenmature judicial officials misjudgments accountability system, the core of "Chineselegal system of Tang Dynasty" in specific provision of judicial officers of illegal actsshall bear the M Offense of imposing lighter or heavier sentences than necessary M.

　　Therefore, as justice supervision misjudged cases accountability system becomesmore important. Of misjudged cases investigated system in China is the result ofspecific historical conditions,along with the development of The Times, itsunreasonable responsibility cognizance standard and system design a series ofpractical disadvantages highlighted increasingly, misjudged cases investigated systemas the main content of the judge disciplinary system in China, the legal basis for themoment, only the regional and regulations inside the court. Although it is obvious thatthis system so far for a long time,range is very wide, but still did not form a unifiedspecification. Led to the wrong case to the judge in our country the responsibility isalways in a chaotic state,no principle to follow, the exact investigated also now toomuch now too little responsibility way, on the other hand, also aggravate the wrongs.

　　In contrast, the western developed countries, the United States,Germany, Britainand Japan, according to the judge and dereliction of duty by judge impeachment andjudge disciplinary treatment pattern, the two stage and is also more flexible,disciplinary measures. This model can better play a real sense of the judgedisciplinary action. Due to the special nature of the legal environment anddevelopment, China,s current judge responsibility system is a mixed mode of bindingwith punishment, punishment system from the overall operation is more inclined tothe west of judges. In contrast,exposed a lot of problems in our country in the systemof investigating the responsibility of misjudged cases, misjudgments accountabilitysystem should be from the misjudged case acceptance, misjudged case review,audit,accountability to the four aspects in the process, make use of the characteristic of ourcountry in the power structure, bringing supervision of people standing, restrictingpower with power at the same time,in ensuring the judge's independent trial, theeffective supervision of the legal application and judicial procedure, reduce theproduction of miscarriages of justice. In the future the misjudged case investigationsystem improvement should learn from the excellent experience in ancient China,absorb the rationality of western judicial impeachment two stage model, combiningthe national condition,create a set to conform to the environment of legal system ofthe liability of misjudged cases.

　　Keywords: judge; miss judged cases; Responsibility system; esponsibility ;Judicial justice
 

　　目录

　　摘要

　　Abstract

　　引言

　　一、我国法官错案责任追究制度现状

　　(一)我国法官错案责任追究制度的由来及其内容

　　(二)现行法官错案责任追究体制存在的问题

　　二、建立错案责任追究制度应遵循的原则

　　(一)错案概念界定公正化原则

　　(二)慎重追究责任原则

　　(三)责任主体具体化原则

　　(四)"裁判员"与“运动员"相分离原则

　　三、错案责任承担方式

　　(一)纪律责任

　　(二)暂停或取消法官资格

　　(三)法律责任

　　四、错案责任追究的实施程序

　　(一)疑似错案受理

　　(二)疑似错案审查

　　(三)审核抄送

　　(四)责任追究

　　结语

　　参考文献

　　致谢

返回本篇论文导航