【作者】 吕洪民；

【导师】 徐卫东；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法学理论， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 陪审制度在悠久的历史发展过程中产生的严密逻辑体系,随着司法改革的深入,不断遭受着现实的诘问,尤其是当今中国更是处于“人人得而批之”的局面,理论界与实务界不同的态度构成了中国鲜明的百家争鸣映像。中国陪审制度的困境也在这种争议中得以全面展现,其重生问题也成为具有强烈改革精神的中国必须面对的现实。本文在深入分析陪审制度理论和价值判断的基础上,探讨了陪审制度的基本价值和在不同历史时期所体现的价值序列问题,同时应用法经济学的基本理论作了浅显的尝试,探讨了当今两大主要的陪审模式在效益、博弈等法经济学研究视角中的表现,同时梳理了我国陪审制度发展的历史脉络,指出我们面临的困境就是在建国前后确立的陪审制度未加深入研判而应用于业已变化的当今社会,改革现有的人民陪审员制度,将政治民主的首要目标让位于司法民主和公正的追求,还其司法制度的本来面目是我们实现陪审制度新生的重要判断。全文在上述研究进路的指引下,在思考了论文研究背景,分析了研究价值和意义的基础上,从第二章开始共分为六个方面。第二章是陪审制度的理论基础,探讨了陪审与陪审制度的界定问题,考察了陪审制度的起源,分析了陪审制度的发展历史,为后续研究确立话题范围。陪审作为学界耳熟能详的话语,并没有被认真和谨慎地使用,其随手拈来的平民化特点导致了多样化理解的混乱,目前在陪审制度概念使用上的杂乱和不规范仍然较为突出。陪审制度概念上分野,表现为突出的四种理解,研究上述不同定义内容,可以发现陪审制度的基本特征,一是有审判的内容,并且要求陪审人员参与其中的事实确定审理或者法律适用决策或者两者兼具;二是要有“陪”审的附属地位;三是要有“陪”又有“审”,“陪”为形式,“审”为内容;四是陪审制度必须是对其中的某些重要内容起直接的决定性作用的审判。可以发现,缺少“审”的内核或者“陪”的形式的被称之为“陪审”制度,并不是现代审判制度上的“陪审制度”。陪审制度的起源经历了初步萌芽和正式确立,在其初步萌芽阶段,理论界并没能形成统一的认识,这种现状被形象地成为“陪审制度起源的迷雾”,经历了这种认识上的迷茫之后,陪审制度正式确立于英国并没有太多争议,英国陪审团制度的生成和运作完整体现了陪审制度确立的历史,但这种状态也不是一蹴而就的,同样经历了复杂的制度选择和价值发现过程。陪审制度的发展是伴随着各发源地政治变化进程的,其在英美法系和大陆法系的发展出现了鲜明的分化,英国自身的陪审制度经历了曲折的发展,美国陪审制度的应用虽然历史跨度不长,但已然成为陪审团模式的典型代表,表现出强劲的生命力。而大陆法系的法德等国,在引入陪审团模式后,出现较大的分化,法国、德国最终确立了参审制,并成为参审制模式的典型代表,但在同一法系的个别国家,却出现了陪审团应用的回归,这些复杂的变化反映了陪审制度多重价值追求的认识问题。第三章是有关陪审制度存废的价值分析,首先确立陪审制度价值分析的基本出发点,同时详细分解了陪审制度价值分析的语境,并结合当今我国的国情,分析了我国陪审制度独特的价值追求。在审判视野这一陪审制度应用的直接领域,审判公信力和审判资源的优化配置成为其典型的价值。陪审员进入法庭可以通过牵制职业法官,约束其滥用权力防止腐败进而彰显同类人陪审下的公信问题,在平民身份多种知识储备和多重社会经历的背景下,可以弥补职业法官的不足,优化审判资源的配置。在司法视野下,因为允许普通的社会公众进入国家公权力重要的领域,能充分体现司法民主的价值,同时也可实现司法公正的追求。而在政治视野中,自由的宣扬和人民主权的体现是其重要内容。我国陪审制度的价值在体现共性的同时,也有自己鲜明的特点。它能促进审判和谐,推动和谐社会的整体构建。它同时还是社会管理创新的“大司法”的要求,同时还是政治文明创建的重要推动力。第四章是在价值判断基础上的模式探索,通过法经济学的引入,注重其制度效益的考察,明晰了不同模式下的效益表现。陪审制度和其他法律制度一样也具有法经济学研究的必要性,同时可以弥补法学研究上的不足,尤其是在价值之外的可资衡量的效益层面。陪审制度效益考察的方法主要是法经济学理论的应用,通过法与经济学的关联分析和法经济学与司法制度的关系确立了陪审制度法经济学分析的可能性和可行性。法经济学的基本假设包括资源的稀缺性、效用最大化原则、经济人假设三个基本前提,其基本方法包括个人主义分析方法、激励分析、成本收益分析和博弈分析。其分析的基本模型有成本收益理论、博弈均衡和供给需求理论。陪审制度效益考察的应用主要体现在陪审制度成本与收益的考察、陪审制度的供应需求理论的探讨、陪审制度博弈论应用等领域,确立陪审制度法经济学考察的方向,得出了初步的结论,为后续的模式选择奠定了论调。第五章是关于我国陪审制度的实践考察,也是目前人民陪审员制度的发展步伐分析,通过对历史进程的考察,可以发现现有陪审制度面临困境的根源和阶段性特点。在我国陪审制度的起源上,分析了清末陪审制度移植的酝酿,归纳了这一时期陪审制度没有成功确立的原因。在资料有限的情况下,对民国政府时期的陪审制度的确立问题进行了简单的尝试,指出了这一时期之所以未能确立陪审制度的原因所在。革命根据地时期产生的人民陪审员制度,其对新中国政权的确立是功不可没的。在解放后我国的陪审制度经历了典型的几个阶段,一是在解放后到改革开放前是一个时期,改革开放后到《关于完善人民陪审员制度的决定》前是一个重要时期,再有就是现行的《决定》颁布后的时期。在解放后和改革开放前,我国的陪审制度经历建国初期的制度确立并得到充分发展的阶段,同时也在文革时期形成了百废待兴的强烈反差局面。在1982年《宪法》修改后,得到了初步的恢复和重建,但也存在名存实亡的复杂现实,同时还表现在20世纪末提出陪审制立法的积极探索局面。在全国人大常委会的《决定》颁布后,出现了新一轮的质疑和改革争论的浪潮,集中表现在陪审制度制定理念与实施态度的差池、司法精英化与司法民主化的争议、人民陪审员选任资格的质疑、人民陪审员陪审效果的怀疑以及人民陪审团的探索与争执等方面。第六章是关于我国新型的陪审制度模式选择的探讨,包括设计理念的分析、具体构成的考虑以及具体实施的时间表和路线图等问题。我国新型的陪审制度在制度设计的理念上应当明确以下三点:人大设计、宪法确立,管用分离、奖惩并举,整体考量,效益最大等。在新型的陪审制度的具体构成上,通过陪审方式、陪审范围、人员选任、陪审启动、陪审方法、陪审管理六个方面完善,在具体实施上,应当遵循国情,采取严肃谨慎的态度,在整体转型前提下,部分制度先行实施的两阶段和三时期的实施策略,稳步推进新型陪审制度的确立。第七章探讨了新型陪审制度推进中障碍和制度协同问题。我国新型陪审制度的运作障碍主要体现在:法律文化缺失带来的影响、司法精英化的排斥问题、法治发展的短板效应以及社会快速转型带来的新挑战。推进新型的陪审制度,需要破解上述障碍实现制度协同的效应,要从审判制度的整体跟进角度着手,进一步推进法官队伍的精英化和诉讼制度当事人主义以及相关的配套制度,诸如直接言词原则等。同时还要对现有的司法体制继续深入改革,实现司法的独立,推进社会综合治理,同时还要注意人民监督员制度与陪审制度的协调问题。陪审制度体现的平民特色,要求我们加强政治参与的人民性回归,以及相应公民有序和多元参与国家公共事务管理的渠道建设。推进新型陪审制度的有效运行,还需要上下一体的法治认同。中国陪审制度的困境突出表现在模式之争,但其根源则在于陪审制度价值的认识,我国的陪审制度能否突破现存困境,实现制度新生,关键在于对待陪审制度价值的认识是否能回归其司法本位。更多还原

【Abstract】 During the long-time historical development, the jury system has yielded a tight and rigorous logical system, which also has been consistently heckled by the reality as the deepening of the judicial reform. Especially in today’s China, the jury system is facing a situation that criticized by everyone. The different attitudes to the jury system held by the practical circle and the academia have drawn an image of great contention in China. Within those controversies, the predicament of Chinese jury system has fully come out and its renascence has emerged as an issue of the“spirit of reform”in China. Upon the thorough analysis of the theory and the valuation of the jury system, this thesis explores the basic values of the jury system and the“value sequences”it showed in different historical periods; discusses the two major models of jury at present and their performances from the perspectives of law and economics, using some basic theories in that field like the benefit analysis and the game theory; clarifies the historical development of Chinese jury system and indicates that the predicament we are in face of is applying the jury system instituted around the years of the foundation of the People’s Republic of China into today’s China which has greatly changed, without any study or judgment, and the renascence of the jury system means that we have to change the existing system of people’s assessors and make the priority of the judicial democracy and fairness to show the jury system in its true colors of“judicial”. With those approaches above, and the consideration of the background and the analysis of the value and the significance of this research, this thesis divides into six chapters since Chapter II.Chapter II outlines the theoretical basis of the jury system, and examines the definition of“jury”and“jury system”, and the origin and the historical development of the jury system, shaping a context for the follow-up research.As a concept frequently referred to by the academia,“jury”has not been used very seriously or cautiously. Various understandings of it have caused a confusion of its accurate meaning, which also caused by its common use as a concept of general political meaning, rather than of its original legal meaning. Currently there still exists a protrudent jumble and irregularity of the use of the concept“jury system”. By analyzing the four major understandings at present of the concept“jury system”, we can find some basic features of it: firstly, there has to be a trial, and the jury must be a part of either the finding of facts or the application of law in that trial, or both; secondly, the jury is not adjudicating on their own in that trial, but accompanied by the judge; thirdly, being in the trial is the form of the jury and actually adjudicating is the content; lastly, the jury must play a directive and decisive role in the key part of the trial. So in terms of the modern trial system, a“jury”is not a real one if it is devoid of the form of being in the trial or the content of actually adjudicating.The origin of the jury system included two stages: the budding stage and the stage of formal establishment. In the first stage, the academia failed to unify the understanding of the jury system, which was iconically described as“the mist of the origin of the jury system”. After a period of confusion on concept, the jury system finally got established in Britain with few controversies. The history of building up the jury system is completely reflected by the generation and operation of the British jury system, which was absolutely not created over one night, but experienced a complicated process of institutional choice and value discovery.The jury system developed along with the political changes in respective places of origin. It showed a clear division of development path between the Anglo-American Legal System and the Continental Legal System. The British jury system experienced a winding course of development. Though the jury system and its application do not own a long history in the U.S., it has become a typical example of the jury system, with a strong vitality. After bringing in the jury system, the countries of the Continental Legal System, including France and Germany, have experienced a large split. Countries like France and Germany ultimately set up the mixed court system and became the typical example of that system; in the meanwhile, some other countries embraced the return of the jury system. All those complex changes mirrored the cognitive issue of multiple pursuits of values of the jury system.Chapter III analyzes the reservation or revocation of the jury system. This chapter proceeds with setting a starting point for the value analysis of the jury system, and resolves in detail the context of the value analysis, and then probes the unique pursuit of values of Chinese jury system, combining with scrutinizing the national conditions of China.In the field of“trial”, where the jury system is directly applied, the public credibility of the trial and the optimum distribution of the trial resources are two important and typical values. The being of the jury in the court can restrain the judge from misusing authorities or corrupting and show the public credibility with the idea of“like trial, like jury”. The jury can also fill up the gaps left by the judge and optimize the allocation of the trial resources with the multiple knowledge structures and social experiences of the civilians on the jury. In the judicial context, the entry of ordinary people into the vital field of public power fully demonstrates the value of judicial democracy and the pursuit of judicial fairness. In the political context, the advocacy of freedom and the embodiment of popular sovereignty are the key points of the values of the jury system.Besides reflecting the overall character, the values of Chinese jury system show their own characters. They can promote the harmony in the trial and in the whole society. They also meet the need to innovate in the social management by the form of“larger justice”, and impel the construction of the political civilization as an important motive force.Chapter IV explores the institutional benefits of the jury system on the basis of previous value judgments, and clarifies its benefit performances under different models by introducing law and economics into the research.There lies a necessity in the jury system, just like in other legal systems, that we should see it from the perspective of law and economics, which can also make up the deficiency of the legal research, especially its deficiency on the level of benefits that is beyond the values and measurable. The approach to examine the benefits of the jury system is mainly applying the theory of law and economics. The possibility and feasibility of analyzing the jury system through law and economics are produced by the association analysis between law and economics and the connections between law and economics and judicial systems. The basic hypothesis of law and economics includes the scarcity of resources, the rule of utility maximizing and the supposition of economic man, and its basic approaches include the analytical method of individualism, the incentive analysis, the cost-benefit analysis and the game analysis. The basic models of those analyses include the theory of cost-benefit, the game equilibrium and the theory of demand and supply. The application of benefit examination of the jury system is primarily shown as the cost-benefit examination of the jury system, the demand and supply study of the jury system and the game theory application to the jury system. The orientation of examining the jury system through law and economics and its preliminary conclusions lay a foundation for the subsequent model selections.Chapter V examines the Chinese jury system in terms of practice, which is also a“phase analysis”of the present system of people’s assessors. The root causes of the predicament that the present jury system is facing and its characteristics of phases can both be found by exploring the historical progress.On the origin of Chinese jury system, this thesis probes the brewing of the transplantation of the jury system in the late Qing Dynasty and summarizes the reason why the jury system was failed to establish during that period; with limited materials, covers the issue of establishing the jury system in Republic of China and points out the reason why the system was not successfully built up; the system of people’s assessors originated in revolutionary base areas performed a deed never to be obliterated for the foundation of new China; after liberation, the Chinese jury system experienced three typical stages: the stage from 1949 to the reform and opening-up, the stage from the reform and opening-up to the issue of the“Decision to Improve the System of People’s Assessors”, and the stage since the issue of the Decision. In the first stage, the Chinese jury system experienced both the full development at first and a total destruction later in the Great Cultural Revolution. After the revise of the Constitution in 1982, the jury system was initially restored and rebuilt, but also facing the complicated reality of an existence in name only and an enthusiastic exploration of the legislation of the jury system at the end of the 20th Century. After the issue of the Decision by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, a new round of doubt and debate arose, concentrating on issues like the disparity between the legislative idea and the implementary manner, the controversy over the judicial elitism and the judicial democratism, the query about the qualification of people’s assessors, the doubt to the effect of the people’s assessors’jury and the exploration and the dispute of the jury of people’s assessors.Chapter VI discusses the model selection of the new Chinese jury system, including the analysis of the design concept, the consideration of the specific composition and the schedule and line map of the detailed implementation.The new Chinese jury system should be explicit about the concept of the system design on three matters: designed by the National People’s Congress and instituted by the Constitution; separating the administration and the employment and simultaneously using both the reward and the punishment; considering in comprehensive and maximizing the benefit. On the specific composition of the new system, the improvement should be carried out within six aspects including the mode, the range, the qualification, the initiation, the method and the administration of the jury. On the detailed implementation, the national conditions should be followed and a serious and cautious attitude should be held; on the premise of the total transformation, an implementary strategy of“two stages”and“three periods”should be pursued and parts of the system should be applied, in order to move forward steadily the establishment of the new system.Chapter VII analyzes the obstacles in the promotion of the new jury system and the issue of coordination between systems. The obstacles include the influence of the absence of the legal culture, the repulsion from the judicial elitism, the“Cask Effect”of the development of rule of law and the new challenge brought by the rapid social transition. To promote the new jury system, we have to break down those obstacles and achieve the coordination between systems. We should, from the perspective of the holistic trial system, make the team of judges a more elite one and realize the centralism of the party in the trial, along with constructing relevant cooperative systems like the“direct testimony principle”. We also should deepen the reform of the present judicial system, realize the judicial independence, promote the comprehensive management of social problems and care to coordinate the system of people’s assessors and the jury system. The feature of ordinary people shown by the jury system requires us to strengthen the participation of the people in politics and create channels for citizens to get involved within the management of public affairs in an orderly and diversified manner. It is also needed a unanimous acceptance of the rule of law to impel the effective implementation of the new jury system.The predicament of Chinese jury system is mainly shown as the debate over models, but its root causes lie in the cognition of the values of the jury system. The key point for the Chinese jury system to break through the predicament and achieve its renascence is returning to the judicial standard on the issue of the cognition of the values of the jury system.更多还原