学位论文题名  论司法自由裁量权
论文作者      关晶焱
作者单位      吉林大学
专    业      法理学
指导教师      张文显
并列题名      On judicial discretion
学位级别      303
中文文摘  
    司法制度的改革势在必行，江泽民同志在党的“十五大”报告中指出，要“推进司法改革，从制度上保证司法机关依法独立公正地行使审判权和检察权”。本文以司法自由裁量切入点，对于司法自由裁量权的内涵，历史发展，不同表现方式，及对我国关于司法自由裁量权的司法实践作了粗浅的分析，希望这一问题能得到司法改革的重视。 司法自由裁量权是指司法裁判人员在对具体案件进行事实认定和法律适用的过程中，如果针对案件的实际情况，从法律规定出发，可以推定出若干个没有明显正误之分的结论时，司法人员可以自由选择决定取舍的权力。它主要表现在法官在审理个案时如何认定事实和适用法律两大问题上。表现在认定事实上的自由裁量权主要包括证据调查和证据分析、认定两大环节，而表现在适用法律上的自由裁量权则包括解释法律和造法两大方面。对于法官应否享有司法自由裁量权及应享有多大限度的自由裁量权，各法学派说法不一，本着重介绍了古典自然法学派，历史法学派，概念法学派，分析法学派（包括分析法学派和新分析法学派）及现实主义法学家们对司法自由裁量权的观点。其中，概念法学派，分析法学派和现实主义法学家们的观点对实践的指导意义尤其重要。经过分析，笔者认为，影响司法自由裁量权的主要因素包括：立法的因素，法官的因素，审判方式的因素，陪审的因素及法官与律师的关系因素。立法是影响司法自由裁量权的首要因素，因为立法者在设立法律时，为适用者所留余地的大小直接决定法官自由裁量权的范围，但无论立法者设立的法律如何严密，也无法避免和消除司法自由裁量权。法官是法律帝国的王侯，是司法自由裁量权的行使者，其权力行使适当与否必然要受到权能保障、业务水平、道德素质、职业保障等方面的影响。审判方式是指审理案件的方式和方法，主要有当事人主义和职权主义两大类型。从司法实践上年看，当事人主义的审判方式对于合理控制司法自由裁量权效果要更好。陪审制度在西方法制发达的国家，尤其是英国，已经被称为“过时制度”，但迄今年内为止，他们还没有找到更好，更能合理控制司法自由裁量权的制度来取代陪审制度。法官与律师的关系之所以成为影响司法自由裁量权的因素，是因为律师与法官同为法律职业者，他们都负有正确执行法律，保护公民、法人合法权益，实现社会公平和正义的职责，在复杂的诉讼活动中，法官的司法活动必须要取得律师的配合，良好法官与律师关系，将有利于法官合理行使司法自由裁量权。两大法系关于司法自由裁量权的司法实践将为我们提供丰富的改革经验和注意事项。大陆法系把司法公正的希望几乎全部寄托在立法上，从19世纪大陆法系国家的立法和司法实践上不难看出，立法者努力制定周密、严格的规则，以期望在司法中排除法官的自由裁量权。其立法的周延性，严密性非常值得我们学习，但遗憾的是，如此严密的立法，竟轻易地被法官不适当行使的自由裁量权大打折扣。英美法系的司法自由裁量权看似宽松，但由于其对司法制度和程序等非常重视，使得法官行使自由裁量权时要受到公众和监察部门的监督，他们已经在司法制度及实践中把对司法自由裁量权的合理控制和适当行使变成一个合理、灵活、复杂、细致的技术问题，但对于成体系的立法，他们却始终不能得心应手。我国关于司法自由裁量权的司法实践还不成熟，在立法上，我们比不得大陆法系国家严谨、完备，在司法上双比不得英美法系国家周密、完善。我国的国情和历史条件具有一定的特殊性，这决定了我国解决司法自由裁量权合理控制和适当行使问题的涉及面要广，牵扯的问题要多，只能通过全方位的司法改革来完成。 法官掌握的司法自由裁量权，关系到人民的切身利益，一份判决书有时能影响一家或几家的身家性命，普通百姓通常是既不懂法学理论也不了解国家大事的，他们就是从一张张判决书中去理解法律，去评价国家制度，因此法官适当、合理地行使司法自由裁量权，将有利于人们正确认识法律、信赖法律、自觉遵守法律，有利于社会有秩有序，稳步发展。
英文文摘 The reform of the judicial system is inevitable, and we should push forward the judicial system and ensure that the judicial organs will independently and justly exercise their adjudication power and prosecution power according to the law in the respect of the system, as comrade Jiang Zemin pointed out in his report at The 15th. National Congress of the C.P.C. This paper makes a rough analysis of the connotation, historical development and different expression manners of the judicial discretion, and the judicial practice on the judicial discretion in our country, with the judicial discretion as a cut-in point, and hopes that a great importance can be attached to this issue in the judicial reform.The judicial discretion refers to the power of judicial personnel to be free to choose and decide on accepting or rejecting in the process of fact and the confirmation of law suitability for a particular case if several conclusions without obvious right or wrong can be inferred on the basis of law stipulations and the actual circumstances of the case. It is mainly embodied in the two important points of facts finding and application of the law .The judicial discretion embodies the fact finding mainly covers the two major links of proof investigation and proof analysis and confirmation while the judicial discretion embodied application of the law conformation covers the two respects of law which are interpretation and creation . As to whether the judge should enjoy the judicial discretion and how much of this power the judge should enjoy, all the jurisprudence schools have different opinions, and this paper mainly introduces the viewpoints of the classic natural jurisprudence school, historic jurisprudence school, concept jurisprudence school, analytic jurisprudence school (including analytic jurisprudence school and new analytic jurisprudence school)and realistic jurisprudence school on judicial discretion, among which, the viewpoints of the concept jurisprudence school, analytic jurisprudence school and realistic jurisprudence school have a great guiding significance for the practice. Through analysis the author holds that the main factors affecting the judicial discretion include: legislation, judge, trial manner, relation between the judge and the lawyer. Legislation is the primary factor affecting the judicial discretion, because the size of the space the legislator left for the lawsuitable person directly determines the scope of the free judging power of the judge, but no matter how exact the law was set up by the legislator, it cannot avoid and eliminate the judicial discretion. The judge is the feudal duke of the law kingdom and the executor of the judicial discretion, and whether the judge exercises his/her power properly will surely be affected by factors such as power security, business level, morality qualities and employment security, etc.. The trial manner refers to the way of judging the case, and mainly covers the two major types: the system of orientation to the person directly involved and the system of official power. From the viewpoint of judicial practice, the trial manner of orientation to the person directly involved has a better effect on the reasonable control of the judicial discretion. The jury system has been known as the outdated system in west legal-system developed countries, especially in Britain; however, up to this year they have not yet found a system which can reasonably control the judicial discretion and replace the jury system. The reason why the relation between the judge and the lawyer has become a factor affecting the judicial free judging power is that both of them are professionals on law and they are both responsible for correctly enforcing the law, protecting citizens and the legal rights of the juristical person and performing the righteous duties under social justice. The judicial practices of the two major jurisprudence systems on the judicial discretion will provide us with substantial experiences of reforming and warnings. The continental genealogy of law lays the hope of judicial justice nearly all on legislation, and from the legislation and judicial practice of the continental genealogy of law countries in the 19th century, it is not difficult to see that the legislator tried to formulate exact and strict rules to expect the exclusion of the free judging power of the judge from administration of justice.
索书号 3010659
主题词 司法自由裁权
分类号 DF0-059
论文答辩日期 20010410
论文页码总数 44P
论文页码总数 ref15
文献语种 zh
记录来源 吉林大学
记录流水号 DA200205000054

馆藏信息： 馆藏号 索书号
吉林大学 3010659