人民陪审制下法律审与事实审分离机制研究  

The Distinction between Law Trial and Fact Trial under the People's Jury System

作　　者：刘萍[1] LIU Ping(Law School, Nankai University, Tianjin 300350, Chin)

机构地区：[1]南开大学法学院,天津300350

出　　处：《天津法学》2018年第1期12-17,共6页Tianjin Legal Science

摘　　要：最高人民法院和司法部明确提出改革人民陪审制,逐步实现人民陪审员只参与审理事实认定问题。这一内容确定了在人民陪审员参与审判的案件中实现"法律审与事实审"相分离机制的基本目标,为实现这一目标,除了立足于我国司法实践之外,有必要借鉴其他国家已经较为成熟的经验。英美法国家的陪审团"只认定事实,不负责法律"的做法与我国人民陪审制改革的目标相契合,且已经过几百年的演变,理论与实践方面均值得参考。另外,审判过程中,也并非所有事实问题一律交由陪审团,法律问题一律交由法官决定,还需要根据本案的实际需要、社会政策的要求等因素来确定。因此,我国在设计法律审与事实审的分离机制时应注意不能僵化。In the 4th Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, the party made a clear proposal to reform the people＇ s jury system and gradually realized the problem of the people＇ s jurors only participating in the fact finding. This content determines the basic goal of realizing the separation mechanism between ＂the le- gal trial and the fact trial＂ in the cases of the people＇s jurors＇ participation in the trial. To achieve the law-fact distinction goal, we should both focus on China＇s judicial practice and the successful experience from other countries. The practice of the jury in Anglo American countries ＂only to identify the facts and not be responsible for the law＂ is consistent with the objective of the reform of the people＇ s jury system in our country, which has been evolved over several hundred years, and both theory and practice are worthy of refer- ence. in addition, in the course of the trial, not all the facts are given to the jury, and legal issues are decided by the judge, and must be determined according to the actual needs of the case, the requirements of the social policy and other factors. Another thing which is also very important is that the reform does not mean all the law questions are decided by the judges, or all the fact questions are decided by the jurors. Therefore, in the design of the separation mechanism of the legal trial and the fact trial, we can not be rigid.

关 键 词：人民陪审制 法律审 事实审 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]