陪审员事实裁判模式的域外考察与本土展开  

The Mode of Jury's Factual Judgment:Comparative Insights and Reform Directions for China

作　　者：张瀚文 Zhang Hanwen

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学书报资料中心,100872

出　　处：《世界社会科学》2025年第1期186-208,247,共24页SOCIAL SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL

摘　　要：我国《人民陪审员法》规定,人民陪审员参加七人合议庭审判案件,只对事实认定进行表决,不参加法律适用的表决。因此,如何有效发挥人民陪审员在事实裁判中的实质作用成为需要解决的现实问题。本文试图分析有关国家和地区的经验得失并在此基础上探讨我国陪审制度中关于陪审员事实裁判的改革方向。根据陪审员与法官的职能分工,将陪审员事实裁判分为独立裁判、参与裁判与辅助裁判三种模式,并据此从比较法视角对陪审员事实裁判有关的案件范围、庭审角色、裁判方式、救济措施等予以研讨,从而为完善我国人民陪审员事实裁判制度提供借鉴。本文认为,应当在厘清诉讼模式与陪审员事实裁判模式对应关系的前提下,从职能区分、程序设计、组织模式、案件范围等方面完善人民陪审员制度。According to the People's Assessors Law in China,when people's assessors on a seven-person panel only have the right to vote on the determination of facts and do not participate in voting the application of the law.Therefore,how to effectively play the substantive role of people's assessors in fact-finding has become a practical issue that needs to be addressed.This article seeks to draw on experiences and lessons from relevant countries and regions,and based on this,explore the reform direction of China's assessors system regarding factual judgments by assessors.According to the division of functions between jurors and judges,factual judgments by jurors are categorized into three modes:independent judgment,participatory judgment,and auxiliary judgment.From a comparative law perspective,this article examines issues related to the scope of cases,trial roles,judgment methods,and relief measures concerning factual judgments by jurors,providing reference for improving China's system of people's assessors factual judgment.This article argues that under the premise of clarifying the corresponding relationship between the litigation mode and the factual judgment mode of jurors,the system of people's assessors should be improved in terms of functional differentiation,procedural design,organizational mode,and case scope.

关 键 词：独立事实裁判 参与事实裁判 辅助事实裁判 人民陪审员 

分 类 号：D915[政治法律—诉讼法学]