日本裁判员制度的反思与展望

发布时间：2018-06-23 18:22

本文选题：日本司法改革 + 裁判员制度　；参考：《中国政法大学》2010年硕士论文

【摘要】： 日本正处于明治维新以来第三次大规模的司法改革之中。期间,日本创制了旨在促进国民参与司法的裁判员制度。这个新生婴孩的命运受到越来越多的关注,但人们对其本身却存在着诸多争议和质疑。本文笔者意在介绍该制度的相关基本信息,对争议和质疑进行一定的评论,并在此基础上提出自己的命题。本文开篇首先回顾了日本历史上大正时期的陪审制度。明治维新以后,日本大量引入了西方先进国家的现代法律,包括现代刑法和治罪法,而且,在20世纪20年代民主浪潮的推动下,仿制德国建立了日本旧式的陪审制度。该陪审制度的主要内容包括陪审制适用的案件范围、陪审员的任职资格、陪审团的权限、陪审团裁决之效力等。不幸的是,陪审制的实施情况并不如所预期的那样美好,最终,不得不于1943年停止实施。许多学者将陪审制失败的原因归结为以下三者:政治气候的转变、陪审制自身的缺陷以及日本特殊的司法坏境等。新世纪伊始,日本引入裁判员制度而非其他类似制度的原因在于,日本现行的司法制度被诸多顽疾所困扰,主要包括“精密司法”带来的消极影响、职业法官垄断司法裁判引起的是非以及其他相关问题。因此,笔者将现行司法制度比喻为“黎明前的黑暗”。裁判员于2004年在日本众议院通过,并于2009年5月开始实施。为了更好的了解该制度的详细情况,笔者将介绍起草裁判员法案时的相关背景信息和争论焦点。随后,将依据裁判员法案的体例结构,对该制度的基本要素作简单介绍并附扼要评论。制度要素包括裁判员制度的适用案件范围、合议庭的组成、法官和裁判员的各自权限、评议与表决程序以及裁判员的特殊保护措施。随后,我将集中关注裁判员制度最具争议的部分,它们是:裁判员的任职资格是否限定得当?裁判员的选任程序是否过于繁琐?无因回避的次数是否过多?程序启动的单方性是否科学?庭前主导法官和主审法官是否应当分离? 除了上述制度内的缺陷,尚有诸多制度外的不足。以社会效果来衡量,制度外的考量因素更值得关注。因为,如果日本国民不愿意参与该制度,或者,不能够独立地参与,那么,我们如何能够得出结论认为裁判员制度不负众望呢?究竟谁最关心裁判员制度的实施效果呢?当然是它的创制者。有鉴于此,日本官方自2004年通过法案以来几乎每年都会进行民意调查,以此关注国民对裁判员制度的态度。笔者也收集了相关年份的资料,并发现了日本国民关注的诸多切实问题。最为突出的莫过于时间安排的问题,即日本国民担心自己在连续数日的审判中担当裁判员是否会影响到自己的日常安排。为了减少此类担忧,日本政府采取了一系列的措施来为裁判员制度的实施“保驾护航”。下一部分将涉及美国莱斯特·凯斯教授的“意见主导者”理论,此理论主要用以分析日本国民是否能够独立的参与裁判员制度。笔者分析了群组评议中的三大理念,独立和平等、信息共享和理性论证。根据“意见主导者”理论,日本国民参与裁判员制度可能受法官或个别裁判员的影响,据此,需要要求法官克制、裁判员积极行使权利并设置相应的监督措施。此外,等级观念、和谐文化和崇尚权威都是该制度传统上的羁绊。所以,笔者也对此进行了专门的讨论。如果该制度想走得更远,此三者是绕不开的话题。最后,我提出了自己的假设,即日本的裁判员制度将走向成功。所有上文的信息都可以视为强有力的论证,而且,笔者还援引了杰雷教授的“三个条件”论。他指出,事关陪审制度在一国成败的影响因素在于民族构成、教育程度和国民对它的认同感。展开而言,日本民族构成具有很强的单一性,国民的受教育程度自1960年以来也大有提高,如果日本当局能够让更多的国民认可、接受裁判员制度,那么,它的前途将充满希望。笔者于此再次结论认为,日本的裁判员制度前途光明。
[Abstract]:Japan is in the third large - scale judicial reform since the Meiji Restoration . During the period , Japan has created a system of judges aimed at promoting the participation of nationals in the administration of justice . The fate of the new baby has been paid more and more attention , but there are many disputes and questions about it . The author intends to introduce the basic information of the system , make certain comments on the dispute and question , and put forward its own proposition on this basis .

This paper first reviews the jury system in the history of Japan . After the Meiji Restoration , Japan has introduced the modern laws of advanced western countries , including the modern criminal law and the crime control law . The main contents of the jury system include the scope of cases applicable to the jury system , the qualifications of the jury , the competence of the jury and the effectiveness of the jury verdict .

At the beginning of the new century , Japan introduced the referee system instead of the other similar system because the current judicial system of Japan was beset by many stubborn diseases , mainly including the negative influence brought by " precision justice " , the non - discrimination caused by professional judge monopoly administration and other related issues . Therefore , the author compares the current judicial system to " the darkness before dawn " .

In order to get a better understanding of the details of the system , the author will introduce the background information and the debate focus of the drafting of the referee ' s bill . The system elements include the scope of application of the referee system , the composition of the panel , the respective powers of the judge and the referee , the procedure of the evaluation and voting and the special protective measures of the referee .

I will then focus on the most controversial part of the referee ' s system , which is whether the qualifications of the referee are limited and whether the judges ' selection procedures are too cumbersome ? Are there too many times of avoidance ? Are the procedures initiated or not ? Is the pre - court leading judge and the presiding judge should be separated ?

In addition to the flaws in the above - mentioned system , there are a number of systems outside the system . The external considerations of the system are even more interesting in terms of social effects . In view of the fact that Japanese nationals are unwilling to participate in the system , or are not able to participate independently , how can we conclude that there are many practical problems that Japanese nationals are concerned about . The most prominent issue of time - scheduling is that Japanese nationals are concerned about whether they will influence their daily arrangements in a number of days of trial . In order to reduce such concerns , the Government of Japan has taken a series of measures to implement " escort " for the referee system .

The next section will be concerned with the theory of " opinion leader " of Professor Lister Kes , USA . This theory is mainly used to analyze whether Japanese nationals can participate in the referee system independently . The author analyses the three ideas , independence and equality , information sharing and rational argument in group appraisal . According to the theory of " opinion leader " , Japanese nationals are likely to be influenced by judges or individual judges , according to the theory of " opinion leader " , the judge should be required to exercise restraint , and the referee should exercise the right and set up corresponding supervision measures .

In addition , the level idea , the harmonious culture and the advocating authority are the fetters in the tradition of the system . Therefore , the author also makes a special discussion on this . If the system wants to go further , the three are about non - open topics .

Finally , I put forward my own assumption that Japan ' s referee system will go to success . All the above information can be seen as a strong argument , and the author also cites the three conditions of professor J茅r茅 . He points out that the impact of the jury system on a country ' s success lies in the ethnic composition , the degree of education and the identity of the nation to it .
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D931.3

【引证文献】