發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-02-07 15:47

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 審判團(tuán)隊(duì) 司法責(zé)任 權(quán)力清單 員額制 司法輔助人員　出處：《山東大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：審判團(tuán)隊(duì)是為完成特定審判工作任務(wù),以獨(dú)任庭和合議庭為核心,輔之以一定數(shù)量的司法輔助人員所組成的結(jié)構(gòu)相對(duì)固定、獨(dú)立,職責(zé)分工明確的辦案單元。它是管理學(xué)中的團(tuán)隊(duì)概念與司法實(shí)踐相結(jié)合的產(chǎn)物。當(dāng)前,司法責(zé)任制改革以"讓審理者裁判,由裁判者負(fù)責(zé)"為目標(biāo),以調(diào)整審判權(quán)力運(yùn)行機(jī)制為統(tǒng)領(lǐng),進(jìn)行了一系列的制度設(shè)計(jì),為破解司法實(shí)踐難題提供了新的路徑。審判團(tuán)隊(duì)正是改革審判權(quán)運(yùn)行機(jī)制過程中的創(chuàng)新。審判團(tuán)隊(duì)在各地的試點(diǎn)取得諸多成效,但其所內(nèi)含的一些關(guān)系尚未明晰,其運(yùn)行過程中亦出現(xiàn)了一些問題需要正視和解決。本文主要運(yùn)用邏輯分析法和比較分析法,對(duì)審判團(tuán)隊(duì)制度進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)研習(xí)。第一部分為審判團(tuán)隊(duì)制度概述。主要論述審判團(tuán)隊(duì)的內(nèi)涵、特征、價(jià)值功能和目前各地試行審判團(tuán)隊(duì)的主要模式。首先,結(jié)合審判團(tuán)隊(duì)的概念,分析其具有四個(gè)特征:以完成特定審判工作任務(wù)為目標(biāo);以獨(dú)任庭和合議庭為核心;結(jié)構(gòu)相對(duì)固定、對(duì)外相對(duì)獨(dú)立且職能分工明確;需承擔(dān)明確的責(zé)任。其次,總結(jié)了審判團(tuán)隊(duì)的三種價(jià)值功能:優(yōu)化審判資源配置,解決案多人少矛盾;強(qiáng)化專業(yè)化審理,提高案件審判質(zhì)效;弱化案件審批,以促進(jìn)去行政化進(jìn)程。最后,著重分析了山東省L市S區(qū)的審判團(tuán)隊(duì)建設(shè)情況。第二部分討論在司法責(zé)任制改革大環(huán)境下審判團(tuán)隊(duì)與司法責(zé)任的關(guān)系。筆者分析認(rèn)為,在建設(shè)審判團(tuán)隊(duì)時(shí)應(yīng)同時(shí)制定審判人員權(quán)力清單制度,審判團(tuán)隊(duì)成員以權(quán)力清單為銜接承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的責(zé)任;另外,研討了審判團(tuán)隊(duì)的責(zé)任歸屬即追責(zé)的范圍、追責(zé)的程序、保障審判團(tuán)隊(duì)依法履職的核心措施等。第三部分研究審判團(tuán)隊(duì)建設(shè)的核心問題。首先是員額制下審判團(tuán)隊(duì)中的法官重塑。探討了審判團(tuán)隊(duì)與審判組織、內(nèi)設(shè)機(jī)構(gòu)的關(guān)系;審判團(tuán)隊(duì)中的法官與院庭長、審判長的關(guān)系;審判團(tuán)隊(duì)內(nèi)法官的權(quán)力清單。其次是司法輔助人員隊(duì)伍的建設(shè)路徑。探討了司法輔助人員的定位、法官助理與法官及書記員的關(guān)系、法官助理和書記員的權(quán)力清單。最后歸納了當(dāng)前審判團(tuán)隊(duì)建設(shè)運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)中存在的問題。筆者將其分為團(tuán)隊(duì)組建前的先天缺陷和團(tuán)隊(duì)運(yùn)行中的后天不足兩大類共六個(gè)方面問題。第四部分提供完善審判團(tuán)隊(duì)建設(shè)的若干建議。一是合理確定各類審判團(tuán)隊(duì)的組建數(shù)量,二是確保全體員額法官均編入團(tuán)隊(duì),三是保證團(tuán)隊(duì)成員雙向選擇自愿組合,四是設(shè)計(jì)靈活的審判團(tuán)隊(duì)分案機(jī)制,五是強(qiáng)化對(duì)于審判團(tuán)隊(duì)的管理與監(jiān)督,六是科學(xué)考評(píng)審判團(tuán)隊(duì)工作業(yè)績。
[Abstract]:The judicial team is relatively fixed and independent in its structure, which is composed of a certain number of judicial auxiliaries in order to complete a specific task of trial, with the sole and collegial panels as the core, and supplemented by a certain number of judicial auxiliaries. It is the result of the combination of the concept of team and judicial practice in management. At present, the reform of judicial responsibility system aims to "let the adjudicator judge, let the adjudicator be responsible" as the goal. Under the guidance of adjusting the operating mechanism of judicial power, a series of system designs have been carried out. It provides a new way to solve the problem of judicial practice. The judicial team is the innovation in the process of reforming the operating mechanism of judicial power. The trial team has made many achievements in the pilot projects in various places, but some of the relations contained therein have not yet been clarified. Some problems need to be addressed and solved in the course of operation. This paper mainly uses logical analysis method and comparative analysis method. The first part is an overview of the trial team system. It mainly discusses the connotation, characteristics, value function of the trial team and the main mode of trial team being tried out in various places. First, combining the concept of the trial team, The analysis has four characteristics: to complete a specific task of trial as the goal; to single panel and collegiate panel as the core; relatively fixed structure, relatively independent of the external and clear division of functions; need to undertake clear responsibilities. This paper summarizes the three value functions of the trial team: optimizing the allocation of trial resources, solving the contradiction between more and less cases, strengthening the specialized trial, improving the quality of the case, weakening the examination and approval of the case, in order to promote the process of deadministration. The second part discusses the relationship between judicial team and judicial responsibility under the environment of judicial responsibility system reform. When building a trial team, a system of list of rights for judicial personnel should be formulated at the same time, and members of the trial team should take the list of rights as the link to bear the corresponding responsibility. In addition, the scope of the responsibility of the trial team, that is, the scope of responsibility, and the procedure for pursuing responsibility, are discussed. The third part studies the core problems of the construction of judicial team. Firstly, the judges in the judicial team under the post system are remolded. The relationship between the trial team and the trial organization and the internal organization is discussed. The relationship between the judges in the trial team and the president of the court, the chief judge, the list of the judges' powers in the trial team, and the path of the construction of the judicial auxiliary personnel are followed. The position of the judicial auxiliary personnel is discussed. The relationship between assistant judges and judges and clerks, Finally, the author summarizes the problems existing in the construction of the trial team. The author divides them into two categories: the congenital defects before the formation of the team and the acquired deficiency in the operation of the team, which are divided into six categories: one is the congenital defect before the establishment of the team, and the other is the acquired deficiency in the operation of the team. Part 4th provides a number of suggestions for improving the construction of judicial teams. First, it is reasonable to determine the number of various types of judicial teams to be set up. The second is to ensure that all post judges are integrated into the team, the third is to ensure that the team members choose a voluntary combination in both directions, the fourth is to design a flexible trial team case-splitting mechanism, and the fifth is to strengthen the management and supervision of the trial team. Sixth, scientific evaluation of the performance of the trial team.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D926.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 沈木珠;司法法治的思考與構(gòu)想[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2000年05期

2 劉武俊;尊重司法的個(gè)性[J];中國改革;2000年05期

3 朱應(yīng)平;滿意是衡量司法的至上標(biāo)準(zhǔn)嗎[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2001年03期

4 黃春;;當(dāng)前我國司法行為行政化的理性思考[J];成都大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年04期

5 黃春;;當(dāng)前我國司法行為行政化的危害、成因與解決途徑[J];甘肅行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年02期

6 譚世貴;李建波;;論司法和諧及其實(shí)現(xiàn)[J];時(shí)代法學(xué);2007年04期

7 孫海華;;改變司法行政化 法官才能正常化[J];吉林人大工作;2008年05期

8 楊濤;;2008年法治在司法與民意糾纏中跋涉前進(jìn)[J];人大研究;2009年04期

9 任永安;;論司法行政化及其解決之道[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年05期

10 左春和;;司法的本真[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)論壇;2014年05期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前2條

1 吳天昊;;論“司法和諧”的實(shí)現(xiàn)路徑[A];上海市社會(huì)科學(xué)界第五屆學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)文集（2007年度）（政治·法律·社會(huì)學(xué)科卷）[C];2007年

2 張文雙;;關(guān)于執(zhí)行工作改革的若干思考[A];2003年度全省法院“法官職業(yè)化建設(shè)理論與實(shí)踐”研討會(huì)論文專輯[C];2003年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 ;深入推進(jìn)公正司法 大力提升司法公信[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

2 海南大學(xué)法學(xué)院副教授 王琳;司法改革有賴地方實(shí)踐與頂層推動(dòng)[N];廣州日報(bào);2013年

3 浙江工商大學(xué)法學(xué)院 謝澍;面對(duì)新媒體，司法需質(zhì)變[N];光明日報(bào);2013年

4 朱昌俊;破案率排名應(yīng)廢，，更需去司法行政化[N];新華每日電訊;2013年

5 游偉;不斷深化改革，著力消除司法行政化[N];法制日報(bào);2014年

6 戴玉偉;關(guān)于司法改革的若干思考[N];人民代表報(bào);2002年

7 ;學(xué)術(shù)視野下的司法能力建設(shè)[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年

8 志靈;院長審案和法官審案區(qū)別何在[N];東方早報(bào);2007年

9 陳燦平;司法本學(xué)與規(guī)范化[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

10 李林 中國社會(huì)科學(xué)院法學(xué)研究所;司法改革價(jià)值轉(zhuǎn)向:從獨(dú)立到公正[N];中國社會(huì)科學(xué)報(bào);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 段穎;我國人權(quán)司法保障制度研究[D];華南理工大學(xué);2015年

2 劉暢;法官身份保障制度研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2015年

3 張羽;“傳媒審判”的法理學(xué)思考[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

4 寇博譚;論我國的法官員額制[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

5 苗澤一;法官工作壓力研究[D];南京大學(xué);2015年

6 丁揚(yáng);司改之殤—中國法官精英化的困境[D];蘇州大學(xué);2015年

7 宋旭;信任重構(gòu)：當(dāng)代中國國情下的審判權(quán)運(yùn)行模式探索[D];中國海洋大學(xué);2014年

8 梅盈碧;論新公共管理視野下的司法改革[D];江西農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2015年

9 姚麗麗;法官依法履職保障制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

10 楊德澤;論“法庭之友”制度的本土化啟示[D];蘇州大學(xué);2016年

本文編號(hào)：1494738