發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-02-10 14:58

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 司法亞文化 越軌 結(jié)構(gòu)功能主義 失范理論 司法職業(yè)群體　出處：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：亞文化可以有不同的分類(lèi)方法,按照其主體類(lèi)型來(lái)分,司法亞文化便是其中的一種。按照中國(guó)現(xiàn)今的司法體制,司法亞文化要研究的對(duì)象是公檢法等司法職業(yè)群體中的亞文化。司法文化相對(duì)于整個(gè)社會(huì)來(lái)說(shuō)是亞文化,而司法亞文化相對(duì)于司法文化來(lái)說(shuō),也是亞文化。亞文化這個(gè)概念一直多是在社會(huì)學(xué)及犯罪學(xué)中使用,但將它與司法職業(yè)群體聯(lián)系起來(lái)的研究和論述還不多見(jiàn)。這不僅是因?yàn)槲幕�本身的定義和理論范式很難規(guī)定,同時(shí)也是因?yàn)閬單幕�可能�?huì)被戴上“非主流”與“不正�！钡臉�(biāo)簽,從而不會(huì)被與司法職業(yè)群體聯(lián)想起來(lái)。但實(shí)際上,亞文化現(xiàn)象的存在有其固有的根源,也具備正向或負(fù)向的功能。正視亞文化現(xiàn)象,才能正確看待現(xiàn)今的司法職業(yè)群體中發(fā)生的各種現(xiàn)象,并從新的角度對(duì)之進(jìn)行解讀。 在對(duì)司法亞文化嘗試著做出界定后,借助結(jié)構(gòu)功能主義,找出司法制內(nèi)在結(jié)構(gòu)的設(shè)置與司法亞文化功能之間的聯(lián)系。社會(huì)功能當(dāng)然既有正向功能,也有負(fù)向功能。相比較正向功能,我們更為關(guān)注負(fù)向功能。本文通過(guò)對(duì)引起社會(huì)極大關(guān)注的“趙作�！卑讣�全過(guò)程中所表現(xiàn)出來(lái)的一些違法司法亞文化表現(xiàn)形態(tài)的闡述,總結(jié)出司法亞文化的幾大負(fù)向功能。對(duì)其負(fù)向功能的研究不僅僅是因?yàn)樗鼈兇�表著�?dāng)今我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐領(lǐng)域存在的一些重要弊端,更重要的是我們嘗試從默頓的失范理論----失范是由于傳統(tǒng)文化的價(jià)值目標(biāo)與合法的制度性手段中間的沖突,對(duì)司法亞文化的負(fù)向功能,實(shí)際上也就是違法司法亞文化進(jìn)行犯罪學(xué)解讀,從一個(gè)新的角度去觀察這種違法司法亞文化和中國(guó)司法制度中的種種問(wèn)題。 司法亞文化概念的推出和研究有助于強(qiáng)調(diào)法治的實(shí)質(zhì)正義。無(wú)論是“馬錫五式審案法”還是“里心模式”,它們?cè)谧裱�“以事�?shí)為依據(jù),以法律為準(zhǔn)繩”這個(gè)大前提的基礎(chǔ)上,靈活的根據(jù)所處環(huán)境,利用不同的條件、環(huán)境和人力資源,基于“地方性知識(shí)”,去努力的達(dá)到一種他們認(rèn)為的“公平正義”的結(jié)果。這不僅符合我國(guó)國(guó)情,也一定程度上達(dá)到了實(shí)質(zhì)公平與客觀真實(shí)的結(jié)果。但我們更應(yīng)該關(guān)注的是司法亞文化與主流司法文化之間沖突產(chǎn)生的違法司法亞文化。不僅因?yàn)樗鼈儠?huì)直接侵害當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益,影響司法職業(yè)群體的形象,更重要的是它會(huì)損害法律實(shí)體和程序上的客觀公正。本文總結(jié)出司法亞文化的三大負(fù)向功能,破壞公平正義、敵意思維與司法腐敗,并結(jié)合失范理論分析了其成因,希望最終可以對(duì)司法亞文化的負(fù)向功能產(chǎn)生的前因后果進(jìn)行一個(gè)明確的梳理。
[Abstract]:Subcultures can be classified in different ways. According to the type of subject, judicial subculture is one of them. According to China's current judicial system, The subject of judicial subculture is the subculture of judicial professional groups such as Public Security Bureau, Procuratorate, Court, etc. Judicial culture is subculture relative to the whole society, and judicial subculture is relative to judicial culture. It is also subculture. The concept of subculture has always been used in sociology and criminology, but there are few studies and expositions linking it to judicial professional groups. This is not only because the definition and theoretical paradigm of culture itself is difficult to define. It is also because subcultures may be labelled as "non-mainstream" and "abnormal", so that they will not be associated with judicial professional groups. But in fact, the existence of subcultural phenomena has its inherent roots. It also has the function of positive or negative. Only by facing the phenomenon of subculture can we correctly look at all kinds of phenomena occurring in the judicial profession groups and interpret them from a new angle. After trying to define judicial subculture, with the help of structural functionalism, we find out the relationship between the internal structure of judicial system and the function of judicial subculture. There is also a negative function. Compared with the positive function, we pay more attention to the negative function. Through the elaboration of some forms of illegal judicial sub-cultural expression in the whole process of the "Zhao Zuohai" case, which has aroused great social concern, This paper summarizes several negative functions of judicial subculture. The research on their negative functions is not only because they represent some important drawbacks in the field of judicial practice in our country. What is more important is that we try to use Merton's theory of anomie as a result of the conflict between the value goal of traditional culture and the legal institutional means, and the negative function of judicial subculture. In fact, it is illegal judicial subculture to interpret criminology, from a new angle to observe this kind of illegal judicial subculture and various problems in Chinese judicial system. The introduction and study of the concept of judicial subculture helps to emphasize the substantive justice of the rule of law. Whether it is the Maxi-Wu-style trial Law or the "Lixin Model", they follow the premise of "taking facts as the basis and the law as the yardstick". Using different conditions, environment and human resources, and based on "local knowledge", to strive to achieve what they consider to be "fair and just" results. This is not only in line with the national conditions of our country, But we should pay more attention to the conflict between the judicial subculture and the mainstream judicial culture, not only because they will directly violate the judicial subculture, but also achieve the result of substantial fairness and objective truth to a certain extent, but we should pay more attention to the conflict between the judicial subculture and the mainstream judicial culture. The legitimate rights and interests of the parties, This paper summarizes the three negative functions of judicial subculture, which destroy fairness, hostility and corruption. And combined with the theory of anomie analysis of its causes, hoping that the negative function of judicial subculture can eventually be a clear combing of the causes and consequences of the negative function.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D916

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 張斯琦;司法亞文化視域下司法腐敗研究[D];吉首大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1500785