[1]樊传明.追究法官审判责任的限度——现行责任制体系内的解释学研究[J].法制与社会发展,2018,(01):68-90.
点击复制

追究法官审判责任的限度——现行责任制体系内的解释学研究()
分享到:

法制与社会发展[ISSN:1006-6128/CN:22-1243/D]

卷:
期数:
2018年01期
页码:
68-90
栏目:
司法文明研究
出版日期:
2018-01-10

文章信息/Info

作者:
樊传明
关键词:
司法责任制错案责任违法审判证据裁判
Keywords:
Judicial Liability System Misjudge Liability Illegal Trial Judging on Evidence
摘要:
现行司法责任制要求法官不仅对违反职业规范的行为担责,而且应对其审判业务负责,针对审判业务责任又采取了双轨制模式,包括故意违法责任和过失错案责任两类要件构成。基于现有规范体系而采取解释学的立场和方法,可以防范结果中心主义倾向和对法官裁判行为的负激励效应。追究法官审判责任的限度,取决于对法官审判职责内容的解释。证据裁判原则统摄下的证据规则体系的内容和效力,决定了法官对事实问题承担审判责任的范围。证据规则按其效力可以分为强制性规则和指导性规则,它们为法官的事实认定工作设定了不同的要求,应当据此认定对法官追责的主客观要件。该解释学路径可以在现有体系内使错案结果责任转向证据裁判违法责任。
Abstract:
According to the current judicial liability system, judges have to be responsible not only for their conduct in violation of professional norm, but also for their trial work. Trial liability takes a dual-track approach, including liability for breaking the law deliberately, and liability for mistrial by culpable negligence. Under the existing system, an interpretation approach may prevent the consequence-oriented tendency and negative incentive effect on judge’s trial behavior. The limit of the judge’s trial responsibility depends on the interpretation of the content of the judge’s trial duty. Since judges ought to decide issues of fact according to evidential rules, the evidential rule system, which is organized by the principle of judging on evidence, determines the scope of judge’s trial liability for fact-finding. Evidential rules can be divided into two types by their force: mandatory rules and guiding rules. They set different requirements for judge’s fact-finding work. These requirements should be used to analyze and define the conditions for trial liability, such as the subjective fault and unlawful act conditions. This interpretation approach under the existing system may leads the mistrial consequence liability turns into illegally evidential judgment liability.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
*华东师范大学法学院讲师
更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01