Three Models of Civil Suit Collateral to Criminal Proceedings
Chen Ruihua
2009-01-01
Abstract:China's current incidental civil action system is founded upon the basis that criminal liability has precedence over civil one, so the procedure model can be characterized as "criminal liability first, and then civil liability". However, due to "the conciliation difficulties" and "the executive difficulties" in incidental civil action and its civil judgment, the victims always embark on the road of complaints and petitions, for they often cannot obtain satisfactory civil compensation. Additionally, the substantive defects of this model, such as its compensation scope is too narrow and its compensation standard is too low, also makes incidental civil action grow out of the general imputation principles of tort law, resulting in the widespread civil injustice. As the model of "criminal liability first, and then civil liability" faces not only the criticism of its legitimacy in theory, but also a serious crisis in its implementation effects, two programs have taken sharp to substitute this model, that is, the model of "separating criminal and civil liabilities", which was adopted as an ideal reform program, and the model of "civil liability first, and then criminal liability", which was created by judicial practice. The former is an advanced reform measure, which was raised on theoretical considerations by jurists and some judicial officials,while the latter is a spontaneous self-reform measure. The proposed "separation model" can not only fully protect the victims' civil rights of appeal, reflecting the requirements of procedural justice, but also make the incidental civil compensation truly comply with the general imputation principles of tort law. However, if there is no substantial change in China' s current judicial system, it may be a confusing problem whether this ideal model can effectively help the court out of the existing predicament. The model of "civil liability first, and then criminal liability" will greatly promote the mediation rates of incidental civil action, and effectively circumvent "the executive difficulties" brought by sentencing, and then satisfy all the parties of the proceedings. However,this model faces certain challenges in theory. The coexistence of the three models of incidental civil action shows that, in promoting the reform of legal system, we should not only pay attention to those ideal reform programs derived from the legal concepts and principles, but also not lose sight of the reform experiences spontaneously created by judiciary themselves.