On Standard of Impeaching Judge

严仁群

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-8628.2004.04.003

2004-01-01

Abstract:In our idea, a judge should not be impeached until he misuse law in the adjudication. But this standard is not actually practical with the uncertainty of law and the judge's elusory mind. So what should be adopted as the standard is credibleness which is indispensable to a judge.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Mode of the Judge Thinking

高艳辉,李伟

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-8105.2008.02.014

2008-01-01

Abstract:The judge is an important member of the legal professional community,and the most important character of legal profession lies in the particularity of thinking mode.Judicature is a kind of judgment power,but the mode of judge thinking is very different from the general judgment activity,having deep professional birthmark.The thinking mode of syllogism type and the thinking mode of absolute discretion type are two kinds of extreme performance of the mode of judge thinking,but uncover the basic character of the judge thinking.We should split the difference of the two modes,and develop the thinking mode of the correctional syllogism type.
On Suggestion of Expert in Justice

LI WEI

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-472x.2008.02.026

2008-01-01

Journal of Xidian University

Abstract:The administration of justice is not a course in which the legal norm is applied logically,but one including numerous delicate and complicated judgements,which becomes more obvious in hard case. Judges meet with the questions of making no adequate defense sometimes. In order to judge a case and solve the dispute effectively and fairly,judges have to resort to some other legal knowledge,among which is the suggestion from the expert.
On the Standard for Unspecific Objects in Illegal Fund-Raising:A New Explanation from the Perspective of Private Placement

Li Youxing,Fan Junhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.2011.06.211

2011-01-01

Abstract:Whether or not the fund-raising objects are specific will affect the nature of the fund raising in private sector.One of the necessary components for illegal fund-raising is raising funds from unspecific objects.Although there are rules on illegal fund-raising,the rules are so vague and simple and have many defects such as the vague standard for friend-relative,the improper characterization of spreading from mouth to mouth and so on.In the case of Wu Yin,these problems became the foci of the controversy,and furthermore,one cannot reach the correct conclusion by merely relying on criminal law.To perfect the standard for unspecific objects,the institution of ″safe-harbor″ in the U.S.securities law is of significant reference value.In order to achieve this goal,we should amend the criminal law,clarify the standards,change the legal regulatory architecture and transform the government's philosophy in regulation.
The Boundary of “Collecting Mistakes Whenever Discovered”

Zhang Jiansheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14111/j.cnki.zgfx.2013.02.010

2013-01-01

Abstract:Due to the joint efforts made by the scholars of administrative law over the past two decades,theoretical frame on determination of administrative decision and revocation of rules has become more mature. The contents of this theoretical frame is that if any mistakes is found in an administrative act that has been established, the administrative organ should follow relevant rescinding rules rather than the principle of "collecting mistakes whenever discovered". However, according to administrative judgments and official replies and answers issued by the Supreme People’s Court, it is clear that the Supreme People’s Court insisted on the principle of "collecting mistakes whenever discovered" rather than was influenced by the theoretical frame mentioned earlier. The Court does not alter its view until the case of Jiao Zhigang was published as a guiding case on the Supreme People’s Court Gazette. According to the judgment of the case of Jiao Zhigang, once an administrative act has been legally made and come into force, the administrative act cannot be withdrawn at will, it is binding not only on the affected person(s), but also on the administrative organ itself. However, the relevant judgments made by the courts at various levels show that the case of Jiao Zhigang has not been frequently referred to in the judgments, and the principle of "collecting mistakes whenever discovered" is still deeply rooted. It is possibly because the guiding cases are lacking in practical value and statutory tradition. However, the rules made in the case of Jiao Zhigang are still valuable, and its value has not only represented the impact of the theory on the decisions by the courts, but also acted as a sign of the development of the idea of rule of law.
On "Refusal to Apply Rules" in Administrative Litigation:Based on the Analysis of No.5 Guiding Case Published by the Supreme People's Court

Zhang Jiansheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14167/j.zjss.2013.02.015

2013-01-01

Abstract:"Administrative Litigation Law" endows people's courts with judicial review of consulting rules when hearing administrative cases. The "refusal to apply rules" in No. 5 guiding case is regarded as the transformation from the doctrine of individual refusal to apply rules to that of universal refusal. That is to say, courts have been authorized to declare rules void. In other words, the case expended the judicial review. According to the hierarchy of legal force established by "Legislation Law", courts should determine first whether the law of lower level contradicts the law of higher level before refusing to apply rules. The standards to determine contradiction are as follows. In the relationship between rights and obligations, contradiction occurs when rights laid down in the law of higher level are restricted or deprived by the law of lower level, and when obligations laid down in the law of higher level are expanded or added by the law of lower level. In the relationship between powers and duties, contradiction occurs when powers laid down in the law of higher level are expanded or added by the law of lower level, and when duties laid down in the law of higher level are exempted by the law of lower level.
Judge's Strategy of Settling Lawsuits

冀莹

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3875/j.issn.1674-3555.2009.05.008

2009-01-01

Abstract:In practice, judge ought to think comprehensively about all the factors, including justice, social effects and other factors, in adjudication. This is quite different from the traditional syllogism. To be precise, the judge's interpretation is the process of judge's searching for value-balancing and the key of the interpretation of law. Law-interpreting methods are different from the elements considered in adjudication. They should be clearly separated from each other. While giving full play to judge's initiative, restriction on the judge's right of discretion should be stressed. In this process, legal principles, law interpretation and procedural clauses would play their parts. Determinations of the judicial organs would have influences on the implementation of law in China. So, judges, as real exercisers of law, ought to effectively balance the relationship between law and the reality.
Gauging Court Adjudication: Qualification And Quantification

Le Cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2019-2019

2019-01-01

International Journal of Legal Discourse

Abstract:In common law jurisdictions, the notion of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is frequently related to notions such as the belief or certainty of a judge or a juror about reality. The notion of balance of probabilities is however related to likelihood or probability. In the present study, we link belief and proof by introducing the notion of epistemic modality, which is concerned with the speaker's belief in propositional probability. The variation in the orientation of epistemic modality helps to integrate the two levels of proof and bridge the apparent test gap between them. The notion of relevance is further introduced in order to clarify the nature of legal proof by taking rape cases as example. This study also provides an integrated model to improve but diversify the expressions in terms of the burden of proof. For most courts, court judgments are processed only according to the general case data, procedural context; such kinds of fact-based information processing and information retrieval seldom help the court to make its decision unless with tremendous and repetitious work. For the consistency and efficiency of court adjudication, it is suggested in the present study that a Knowledge Management (KM) model mainly based on elements and factors which decide or affect the criminal liability. Such a KM model provides an overall framework, though non-exhaustive, and therefore makes court adjudication within narrow discretion and achieves the maximum justice.
An In-depth Analysis of a Judge's Trial Thinking

娄正前,吴静艳

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-2794.2009.05.012

2009-01-01

Abstract:A judge’s thinking should be multi-dimensional, which is the unification of meticulous logic and empirical thinking as well as the unification of value judgment and abstract philosophy. Rational thinking provides causality by utilizing logic analysis, which demonstrates itself in the logic consistence of a judge's conviction between reality and legal feasibility in the trial practice. Experiential thinking links the actual reality directly, enabling the judge to conform to the actual reality. Reasonable thinking is a means of evaluation. Philosophical thinking, a superior thinking beyond rational, empirical and reasonable thinking, will guide the whole thinking into the mutual harmony of result and justice through grasping modern judicature concepts.
Judicial Review of the Balance Between Crime and Punishment

刘守芬,方文军

2003-01-01

Abstract:It shows the balance between responsibility and punishment and makes the principle of sentencing discretion transform from mono-element to duality. In the process of practicing the principle of balance between crime and punishment, conviction and sentencing discretion belong to different categories. Precise conviction has always been the premise of fair sentencing discretion, but counter effect of sentencing on conviction shall not be ignored. At present, there are problems such as sentencing tending to be severe, and the deviations in sentencing discretion becoming serious, which has hindered the full realization of the principle of balance between crime and punishment. As to the problem of deviation in sentencing discretion, the practical way to settle it is to gather the experience in sentencing discretion all over the country and report them to the Supreme Court. With the participation of scholars, the benchmark of sentencing discretion of individual crime shall be determined and the institution of observing the precedents to an appropriate degree shall be gradually established to unify sentencing discretions. As far as the problem of sentencing discretion tending to be severe is concerned, it is the exterior manifestation of the culture modality of criminal law of China, which is hard to be altered within a short period of time. But judicature still works.
On Judgement System of Administrative Confirmation

刘军

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-2854.2002.04.009

2002-01-01

Abstract:The judgement of administrative confirmation as a form of judging administrative case has been established in the latest explainnation of judgement; nevertheless many rules in the judgement system not only have questiones of rationality ,but also go against some basic principles of judgement .Through analysing the relatived questiones ,this article puts forward two important ideas to perfect the judgement of confirmation : the one is to build a type of confirmation lawsuit to regulate confirmative judgement basically;The other is to perfect the rules of current explainnation of judgement about judgement of confirmation.The measures help to realise the goal of justice and efficiency of administrative judgement .
On the Effect of Judged Facts

Weng Xiaobin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-1707.2006.04.015

2006-01-01

Abstract:In the main view and accustomed system of Continental Law System,it's not acknowledged that the reasons in the judgement have the force of matter adjudged,which proves that the facts adjudged don't have prejudging force.In our civil procedure law,it is not clear whether the facts adjudged have prejudging force or not.Different judicial explanations have regulations on this problem,but they conflict with each other,and they are all against the fundamental principles of the civil procedure law.In current judicial practice,this problem ought to be solved on the principle of“seeking truth from facts”,which is held by current civil procedure law.“Retrial ahead”ought to be practiced,that is,to pause the latter trial when the party of the latter lawsuit submits evidences strong enough to overthrow the facts adjudged in the former lawsuit and not to resume the latter trial until the facts adjudged in the former trial have been redressed through retrial procedure.The intending revised civil procedure law of China should deny the prejudging force of the facts adjudged.
On the Theory of Objective Imputation and the Judicial Practice in China

ZHOU Guangquan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16094/j.cnki.1005-0221.2013.06.010

2013-01-01

Abstract:According to the analysis of a large number of cases,the adjudication sometimes makes a relatively clear position on danger manufacturing,danger realization and danger promotion,and it makes a norm judgment out of experience judgment.Because the objective imputation theory and the methodology is the same,China,Germany,Japan and other countries do not show much difference on judicial practice of difficult cases.In consideration of equivalent causality's defects of lacking inferior rules,systematization and normalization,valuing the methodology of objective imputation theory will be inevitable in future China.Accepting the act of perpetrating theory does not mean to negate danger manufacturing of objective imputation theory.Whether to adopt the objective imputation theory is not related to the stratification of criminal theory system.Even without using the term of objective imputation in the judicial practice in the future,the fact judgment/experience judgment and norm judgment/value judgment should be clearly separated in the judgment of logic.
Testification Standard in Criminal Lawsuit

Chen Rui-hua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19563/j.cnki.sdzs.2013.03.012

2013-01-01

Abstract:Testification standard is the true degree that one litigation party who bears the burden to prove the facts Waiting for proving,it has the objective aspect and subjective aspect.Chinese law established the proof standard of "fact fully proved,substantial evidence,sufficient",which is different from "beyond a reasonable doubt" in Anglo-American law system and "convincing to be the truth" in the continental law system.In recent years,the proof standard has made a more detailed explanation by Criminal procedure law in our country,and "Eliminate a reasonable suspect" in Anglo-American law system has been introduced into the certificate standard.It is an important theoretical subject in evidence law that makes the appropriate interpretation to the proof standard which apply for normal cases and death penalty cases.
How Do Chinese Judges Invoke the Constitution? Analysis Based on 1907 Decisions

Jun Yu,Jingxiong Cao,Le Cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2074

2022-01-01

International Journal of Legal Discourse

Abstract:The abolition of the judicial interpretation issued by the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China in Qi Yuling's case marks the end of the trend of developing a judicial constitutional review system in China, but issues of courts invoking constitutional norms in judicial decisions continue to arise. This essay investigates the actual situation of the Constitution in judicial decisions by categorizing 1907 court decisions that invoked the Constitution as the reasoning basis and the court decisions which invoked the Constitution as the decision-making basis and by exploring the logic of the use of the Constitution by Chinese judges. In the absence of a constitutional review system, the primary sense of Chinese judges invoking constitutional norms is characterized by "simplistic reasoning ", "politicized enforcement " and the "parent law " concept. The insufficient judgment reason is a universal feature of judicial adjudication in Chinese courts. However, due to the lack of a constitutional review system, the poor perception of the interpretation and application of the constitution may exacerbate the lack of legal arguments invoked by the Constitution. The political model of Constitution enforcement in China makes judges invoke the Constitution in judicial decisions by "asserting the prestige of the Constitution ", which leads to numerous errors in legal argumentation in judicial decisions. This also reflects the tendency of "political enforcement " to take precedence over the legal enforcement of the Constitution. The influence of the old "parent law " concept is that judges can arbitrarily apply constitutional norms directly to civil cases, including fundamental rights norms. By summarizing and describing the above three features, we can depict the activities of current Chinese courts in invoking the Constitution.
The Standards of Proof ——objective Authenticity, Legal Authenticity and Substantial Authenticity

陈浩然

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-7095.2004.01.003

2004-01-01

Abstract:The standards of proof in court proceedings are a highly controversial subject. In the present paper, the author compares, historical environments and legal conditions which produced varied standards of proof. The author also makes an analysis on the standards of objective authenticity, legal authenticity and substantial authenticity under value orientations in litigant practice. Thus,the author proposes the necessity to pursue substantial authenticity on the basis of due process, and he also emphasizes the indispensability of scientific evidence.
Justice and Public Opinion

Zhou Anping

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-1698.2012.10.008

2012-01-01

Abstract:The duty of justice is to judge,so it inevitably takes views of individuals.Therefore,any disagreement over the judge must be ended by judicial authority.The fact that justice is free from the oppression of public opinion is not only a guarantee of judicial certainty,but also the bottom line of protecting the public from hurt beyond law.If justice can not resist the oppression of public opinion,it will not bring the triumph of public opinion over justice;instead it will weaken the undependability and professionalism and finally endanger judicial certainty.The reason that public opinion can roll in and overthrow justice in success is the introduction of social effect to justice.Furthermore,an undependable judicial system leaves room for public doubt about justice.
Flexible Verdicts——One Kind of Judicial Verdicts which are Worthy of Reflection

CHEN Rui-hua

2010-01-01

Abstract:With the disclosure of some criminal false judgments, flexible verdicts have gradually captured public attentions recently. The basic characteristics of this kind of verdicts are "presumed guilty until proven innocent" and "imposing a lenient sentence if be presumed guilty", which also mean that courts will make a guilty verdict and impose a lenient sentence although the standards of guilty verdicts are not yet satisfied. In terms of the judicial system and judicial procedure, the reasons for this kind of verdicts are complex. Under the influence of them, Chinese courts can’t become the vindicator of justice, but only to survive by compromise due to the judicial idea of realism. However, after the disclosure of many "cases in which people were unjustly, falsely or wrongly charged", courts often become the victims of system. So long as this kind of judicial manner still exists, judicial credibility of courts will never be established and the criminal judicial system won’t have any substantial change definitely.
New Exploration the Scope of Judge's Clarification Power

Di Li

2014-01-01

Abstract:In civil litigation,the judge's clarification system not only amends the malpractice caused by the adversary doctrine,but also helps to prevent raids judgment,explore the truth,the pursuit of substantive equality of both parties.Advocated by the Social Litigation Conception,the judge's clarification system becomes a link in a dialogue between the judge and the parties.Expanding the scope of the judge's clarification power becomes a common trend in the development of civil litigation today.About the judge's clarification power scope provision in Germany,Japan and China's Taiwan region for reference,we can follow the example of the judge in Germany substantially control litigation obligation system,defining the scope of the judge's clarification power from two aspects:first setting up the general standard of it;second,clearing the specific scope of it.
On the Judge's Role in the Usage of Evidence under the Model of Adversary Trial

WANG Jian-cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-3194.2008.01.005

2008-01-01

Abstract:Under the model of adversary trial and in the usage of evidence,the judge should be roles as the person who remains neutral,the person who enjoys the powers of judgment,and the person who is persuaded.However sometimes the judge deviates from his roles mentioned above in judicial practice.It is necessary to return the judge to his original roles,in order to guarantee successful operation of adversary trial and re-establish the authority of justice.
Logic of Elucidation of Court

Yan Renqun

2012-01-01

Abstract:Court's elucidation can sometimes change the result of a case,thus should follow its intrinsic logic.It may not violate the primary purpose of protecting right and vindicating justice and other reasonable purposes.Judges may not elucidate beyond the facts presented by the parties and actually displayed to court either.These are elucidation's boundaries on goal and fact.In the boundaries,judges may inform the parties all kinds of rights except for the right of defense on statute of limitation,otherwise the primary purpose of elucidation would be violated.In the factual boundary of elucidation,judges should give all kinds of elucidation corresponding to its proper aim.If the plaintiff claims less than he could get,judges can also tell him to amend his claim.When judges cannot be sure of what fact is,they can prompt both parties to produce more evidences. Although court's obligation of elucidation has made judges more active,elucidation has no positive connection with the partiality of the judge.If judges follow the logic of elucidation,they should not be censured.Elucidation is not exceptional,and judges can do it positively and widely as long as it doesn't deviate from its logic.Elucidation about new materials does not inevitably overstep the adversary doctrine or the factual boundary of elucidation.In some circumstances,judges should elucidate even when the party is represented by a lawyer. Most of the elucidation hasn't broken through the adversary doctrine,but it doesn't mean that the doctrine is absolute and cannot be broken.In the United States,the court should grant the relief to the party entitled,even if the party has not demanded that relief in his pleadings.This reminds us to review our thought on the disposition right of the parties.Limited by their legal knowledge,parties often do not claim some rights of their own and some important facts,so judges should inform them and let them decide whether to claim complementally.This is the true respect to the disposition right of the parties.We welcome that kind of activism which makes great efforts to realize substantial justice and procedural justice,and value parties as the subject of the procedure.

On Standard of Impeaching Judge

Mode of the Judge Thinking

On Suggestion of Expert in Justice

On the Standard for Unspecific Objects in Illegal Fund-Raising:A New Explanation from the Perspective of Private Placement

The Boundary of “Collecting Mistakes Whenever Discovered”

On "Refusal to Apply Rules" in Administrative Litigation:Based on the Analysis of No.5 Guiding Case Published by the Supreme People's Court

Judge's Strategy of Settling Lawsuits

Gauging Court Adjudication: Qualification And Quantification

An In-depth Analysis of a Judge's Trial Thinking

Judicial Review of the Balance Between Crime and Punishment

On Judgement System of Administrative Confirmation

On the Effect of Judged Facts

On the Theory of Objective Imputation and the Judicial Practice in China

Testification Standard in Criminal Lawsuit

How Do Chinese Judges Invoke the Constitution? Analysis Based on 1907 Decisions

The Standards of Proof ——objective Authenticity, Legal Authenticity and Substantial Authenticity

Justice and Public Opinion

Flexible Verdicts——One Kind of Judicial Verdicts which are Worthy of Reflection

New Exploration the Scope of Judge's Clarification Power

On the Judge's Role in the Usage of Evidence under the Model of Adversary Trial

Logic of Elucidation of Court