Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)左published in(发表于) 2013/11/13 7:16:32 Expert： must be changed only by a police detention system
Judicial reform
★ Bulletin
The plenary, building the rule of law in China, must deepen judicial reform, accelerate the construction of fair and efficient and authoritative Socialist judicial system, safeguard the people's interests. To uphold the constitutional authority of the law, deepening reform of administrative law enforcement, prosecutorial power to ensure independent and impartial judicial power should be exercised according to law, sound judicial power operating mechanism, improve the system of judicial protection of human rights.
Due to financial, personnel are subject to local, at present, the grassroots event where the intervention of the Court, it is difficult to maintain an independent trial. And executive law enforcement forces scattered, independent and inefficient law enforcement issues.
18 third plenary session in the area of judicial reform, refer to "ensure independent judicial power should be exercised in accordance with the Prosecutor's rights", experts say, of the administration of Justice and where is the main problem facing the reform of the judiciary, without resolving these two issues in order to ensure exercise judicial power independently in accordance with law, the right to public prosecutor's Office.
Jinghua times, Sun Siya Yuan Guoli Pei Xiaolan
"Three questions on reform"
Question 1
How to ensure that an independent and impartial judicial power should be exercised?
To be divorced from the grassroots judicial institutions
China University criminal law Professor Hong Daode said the judicial administration and localization are the main problems in judicial reform, only addressing both of these issues can ensure the right to exercise jurisdiction independently according to law, the prosecution. As for how to resolve, in his view, the first step to put grass-roots procuratorates, courts, from the local provincial leadership and horizontal leadership to shoulder the financial and personnel freed from local party committees. In addition, to underscore the Court's own judgement to be excellent, just operate in accordance with law, the party and the State would dare to give complete independence to the Court.
How to achieve judicial independence, Peking University Law School Professor Jiang Mingan considers should be divided into five steps: the first step, by independent administrative courts of law setting out local administrative region to reduce interference. Second, courts at all levels within the "Chief" of reform. Abolition of the Court, the judgment of the President approving the unwritten practice. Third, there should be clear in the party politics and Law Committee cannot ask about specific cases. The fourth step, once the Court trial is successful, all the lower courts and intermediate people's Court from the district boundaries. The fifth step, out of province-level administrative regions also set by a higher court. By the Union of several provinces and municipalities to set up a high court, to avoid the High Court by the provincial local authorities intervened.
Question 2
Reform of administrative law enforcement efforts towards the direction of what?
Uniform application of the law guarantees the right to independence
China Law learned Administrative Law Institute President, and China University University deputy principals Ma Huaide said, currently administrative law enforcement exists dispersed, and not independent and efficiency low of problem, to through reform, established a just, and relative independent, and efficient authority, and unified integration of law enforcement institutional, reduced law enforcement organ Zhijian of conflict, reduced permission of cross and overlap, thereby prevent law enforcement process in the various problem, as not as, and selective law enforcement, and abuse law enforcement right,, eventually achieved administrative organ of just, and specification, and civilization and strictly law enforcement.
Ma Huaide believes that reform has two main directions, relatively unified jurisdiction on the one hand, such as the urban management enforcement agency, was aimed at urban management process problems, establish a relatively unified law-enforcement agencies, concentrated the city administration on a number of law enforcement powers. The other way is to safeguard the independence and authority of administrative enforcement power. In his view, should establish appropriate mechanisms to protect local governments and relevant departments to gradually reduce intervention in administrative law-enforcement agencies to ensure that its independent, impartial norms to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with.
3 q
Reform of the re-education through labour system under the new situation?
To change only decided by the Public Security Bureau detention
Jiang Mingan, now most of the camp have been deactivated, no much the people in the camp. Reform direction of China's reeducation-through-labour system, however, is still not very clear, in his view, first can be differentiated from object to choose the direction of reform.
First of all, for criticizing the Government, the petitioners, this part of the personnel of detention should be abolished. Drug addicts, should go into rehab drug rehabilitation. Is the third most important part of the personnel, underage teenage crime cannot be sentenced according to law.
Jiang Mingan believes that minors can organize experts, police officers, legal officers, make up a body similar to the Court, it is not a court, but can be heard at the same time, after a quasi-judicial procedures such as lawyers debate, to make a ruling. Community corrections in the introduction of six months or a year, or a violation correction correction. Jiang Mingan believes that must change the existing detention system only by a decision of public security, and without due process of law, restriction of the status quo.
"Pilot"
Railway court ad litem are more independent
The past, railway railway company funds and personnel responsible for the judicial system, often seen as subordinate units of the railway company, its impartiality and neutrality widely questioned.
In March 2012, Beijing railway transportation prosecution branch, Beijing railway transportation Procuratorate handed over to the Beijing Municipal Procuratorate. June 2012, Beijing railway sequences of two levels of Court officially incorporated into the Beijing court, into the national administration of justice system as a whole, the implementation of territorial management. After the reform, the railway courts and procuratorate personnel arrangements were out of the railway system, fully integrated in the local justice system; in terms of financial safeguards, reformed in accordance with the administrative management system, financed by the Government budget at the same level to be protected.
It is understood that many railways objection questioned the jurisdiction of judicial bodies are to be seen, and some have even requested all trial personnel evaded on the grounds that the judge with the rail sector as a whole has an interest in. Cases involving the judiciary of railway and railway-related, by the railway authorities, independence is much smaller than the District Court, judges handling cases just criticism. These courts after the transfer to the district, judges to deal with cases more independent, while avoiding the litigant to judge "neutral" question.
"Reform"
On the independent and impartial judgment, introduce Hong Daode, while our Constitution, the criminal procedure law stipulates that the courts exercise judicial power independently in accordance with the law, but the existing system of judicial power problem but unable to achieve independence, the reason is subject to the right to financial, personnel appointment and removal is also attached to the place, in case of intervention, it is difficult to maintain an independent judgment of the Court.
At present, the Executive law enforcement law enforcement forces scattered, law enforcement is not independent and inefficiency problems. Ma Huaide introduced, every administration has its own force of law enforcement agencies and law enforcement, Commerce, law enforcement officers, urban management enforcement, taxes, planning, Lands Department, as each have their own enforcement powers, did not become law enforcement forces relatively uniform law enforcement system. Secondly, some local governments for economic reasons, local protection, by any means, interfere with the Executive Branch law enforcement, on the independence of the law enforcement agencies have a certain impact. In addition, because the law enforcement system is not, and some administrative bodies each other in law enforcement, "fight", law enforcement powers are in conflict, contradictions between the sector, leading to inefficiency in law enforcement, poor results.
(Original title: to ensure independent and impartial trial according to the law)
司法改革
★公报
全会提出，建设法治中国，必须深化司法体制改革，加快建设公正高效权威的社会主义司法制度，维护人民权益。要维护宪法法律权威，深化行政执法体制改革，确保依法独立公正行使审判权检察权，健全司法权力运行机制，完善人权司法保障制度。
因财政权、人事权受制于地方，目前，基层法院一旦遇地方干预，很难保持独立审判。而行政机关的执法存在力量分散、执法不独立、效率低下的问题。
十八届三中全会在司法改革方面，再提“确保依法独立公正行使审判权检察权”，专家认为，司法的行政化与地方化是司法改革面临的主要问题，只有解决这两个问题才能确保依法独立行使审判权、检察权。
京华时报记者 孙思娅 袁国礼 裴晓兰
【三问改革】
1问
如何确保独立公正行使审判权？
基层司法机构应脱离地方
中国政法大学刑事诉讼法教授洪道德表示，司法的行政化与地方化是司法改革面临的主要问题，只有解决这两个问题才能确保依法独立行使审判权、检察权。至于如何解决，他认为，第一步要把基层检察院、法院，从地方横向领导改为由省级领导并负担财政，同时将人事权从地方党委中解脱出来。此外，要强调法院自身的判决裁定要过硬，依照法律规定公正断案，党和国家才敢将彻底的独立权交给法院。
对于如何实现审判独立，北京大学法学院教授姜明安认为应分五步走：第一步，通过修法设置脱离地方行政区域的独立行政法院，以减少干预。第二步，在各级法院内部开展“去行政化”的改革。废除法院院长、庭长对判决进行审批的不成文做法。第三步，要通过党内法规明确政法委不能过问具体个案。第四步，待行政法院试验成功，让所有基层法院和中级法院都脱离地方行政区域。第五步，高级法院也脱离省一级行政区设置。由几个省、市联合成立一个高级法院，以避免高级法院受省级地方当局干预。
2问
行政执法体制改革往哪些方向努力？
应统一执法权保障独立性
中国法学会行政法学研究会会长、中国政法大学副校长马怀德表示，目前行政执法存在分散、不独立和效率低的问题，要通过改革，建立一个公正、相对独立、高效权威、统一整合的执法体制，减少执法机关之间的冲突，减少权限的交叉和重叠，从而防止执法过程中各种问题，如不作为、选择性执法、滥用执法权等，最终实现行政机关的公正、规范、文明和严格执法。
马怀德认为，改革有两大方向，一方面是执法权的相对统一，如城管执法机构，就是针对城市管理过程出现的问题，建立的一个相对统一的执法机构，集中了城市管理的多项执法权。另一个方向就是要保障行政执法权的独立性和权威性。他认为，应该建立相应机制，保障地方政府和相关部门，逐步减少对行政执法机构的干预，保证其依法独立、公正规范地行使执法权。
3问
新形势下劳教制度该如何改革？
须改变仅由公安决定劳教
姜明安表示，现在绝大部分劳教所已经停用了，劳教所里的人也不多了。但我国劳教制度改革的方向，目前还不是很明确，他认为首先可以从对象区分来选择改革方向。
首先，对于批评政府、上访的，这部分人员的劳教应该取消。对于吸毒人员，应该进入戒毒所戒毒。最重要的是第三部分人员，即未成年青少年犯罪，按照法律不能判刑的。
姜明安认为，对未成年人，可以组织专家、公安民警、法律人员等共同组成一个类似于法庭的机构，它不是法院，但同时可以审理，经过律师的辩论等准司法程序，对其进行裁决。实行半年或一年的社区矫正，或专门的违法行为矫正所矫正。姜明安认为，必须改变现行劳教制度中仅由公安一家决定，且没有正当法律程序制约的现状。
【试点情况】
铁路法院移交后审案更独立
过去，我国铁路司法系统的经费、人事由铁路局负责，往往被看做铁路局的下属单位，其公正性和中立性广受质疑。
2012年3月，北京铁路运输检察分院、北京铁路运输检察院移交给北京市检察院。2012年6月，北京铁路两级法院正式纳入北京市法院序列，整体纳入国家司法管理体系，实行属地管理。改制后，铁路法院和铁路检察院人事安排已经脱离铁路系统，完全纳入地方司法体系中；在经费保障方面，改制后根据行政管理体制，经费由同级政府预算予以保障。
据了解，过去很多铁路司法机构都出现过管辖权异议的质疑，甚至有当事人要求全体审判人员回避，理由是全体审判人员都与铁路部门有利害关系。而铁路司法机构涉及的案件均与铁路有关，又由铁路部门养着，独立性比地方法院要小得多，法官办案公正性受人诟病。铁路法院移交地方后，法官审理案件更具独立性，同时，也避免了诉讼当事人对法官“中立性”的质疑。
【改革背景】
在审判独立公正方面，洪道德介绍，虽然我国宪法、刑诉法等法律规定法院依法独立行使审判权，但现存体制导致的司法权地方化问题却无法实现独立，其原因在财政权受制于地方，人事任免也隶属于地方，如果遭到地方干预，法院很难保持独立审判。
目前，行政机关的执法存在执法力量分散、执法不独立、效率低下的问题。马怀德介绍，目前每个行政部门有自己的执法机构和执法力量，工商有执法人员，城管有执法力量，税务、规划、土地等部门，同样各有各的执法力量，没有形成执法力量相对统一的执法体制。其次，一些地方政府出于经济考虑，实行地方保护，借助各种手段，干预行政部门的执法，对执法机关的独立性产生一定的影响。另外，由于执法体制不顺，一些行政机关在执法中互相“打架”，执法权限出现冲突，部门之间矛盾重重，导致执法效率不高，效果不佳。
(原标题：确保依法独立公正审判)
赞