What are the four reforms centered on the judicial responsibility system?

1. Promote the reform of the trial-centered litigation system, fully implement the rules of evidence adjudication, give full play to the role of pre-trial guidance and filtering, improve the mechanism of listening to the opinions of defense lawyers, prevent cases from being prosecuted with illness, and ensure that the factual evidence of investigating cases can stand the test of law and history.

2. Deepen the pilot of quick adjudication of criminal cases and explore the lenient system of pleading guilty and admitting punishment in procuratorial links.

3, solidly promote the procuratorial organs to initiate public interest litigation pilot, and further promote the pilot reform of procuratorates across administrative divisions.

4. Study and establish a legal supervision system for administrative violations, improve and standardize the acceptance, handling and feedback mechanism of procuratorial suggestions, and improve the scope and procedures of civil enforcement activities. Do a good job in the implementation of various reforms and consolidate the reform results.

The concept of judicial responsibility system in theoretical circles can be summarized into narrow and broad views. In a narrow sense, the judicial responsibility system refers to the sum total of systems in which a specific state organ or a specific subject confirms whether the actions of judicial personnel should bear legal responsibility and what kind of legal responsibility they should bear through necessary procedures according to the provisions of the law. The broad sense of judicial responsibility system is "let the judge try and let the judge be responsible". That is to say, while giving the judge the initiative and decision-making power in trying and judging cases, it emphasizes that the judge handling the case is responsible for the judgment results.

Although the judicial responsibility system emphasizes the investigation of judges' responsibility for misjudged cases, it cannot be simply equated with the investigation of misjudged cases. Its core lies in replacing the misjudged case accountability with the judge's behavior accountability. In the process of its implementation, it is inseparable from the neutrality and independence of the judiciary.