Can the judgment include the different opinions of the collegial panel or the judicial committee (negative opinion)Can the judgment include the different opinions of the collegial panel or the judicia

Can the judgment include the different opinions of the collegial panel or the judicial committee (negative opinion)Can the judgment include the different opinions of the collegial panel or the judicial committee (discussed by some readers - negative opinion) People from Gansu Province Qin County People's Court: The author Liu Wenji believes that from the perspective of the legal status and legal form of the judgment and the nature of the collegial panel and the judicial committee, it is not allowed to include different opinions of the collegial panel or the judicial committee in the civil judgment. First of all, the legal status of civil judgments does not allow different opinions of the collegial panel or judicial committee to be included in the civil judgments. A civil judgment is a conclusive judgment made by the people's court on the substantive issues between the parties in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations on the basis of a comprehensive review of the facts of the case through the trial of a civil case in accordance with legal procedures. Although civil judgments are made by judicial organizations such as the collegial panel and judicial committee on behalf of the People's Court, they are not the opinions of the collegial panel and judicial committees, let alone the different opinions of the members of the collegial panel or the personal opinions of the members of the judicial committee. They are the opinions of the representatives of the People's Court. Judgments in civil cases under state law. Secondly, the legal form of civil judgment does not allow the civil judgment to contain different opinions of the collegial panel or judicial committee. As mentioned above, civil judgments are issued by the trial organization on behalf of the People's Court and represent the authority of national law. Article 138 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates: "The judgment shall state: (1) The cause of the case, the litigation claims, the facts and reasons for the dispute; (2) The facts and reasons for the judgment and the basis for the application of law; (3) The results of the judgment and the litigation Burden of costs; (4) Appeal period and court of appeal. "However, this article does not stipulate that the different dispute opinions of the collegial panel or the judicial committee should be included. The judgment must be convincing, and the case must be decided in accordance with the law. The different opinions of the collegial panel and the judicial committee can only weaken, but not strengthen, the reasons for the judgment. Of course, this does not exclude that when the collegial panel or judicial committee expresses different opinions, it should be clearly remembered in the records of the collegial panel or judicial committee. Thirdly, the nature of the collegial panel and the judicial committee does not allow the different opinions of the collegial panel or the judicial committee to be written into the civil judgment. The collegial panel and the judicial committee make decisions in accordance with the principle that the minority obeys the majority, and form a judgment on this basis. Only the opinions of the majority are the opinions that form the judgment. Different opinions that are not adopted in the judgment are not the opinions of the collegial panel and the trial. The conclusion of the committee's discussion cannot naturally be written into a civil judgment. From the perspective of keeping trial confidentiality, the different opinions of the collegial panel and the trial committee should not be included in the civil judgment. The discussion opinions of the collegial panel and the judicial committee are confidential, and should also be bound into supplementary files when the files are bound. The parties and their litigation representatives, including lawyers, are not allowed to consult. This is in compliance with the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Work of the Collegiate Panel of the People's Courts" of. Civil judgments are public, and many courts' civil judgments have been published online. Therefore, the different opinions of the collegial panel and the judicial committee should be kept confidential, which is inappropriate. Beijing Natural Law Firm: Mo Shuai has different opinions on whether the judgment can be disclosed to the collegial panel. The author believes that judicial judgments should strive to maintain unity and authority in both form and content. Although there is not much "technical" difficulty in publicly expressing different opinions, after all, there are some "formal meanings greater than substantive effects." In the long run, I am afraid that the impact on the judicial psychology of the parties and even the public will be complex and difficult to estimate. First of all, the judge's neutral stance determines that his judicial words and deeds should try to avoid intersecting or even misaligning with the roles of the parties and their attorneys. As the intermediate referee, the judge is an independent whole in the eyes of the parties, representing the image and judicial authority of the court. The neutrality of the judge means "uniqueness" to a certain extent, that is, his status is unique and his conclusion is also unique. . Even if there are different opinions during the derivation process, it is still a matter of internal or preliminary argumentation. When the final conclusion is announced to the public, neither the argumentation process nor the conclusion itself can be separated into "two factions" positions. In fact, any case may generate controversy, but whether such controversy can simply be regarded as "confrontation", or whether it is necessary to make it public, is debatable. The neutrality of judges determines that their public role should not be polarizing. If the judge also holds his own opinions like the lawyers on both sides, it seems to be acting as a lawyer. Although the public has seen different judges’ case-handling thinking from their different viewpoints, it has also glimpsed the differentiation of opinions within the judiciary, which may bring greater confusion and confusion to the public that is not limited to individual cases but is related to the overall rule of law. This affects the recognition and acceptance of the judgment. In their eyes, justice should have a unique way of expression. What they really care about is the certainty of the outcome that ultimately determines fate. They would rather believe that the final judgment is the result of the majority of judges "persuading" a minority of judges than accept the original dispute. Larger verdict. If the appellant directly quotes the views of a dissenting judge in the appeal, it will inevitably cause embarrassment to the judicial authorities. Secondly, the three-dimensional structure of the court requires that the personality positions of all parties should maintain "external consistency", and should at least "seek differences internally and seek common ground externally." In the court, the plaintiff, defendant and judge are all in specific positions, adhering to their respective responsibilities and basic demands. Showing internal differences in the form of color is a taboo in court trials. The unity of the "personality" and firmness of the parties' positions in the court are the basis for realizing their specific demands or responsibilities. The pattern of this trial model is the result of thousands of years of judicial theory and practice. From a philosophical and legal point of view, the contradictions inherent in unity should be resolved internally as much as possible. When the rift cannot be bridged, the voting rules or the amount of power will eventually obey the one with the upper hand (which will be considered correct at this time). The divergence and openness of judges' opinions are the first factors that break the established pattern and balance of the court's "tripod" style. It invisibly causes the parties to seek "foreign aid" and makes the most stable "triangular framework" evolve into a "four-party contest" or even a "two armies". "Confrontation" mode is very inappropriate. In addition, the nature of judicial power determines that judges act on behalf of the court, and differences of opinion between judges cannot simply be regarded as personal issues. Although the case is judged by the judge, its essence is to perform judicial duties on behalf of the court. The public expression of the judge's personal opinions certainly helps to strengthen the judge's personality, but it more or less dilutes the integrity and integrity of judicial activities. national will. Disputes over judges' personal opinions may have a negative impact on the establishment of judicial authority and the image of the court. Some people may think that modern judicial practice has proven difficult to achieve the effect of "the only correct solution", so it is natural to express different opinions publicly. But an issue that deserves more attention here is that the judge’s different opinions actually reflect the opposing opinions of the plaintiff and the defendant to a certain extent. Then, a more appropriate way may be that the judge should reflect more the opinions of the parties and their attorneys in the judgment, and strengthen the argument and analysis of whether to adopt the relevant opinions. This will be more convincing and can better convince the parties. Serve the sentence and stop suing. People's Court of Qingzhou City, Shandong Province: Wang Xuetang started from the traditions of the two legal systems and based on the differences in the traditional cultures of the two legal systems, different judgments should be listed when dealing with judgments. In common law countries, the traditional emphasis on listing different adjudicative opinions, especially dissenting opinions, in judgments has been retained and returned. This approach is inseparable from the implementation of the independent trial system of judges. Countries with civil law systems generally stipulate that the minority opinions or dissenting opinions of collegial panel members should be kept confidential and must not be made public or noted in the judgment. For example, Germany and Japan have strict restrictions and only list dissenting opinions in the judgments of the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court. Other courts have not adopted this approach. The author realizes that the judgment must be made public and the reasoning must be clarified. In fact, after carefully analyzing the different opinions of the public collegial panel of the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court, the author believes that this is more of a reasoning process for the judgment. According to my country's current judicial system and legal system and other national conditions, although it is not appropriate to list the judges' different opinions and objections in the judgment, if the objections are analyzed (analytical argumentation) during the reasoning process and combined with legal principles and legal application, A final verdict may be more acceptable than simply publicizing two different opinions. This is also a protective measure for judges and a self-protective measure for judges in the current situation where the credibility of the judicial society is not high. People's Court of Tinghu District, Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province: Chen Lichao The author believes that open collegiality by the collegial panel is not in line with the reality of our country. The reasons are: 1. The confidentiality of judges’ personal opinions is an important aspect of judicial independence. Due to the low overall quality of judges in our country, public collegial discussions can easily make them afraid to express their independent opinions, and become a vassal of the opinions of most judges, affecting judges. of independence. 2. In a social context where my country's administrative overtones are too strong and the principle of "law supremacy" has not yet been realized, the judicial committee and the collegial panel also assume the function of buffering the pressure of social case handling in certain procedures. Once the public review is made, it will bring trouble to the public. There was too much pressure to handle the case. 3. Different opinions in public deliberation will become an excuse for some parties to refuse to implement judgments and rulings, thereby weakening the authority of the referee and making implementation more difficult. 4. The legal protection mechanism still needs to be improved. A small number of parties will hold grudges against judges who hold different opinions, especially judges who hold minority opinions. They believe that the judges are stubborn and will cause them to lose the case, thus causing unnecessary harassment and harm to the judges. . Jiangxi Province Shanggao County People's Court: Zou Xiaoyuan expressed two different views on the collegial panel's approach in the judgment, and the author does not agree with it. The reasons are as follows: First, this approach hinders the overall consistency of the judgment. A good judgment should have sufficient arguments, rigorous argumentation, and rigorous logic, so that a logical and clear judgment can be reached and the parties can be convinced. If there are two or even more processing methods in the judgment, it will undoubtedly destroy the logical structure and overall coordination of the judgment, and even give people a sense of self-contradiction. Secondly, this approach can easily cause the parties to the case to have reasonable doubts about the verdict. The original intention of the judge in this case may be to make the parties more aware of the reasons and basis for the judgment, increase the transparency of the judgment documents, and improve the credibility of the judgment. But in practice, it is likely to backfire and produce the opposite effect. Because, compared to the parties to the case, the collegial panel and the judicial committee are a whole to them, that is, the referee of the case. Nowadays, even the referees have different opinions (relatively speaking, there is always one opinion that is more favorable to one party), which means that one party cannot be supported. Some requests are well-founded, and some judges are supportive. of. The parties concerned will naturally wonder, why does the final judgment not support my request? This may lead to unnecessary appeals, complaints and even petitions. Third, this approach is inconsistent with the direction of legal instrument reform. The direction of the reform of legal documents is to enhance the rationality of legal documents, so that people can clearly know the outcome of the case from the judgment, so that "win the case with dignity, and lose the case clearly." This requires judges to strengthen rationality in legal documents rather than being unconventional in form. The author believes that legal professionals should choose to be conservative in legal practice. It is very inappropriate for judges to create personalized legal documents based on temporary creativity without in-depth investigation and research. The legal profession focuses on rational thinking and does not encourage creativity. Jiangxi Province Fengcheng People's Court: The different opinions of the Hu Xiangrong collegial panel and the judicial committee should not be unified and emphasized in the judgment and should be made public. The reasons are: First of all, because the parties are limited by the legal level and legal quality, it is easy for the parties to raise inappropriate questions, and even suspect that the judge is bending the law for personal gain and making wrong decisions, which leads to an increase in the appeal rate, complaint rate and petition rate, and even the presiding judge is criticized. Retaliation. Secondly, public expression of different opinions, if the explanation is unclear, will make it difficult to refute the different opinions in the judgment, or even the judgment will appear far-fetched, which can easily confuse the public's understanding of legal standards and cause chaos in local social order and legal order. Thirdly, due to the uneven quality of judges, some different opinions are obviously wrong. Publicly publishing the different opinions that are obviously wrong will damage the overall image and internal unity of the judges. However, the author is not opposed to publicly publishing different opinions on complex and difficult cases in judgments. If done well, it can play a role in dialectical analysis and win the understanding and trust of the parties. The prerequisites are: 1. It must be limited to complex and difficult cases; 2. The presiding judge must have strong overall quality and high legal level, have a clear and accurate understanding of the case, and have strong persuasiveness in the reasons for the judgment. Otherwise, it will do more harm than good, so it is better not to make it public. People's Court of Cixi City, Zhejiang Province: Fang Qimin's judgment is the only legal evaluation made by the people's court based on the disputed facts of the case reported by the parties and relevant evidence provided, combined with legal provisions. What the parties get through litigation is nothing more than an either/or legal evaluation, and the work done by the court is nothing more than giving the parties a final conclusion of support or disapproval and explaining the corresponding legal reasons. The author believes that it is inappropriate to reflect the different opinions of the collegial panel and even the judicial committee in the judgment documents: first, it affects the authority of the court's judgment. Judgment documents are based on the judgment of the majority and form the opinions of the minority. According to the collegial principle of the procedural law, the conclusion of the judgment is formed by the majority opinion, and the majority opinion is formed by a collegial panel composed of specific judges. If different opinions are reflected in the judgment, even if the majority opinion is a definite conclusion, the parties and the public may still form the assumption that "if the members of the collegial panel are changed, different trial conclusions may be reached," thus leading to dissatisfaction with the court's judgment. Secondly, it can easily lead to lengthy and delayed judicial documents. Our country's judicial system pursues fair and efficient results, and judgment documents should reflect sufficient reasoning in a concise process. If different opinions are reflected in the judgment document, it is necessary to state the different opinions and their relevant evidence. When arguing for the majority opinion, it is necessary to refute the different opinions and use relevant evidence to prove the correctness, rationality and legality of the majority opinion. In addition to making it more difficult to understand the judicial documents, this will also incur certain litigation costs. Third, writing the different opinions of the collegial panel or even the judicial committee into the judgment violates our country's current judicial system. Our country's current procedural law stipulates that court hearings are open to the public, but the law stipulates that collegial panel deliberations be conducted in secret. Reflecting the different opinions of the collegial panel and even the judicial committee in the judgment is tantamount to making the collegial process and the judicial committee discussion process public in disguise. This approach breaks through the current legal provisions at one level. Yangzhong People's Court of Jiangsu Province: Yang Yun, I think that at this stage, our country's courts do not have the conditions to mark personal opinions or express objections in judgment documents, and it is not appropriate to cancel the formatting of judgment documents. The reasons are: first, not disclosing different opinions in the judgment document does not mean that the existence of different opinions is not allowed. The principle of confidentiality of the collegial process includes that the collegial process is not made public. Each judge participating in the collegial process should keep the collegial and voting results confidential. This is the result of full discussion on the basis of the collegial process, but the collegial process is not open to the public. There is no necessary connection between procedural transparency and judicial corruption. Secondly, my country's judicial authority currently has a low status in the public mind, and many fair judgments face the problem of "difficulty in enforcement." If it is included in the judge's dissenting opinions, it will weaken the authority of the judgment and may provide an excuse for the parties to refuse to implement the judgment or ruling. Third, the current trial tasks are heavy, especially the contradiction between the number of cases and the small number of cases in grassroots courts is very prominent. Many cases are tried by the collegial panel. In fact, more cases are handled by the undertakers themselves, and other members of the collegial panel rarely express their opinions. For cases where the subject of dispute is not large, the differences are not large, and the facts are relatively clear, it is particularly important to simplify the style of the judgment documents and formulate a unified format for the judgment documents. Because this method has low operating costs, high efficiency, simplicity, and is easy for ordinary people to understand, grassroots courts and tribunals are still worthy of promotion.