The relationship between procedural justice and substantive justice in criminal proceedings is as follows:
1. Judicial justice includes substantive justice and procedural justice. Substantive justice is the justice of result, and procedural justice is the justice of process.
2. There are several views on the relationship between procedural justice and substantive justice:
(1) entity priority theory. (2) pay equal attention. (3) The theory of procedure priority.
3. Procedural justice and substantive justice are inherently consistent, and the ultimate goal is to solve disputes fairly. Procedural justice has the function of ensuring the realization of substantive justice. Because procedural justice and substantive justice have different standards, procedural justice is independent of substantive justice.
4. Due to the uncertainty of ascertaining facts and applying laws, substantive justice is uncertain, and the characteristics of procedural justice help to provide a legal basis for this uncertainty.
5. In the process of pursuing substantive justice, procedural justice should be given priority.
How to understand that procedural justice is the basis of substantive justice? Legal justice is divided into procedural justice and substantive justice. From the perspective of axiology, substantive justice mainly refers to the value standard that legislation should follow when determining people's rights and obligations; Procedural justice mainly refers to the value standards to be followed in the operation of judicial procedures. From the perspective of judicial practice, substantive justice means that the litigation result is produced on the basis of correct fact finding and meets the requirements of substantive law; Procedural justice refers to the value goal that legal procedures should achieve in the specific operation process. When there is a conflict between the two, the procedure shall prevail. This is because, first, procedural justice is the guarantee to realize substantive justice. Second, procedural justice itself is an important part of judicial justice. Third, substantive injustice can be restored through the second instance and retrial procedure, but procedural injustice is not. For example, the damage caused by extended detention to the parties is irreparable.
Judicial justice can be divided into two dimensions: procedural justice and substantive justice, right? Yes, judicial justice can be divided into procedural justice and substantive justice.
In the understanding of judicial justice, procedural justice and substantive justice are very important concepts. Procedural justice refers to procedural justice, that is, the judicial process should have due legal procedures and conform to the inherent nature of justice and the fair requirements of the operating mechanism. Substantive justice refers to the fairness of judicial entity results, that is, judicial results should be based on legal facts, correctly apply legal principles and norms, achieve judicial justice in dispute resolution, and dispose of substantive rights and obligations between parties. Substantive justice emphasizes the fairness of case handling.
At present, there are two diametrically opposite views on the relationship between procedural justice and substantive justice: substantive justice priority theory and procedural justice priority theory. The priority theory of substantive justice holds that the justice of judicial results is the priority and final justice, and procedural justice serves substantive justice first. Procedural justice is only a means, while substantive justice is the ultimate goal. This concept is deeply rooted in our country. However, with the advancement of judicial reform and the deepening of judicial theory research, the influence of this view in academic circles is declining. The priority theory of procedural justice holds that procedural justice is the logical starting point of judicial justice, and judicial justice is procedural justice. When procedural justice conflicts with substantive justice, procedural justice should be given priority. This view was put forward during the judicial reform in China in the late 1980s, and has now become the mainstream view in judicial theory and practice. Some people even claim that "procedure is the purpose and law is the procedure".
The author thinks that both procedural justice priority and substantive justice priority have some truth, but they also have their own shortcomings and defects.
First, the defects of the priority theory of substantive justice
First of all, the biggest defect of substantive justice priority theory is that it can't see the relative independence of the procedure and the value of the procedure itself. In many cases, the rationality of legal procedures can be judged without substance. For example, generally speaking, public trial is better than secret trial, and the procedure with parties involved is more reasonable than that without parties involved. The evaluation of the rationality of the above scheme can be carried out independently without the help of the substantive content of the law. This shows that the program is relatively independent of the physical content, and the program has its own intrinsic value. Bells, an American scholar, fully expounded the intrinsic value of the program itself. He believes that the intrinsic value of programs is independent of the results, and they are also independent of the results of programs. Chen Ruihua, a scholar in China, believes that the value standard of evaluating legal procedure lies in whether it has some inherent excellent quality, rather than its usefulness in ensuring good results. [ 1]
Secondly, the priority theory of substantive justice ignores the great significance of legal procedures to the realization of the rule of law. Legal procedure is not only of great significance for solving substantive disputes and correctly applying the law, but also of key significance for the realization of the rule of law. In the past 500 years, legal procedure has played an important role in the process of western rule of law. It and the legal profession are also called the two driving forces of the rule of law. Specifically, due process of law is the premise of equal rights; This is a mechanism to balance rights; It is the guarantee of legal authority; It is the guarantee of dispute resolution efficiency; It is a means to realize rights. [2]
Third, the priority of substantive justice is not conducive to the integration of China's legal concept with the world, and is not conducive to international judicial cooperation and judicial assistance. We live in the era of economic globalization, and international judicial cooperation and judicial assistance are the necessary ways to solve many legal problems. International legal documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have internationalized the standards of procedural guarantee and procedural justice. In order to fulfill our international obligations and better carry out international judicial cooperation and judicial assistance, it is necessary for us to emphasize procedural justice.
In addition, China's legal culture has traditionally lacked the genes of "due process" and "procedural justice". Since modern times, China's legal system and legal culture have been deeply influenced by continental law, pushing substantive justice to the extreme. In the process of building the socialist legal system in the early days of the founding of New China, directly influenced by the Soviet legal system, we emphasized centralization, ignored individual rights, emphasized entity and ignored procedures, which inevitably led us to strongly advocate substantive justice and ignore or even resist procedural justice in judicial trials. Such a result, even if the final judgment is correct, also damages the fairness of the entire judicial system, so it is fundamentally unfair.
Second, the defects of procedural justice priority theory
Procedural justice is a tradition of Anglo-American law, which originates from the ancient principle of "natural justice". In the long-term judicial practice, British and American countries have formed a tradition and idea of attaching importance to procedural justice, that is, not judging whether the judgment result is justified by some external objective standard, but enriching and attaching importance to the procedural process itself to ensure that the result can be accepted by the parties. The author believes that procedural justice is indeed very important, but it also has many shortcomings.
First of all, procedural justice may lead to substantive injustice of individual cases, and even lead to injustice of the whole society. Procedural justice is to adjust social relations with universal and general rules, which may cause injustice and irrationality in individual cases, and even cause more and more injustice to society. In fact, the American legislative and judicial circles, which have pushed procedural justice to the extreme, have realized many disadvantages of emphasizing procedural justice while ignoring substantive justice, and have taken some remedial measures, such as acknowledging that the evidence obtained from the "investigation trap" is legal and effective under certain circumstances.
Justice in law enforcement includes () A. Substantive justice B. Procedural justice C. Fact justice D. Legal justice AB. Justice in law enforcement includes substantive justice and procedural justice, which are two aspects of legal justice, while factual justice can be included in substantive justice.
In the current legal practice, should substantive justice or procedural justice be realized? Procedural justice is higher than substantive justice. Basic law. Failure to achieve procedural justice will damage substantive justice to a greater extent. Simpson case has become a classic case.
In practice, sometimes, there is no justice. Judging from the current level of rule of law in China, mediation should be the least controversial way.
Why should judicial work adhere to the concept of unity of substantive justice and procedural justice? A why should judicial work adhere to the concept of unity of substantive justice and procedural justice?
Justice should not only be realized, but also be realized in a visible way.
To realize judicial justice, we must always pay equal attention to procedural justice and substantive justice. Substantive justice and procedural justice are like two sides of a coin, which are interdependent and cannot be neglected.
First, substantive justice and procedural justice are the flesh and blood and soul of the criminal procedure law, and * * * together constitute the ultimate destination of the criminal justice system.
In the past, our judicial organs paid more attention to substantive justice, but sometimes they paid less attention to procedural justice, and the people were equally dissatisfied. For example, when the judicial organs handle cases, the final judicial rulings and decisions are made in accordance with the law and are fair. However, delaying one year, two years, three years or four years is like late justice. This is a procedural issue, and the people are equally dissatisfied.
Second, paying attention to procedural justice can solve the problem of judicial style well.
The handling of some cases may be fair in procedure and substance, but he is not satisfied because of the cultural quality or understanding of the law of the people. At this time, good judicial style and patient legal propaganda are particularly important.
Give a simple example. For example, there is a very filial child. Grandma wants to send some birthday presents, but she has no money. Seeing others selling some waste wires, he didn't have any waste wires, so he climbed a telephone pole at night to cut the wires, sold the money and bought his grandmother a birthday present. However, the wires he stole were only for production, or important communication equipment, even military facilities and so on. The procuratorate wants to sue him for violating the criminal law. But both the villagers and the children's grandparents argued that the child was a good child and a child.
At this time, we must patiently publicize the law and let the children know which article of the criminal law they have violated and why they should be prosecuted. Only by repeatedly and patiently publicizing the law and letting people know about it can you have no objection to your judicial decision. Of course, the procuratorate will definitely consider this child. For example, if he is a minor, there will be laws to deal with minors. If he is an adult, he can consider his starting point, whether he is a first-time offender or an occasional offender, and decide whether to adopt the principle of leniency. Therefore, it is an excellent judicial style for a prosecutor to seriously handle cases and patiently publicize the law, which also reflects the equal emphasis on substantive justice and procedural justice.
Third, solve the problem of judicial openness and protect the people's right to know.
The facts and laws of handling cases should be transparent. Be transparent about the criminal suspect, what laws are used to prosecute him, and what is the factual basis; We should be transparent to lawyers and society and protect people's right to know.
Four, effectively solve the problem of judicial purpose or justice for the people.
Our judicial aim is to serve the people wholeheartedly, which is hard to say. If we only pay attention to substantive justice, then in the process of handling cases, we will ignore the procedural provisions, do whatever it takes, and even extort confessions by torture, creating unjust, false and wrong cases. In the process of handling a case, if you don't follow the procedural rules, you are playing with privilege, overbearing style and substantive justice. People are not satisfied when they see it. Therefore, it is necessary to truly stand on the people's side and handle cases with the people's hearts. To put it another way, people will be satisfied with the administration of justice if they treat people's affairs as those of their relatives.
The definitions of substantive justice and procedural justice are listed respectively. The basic principle of substantive justice means that national judicial personnel handle all kinds of cases in strict accordance with the provisions of administrative, civil and criminal substantive laws in the process of law enforcement. The realization of substantive justice is to formulate a legal system, stipulate the working procedures of substantive justice maintenance organs, and finally promote the realization of substantive justice with procedural justice.
Basic principles of substantive justice:
1, act in accordance with the law, without favoritism.
2. Treat each other equally.
3, reasonable consideration of relevant factors, not arbitrary.
Procedural justice in a narrow sense refers to procedural justice in the judicial process. Procedural justice in a broad sense means that all state public authorities strictly follow the established working procedures, and it also includes state-owned (China-owned) economic entities and social organizations that strictly follow the established working procedures. All organizations that serve all citizens should have established working procedures, and they should strictly follow the established working procedures. This is procedural justice in a broad sense.
Basic principles of procedural justice:
1, inclusive. Procedural justice has a modern basic value orientation and incorporates the basic value concepts of equality, freedom and cooperation. This basic value orientation of procedural justice is first embodied in inclusiveness.
2. Multi-person participation. Relevant social groups should be given full opportunities to participate and express their opinions, so that they can fully express their opinions and safeguard their own interests.
3. Symmetry of information possession. Symmetry is very important and necessary for the whole procedural justice.
4. scientific. The scientific nature of policy formulation and implementation helps to ensure the timeliness and relative stability of procedural justice, and further helps to enhance the overall credibility and authority of procedural justice.
What is the division of judicial justice? A fair result, B substantive justice, C fact-based, D procedural justice answer BD. Based on facts is a principle, not judicial justice. Substantive justice and procedural justice will inevitably produce fair results, and there is no need to repeat the election.