What is the fundamental reason why the quality of cases has become worse after the courts implemented the reform of the judicial system?Hello, Hunan Tianxing Education will answer your questions about

What is the fundamental reason why the quality of cases has become worse after the courts implemented the reform of the judicial system?Hello, Hunan Tianxing Education will answer your questions about my country's political, economic and social situation since the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee. Life has undergone earth-shaking changes. With the in-depth development of my country's political and economic system reform and the establishment of the socialist market economic system, the contradiction between the current judicial system and the market economy has become more and more prominent, and some shortcomings have become increasingly exposed, and it cannot adapt in many aspects. the needs of the market economy. In many aspects, it cannot meet the needs of the market economy. At present, judicial reform has received more and more widespread attention, and more and more people have expressed strong dissatisfaction with the so-called judicial injustice, which provides rare opportunities and motivation for judicial reform. Judicial reform has become a strong expectation of the whole society. Therefore, reforming the judicial system as soon as possible to maximize the judicial function of serving the market economy has become an urgent practical problem that needs to be solved. 1. The main problems existing in the current judicial system of our country (1) Localization of judicial power Since our country’s current local people’s courts at all levels are established according to administrative regions, their judicial power, human, financial, material and other tangible resources are all determined by all levels. The control and management of administrative agencies are specifically reflected in the following: first, the funds of local people's courts at all levels are provided by local governments; second, the staffing of local people's courts at all levels is determined by local governments, and judges and chief judges are determined by the people's congresses at each level and their chairpersons. Yes, staffing levels are determined by local governments. Second, the staffing of local people's courts at all levels is determined by the local government, and judges and chief judges are elected, appointed and removed by the people's congresses at all levels and their standing committees; third, the improvement of working conditions and the updating of equipment in local people's courts at all levels must go through Approval from local government and relevant departments. These institutional flaws have resulted in judicial organs being subject to interference or potential threats from local governments during the handling of cases. Therefore, local people's courts at all levels have lost their due neutrality as national judicial organs and have become judicial tools for safeguarding local and departmental interests. The localization of national judicial activities has reduced some courts across the country to "local courts", which not only severely restricts the development of trial work, but also undermines the unity of the national legal system and directly impacts the authority of national laws. (2) Administrativeization of judicial power Due to the constraints of traditional culture, the operation process of our country's judicial system has obvious administrative overtones. On the one hand, in terms of external relations between courts and other state agencies, courts are often regarded as departments responsible for judicial activities under the leadership of party committees and governments at the same level. They have different divisions of labor from other subordinate departments under the leadership of party committees and governments at the same level. The characteristics of the judiciary itself have been obliterated. On the other hand, from the perspective of the internal structure of the court, judicial administration is reflected in the formation of a hierarchy from the prosecutor general (president), deputy prosecutor general (vice president), division (section, office) chief to ordinary prosecutors and judges. The system is implemented according to the level of administrative officials. Salaries and bonuses are also uniformly linked only to their administrative levels. Administrative level has become the standard for measuring the ability and quality of prosecutors and judges. Therefore, the judicial process has a strong administrative color. It is difficult for judges to be independent and independent in judicial practice, which will inevitably affect the realization of judicial fairness. (3) The quality of judges is not high. The team of judges in our country was basically formed before the promulgation of the "Judges Law". At that time, people who did work as a substitute could become judges, court drivers and typists could be promoted to judges, and soldiers could easily become judges. The Judges Law stipulates that the starting point for a judge is a bachelor's degree or above. However, currently less than one-third of the courts in China comply with this requirement. For a long time, people's understanding of the profession of judges has been biased, which has led to deviations in the standards and procedures for selecting judges. This is reflected in the following: First, the entry requirements are too low, resulting in a low degree of eliteness among judges. In our country, in the past, the examination for first-time judges and the examination for judges appointed by the National People's Congress were not as difficult as the lawyer qualification examination. Regardless of whether they have received formal legal education, whether they are engaged in legal professional knowledge, whether they are engaged in trial work, whether they have trial titles, etc., they all belong to the ranks of judges. They are all called judges, which leads to the absolute huge number of judges in our country, which is incompatible with the prevalence of elitism among judges in the world. Second, the appointment level is low, which is not conducive to the improvement of judges’ status. Local people's courts at all levels are appointed by the Standing Committee of the People's Congress at the same level, and the appointees are not of high rank. Moreover, judicial assistants are appointed by the president of the court, and they belong to the judges. This undoubtedly weakens the nobility of the appointment of judges and in fact lowers the status of judges. The low quality of judges has a very negative impact on the work of the courts and directly creates two evils. On the one hand, unjust, false and wrong cases are often unavoidable. Due to the low quality of some judges, their low understanding of the law, their misjudgment of evidence, and their inability to perform highly professional trials; their case handling skills are low, and the problem of cases exceeding the trial limit still exists. Exist; some judges lack proficiency in and application of trial skills, have poor trial skills, cannot handle complex cases independently and with high quality, and cannot well perform their impartial judicial duties conferred by the law. On the other hand, judges violate laws and disciplines from time to time. Some judges even take bribes and bend the law, handling "favor cases", "relationship cases" and "money cases", practicing favoritism and malpractice. These two malpractices seriously undermine the authority of the court and judicial impartiality. (4) The trial method is unscientific 1. For a long time, we have pursued a trial model in which judges act arbitrarily and handle the entire process of case filing, investigation and evidence collection, trial, and adjudication. This kind of operation is often carried out in a closed "black box", which prevents the exercise of judicial power from being supervised and restricted, creating conditions for judges to favor one side. This kind of "black box operation" is difficult to guarantee the fairness of the substantive results. 2. The collegial system of courts and trials in my country In our country, the collegial panel and the trial committee are trial organizations. The collegial panel is responsible for hearing most cases, and the judicial committee discusses and decides on major, complex, and difficult cases heard by the collegial panel. However, in practice, many collegial panels are only responsible for reviewing the facts, putting forward opinions on the application of the law, and finally reaching the final conclusion by asking the leaders for instructions before making the final judgment and pronouncing the verdict, resulting in the "decision first and trial later" Phenomenon: judges only have trial power but no judicial power. The power of the judicial committee is too concentrated and the case is discussed too much. Power is too concentrated, cases are discussed too much, and most members of the adjudicatory committee do not participate in the trial of specific cases, which results in the phenomenon of judges not judging, judges not judging, and separation of trials; this is not only detrimental to mobilizing the enthusiasm of judges , and also artificially extended the trial time, leading to the phenomenon of exceeding the trial limit. As a result of collective discussions, responsibilities were dispersed, no one was held accountable for wrongful convictions, and accountability for illegal trials could not be implemented. "3. The court's trial results must ultimately be reflected in the judgment documents. However, the outstanding problem in the previous judgment documents is that they are unclear. There is neither reasoning nor legal principles for the judgment, which makes the parties dissatisfied and leads to appeals and complaints. Therefore, in order to achieve fair trial results, it is imperative to reform the legal documents that reflect the judgment results. (5) Effective judgments that are "difficult to enforce" should be implemented, and the legitimate rights and interests of the parties should be protected, which is to achieve social fairness. The basic requirements of justice and law are also an important function of the people's courts. However, over the years, the problem of "enforcement difficulties" in courts has not been well solved, and has become a problem that plagues the work of the courts and affects the country's reform, opening up, and economic construction. Prominent problems. The execution agencies are not affiliated with each other, their power is dispersed, and their equipment is weak, which seriously restricts the execution efficiency and affects the execution effect; the concept of the whole society to assist in execution is still weak, and there is a lack of due respect for effective legal documents; a few leading cadres abuse They use power to suppress the law, blatantly and illegally interfere with the enforcement work of the People's Court, and the effective legal documents are not implemented, which shakes the people's confidence in the country's laws and damages the dignity of the law. When disputes occur, many people suffer. The parties involved either "ignore the complaint" and admit themselves to be unlucky; or they try to solve the problem privately; what's more, they hire the evil forces in society to use "black" against "black", and the People's Court cannot enforce the law due to economic disputes. "Law." Criminal cases such as murder, kidnapping, and extortion caused by economic disputes occur from time to time, and "difficulty in enforcement" has become a major problem affecting social stability. (6) Serious judicial corruption Judicial corruption is the most harmful type of corruption in today's society, because it harms a country and a nation's belief and pursuit of fairness and justice. When judicial corruption manifests itself on individuals, it is the privatization of public power; when it manifests at local levels, it means the localization of public power. The powers granted to judicial personnel by the state have become a means for individuals and localities to pursue personal interests, departmental interests, and industry interests, and judicial activities have become a tool for power-money transactions. In recent years, some judges have eaten, taken, stuck, asked for and accepted bribes, violated the law in law enforcement, and taken bribes and perverted the law; some court relationship cases, favor cases, and money cases have emerged one after another, leading to the problem of judicial injustice; these judicial corruption phenomena have caused social problems. The strong dissatisfaction not only seriously damaged the image and judicial authority of the judicial organs, but also seriously damaged the high prestige of the party and the country. It has reached a point where it must be cured. 2. Some thoughts on the reform of my country’s judicial system (1) Reforming the judicial system and ensuring judicial independence. Achieving judicial independence is a necessary prerequisite for us to govern the country according to law and pursue fairness and justice. The country's judicial power can only be exercised by the country's judicial organs, and no other organ may exercise this power. To free the courts from the shackles of administrative agencies, it is necessary to reform the organization of existing courts, the procedures and methods for the appointment and dismissal of judicial personnel, and change the financial systems of local judicial organs at all levels. First of all, we must break the system of setting up judicial institutions based on administrative divisions and establish a judicial system suitable for China's national conditions so that the judicial institutions can get rid of the temptation of interests and the influence of other local powers. At the same time, the current fiscal and personnel systems of judicial organs must be reformed to free them from local financial dependence and local personnel control. The ways to solve this problem are: (1) Change the "parallel management" model to a "vertical management" model, take back the decision-making and supply rights of administrative agencies at all levels over judicial agencies' people, finances, and materials, and provide unified management by the central government. Local governments are no longer responsible for funding the judiciary. Give full play to the leading role of the central government in local judicial power and achieve the unification of the national legal system. (2) The administrative affairs of the court are subject to hierarchical management at the central and local levels. The central judicial administrative organ exercises administrative power over the Supreme People's Court and the Higher People's Court, and the judicial administrative organs of provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly exercise administrative power over the intermediate people's courts and basic people's courts. (2) Reform the judicial personnel system and improve the overall quality of judicial personnel. Reforming the judicial personnel system means transforming from an administrative management model to a model of handling matters according to trial rules, comprehensively improving the quality of the judicial personnel team, and establishing strict selection and elimination System: First of all, it is necessary to make it more difficult to obtain the qualifications of judges, strictly enforce the appointment and removal procedures for judges, control the selection process, strictly follow the revised "Judges Law", "Prosecutors Law" and the National Unified Judicial Examination System, and vigorously expand the qualifications of experienced judges. Channels for legal talents with formal higher education to enter judicial organs, establish a system for selecting prosecutors and judges from among lawyers, and resolutely prevent non-professionals from entering judicial organs to engage in judicial work. Prosecutors and judges with weak professional capabilities must be transferred or dismissed. Implement the selection of judges step by step, reduce the number of judges, and achieve the elite level of judges. Second, we must improve the training mechanism, implement a rotation training system for judges, and strive to create a group of expert judges who are proficient in legal business, familiar with international trade rules, and understand foreign languages. The third is to improve judges’ remuneration and attract outstanding talents from all over society to enrich the judge team. In terms of the reform of the court organization system and personnel system, we should gradually realize the decoupling of local courts and local governments, and reduce or eliminate the phenomenon of local protectionism in the judiciary through the reform of the personnel system. (3) Reform trial methods and ensure procedural fairness. Reform of trial methods should first focus on open trials. The essence of public trials is the presentation of evidence, cross-examination, certification and judgment in court. The entire process of identification of case facts and judgment should be in court. Conducted in public. Secondly, the court hearing method should be reformed: First, the court hearing method should be transformed from the interrogation system to the debate system, emphasizing the parties' evidence presentation, strengthening evidence cross-examination and court debate, and giving full play to the enthusiasm of the parties and their agents to participate in the litigation. Make the trial process truly a process for both parties to investigate the facts of the case, verify evidence, and argue arguments; second, implement an independent trial responsibility system, reform the current collegial system and judicial committee system, and establish a presiding judge system. Change the current collective responsibility system for trials, change the situation of trial without judgment, judgment without trial, and disconnection between trials, cancel the layer-by-layer approval system, and allow judges participating in case trials to enjoy the power of independent judgment and at the same time allow them to truly assume independent responsibilities. The collegial panel and the judicial committee should play a role in supervising and guiding the presiding judge, but they cannot bear responsibility for the presiding judge. Once judicial injustice occurs, the presiding judge should bear personal responsibility. At the same time, it is necessary to determine the behavioral norms that independent judges must abide by, and to make specific provisions on the consequences of violating the behavioral norms, so as to ensure that the trial is proceduralized under the premise of strict compliance with the system. The third is to simplify the litigation procedures, truly embody the principle of "convenience for the people", avoid duplication of work, and achieve the best trial results with the least litigation consumption. Expand the scope of application of simplified procedures, realize the separation of complex and simplified cases, and ensure the speed and efficiency of case hearings from the mechanism, so that general economic disputes can be handled and resolved in a timely manner. Fourth, if mediation is possible and the parties are willing to mediate, mediation can be done before trial or after trial. If mediation fails, the case should be accepted and heard by the trial court in a timely manner in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law. It is not appropriate to adjust the case for a long time. (4) Effectively solve the "implementation difficulties", maintain the authority of the law, and make the trial work fair, efficient and orderly. It is necessary to speed up the establishment of new systems and mechanisms for enforcement work and establish an independent enforcement bureau. , implement unified management and coordination of implementation work, and uniformly schedule and coordinate the work of the Executive Board. Unify management, coordination, unified dispatch and command of execution equipment and forces, organize centralized execution; determine key areas of execution and key cases, and organize the implementation of special executions of major cases. Courts at all levels also actively explore effective ways to solve enforcement difficulties, strengthen enforcement measures, increase enforcement efforts, punish criminal acts that refuse to implement effective judgments in accordance with the law, and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of successful parties in cases. Standardize the execution procedures and order, disclose all matters that should be disclosed in the execution order, increase the transparency of execution work, and consciously place the execution activities of the people's courts under the supervision of the people. At the same time, we will increase the protection and enforcement assistance for vulnerable groups and improve the credibility of enforcement. (5) Strengthen the judicial supervision mechanism and punish judicial corruption. Punishing judicial corruption and achieving judicial fairness is a long-term task. The fundamental measure to solve this problem is to promote judicial reform, improve the judicial supervision mechanism, and institutionally Ensure that judicial organs exercise judicial and procuratorial powers fairly and in accordance with the law. Our country's news and public opinion has always been dominated by positive reports. Judicial agencies, administrative agencies and power agencies have not formed an effective power check and balance mechanism. Due to the lack of necessary supervision and restrictions, it will inevitably lead to the arbitrariness and abuse of judicial power, and judicial corruption will inevitably occur. Not surprising. The author believes that in order to strengthen and improve our country's judicial supervision mechanism and give full play to the role of judicial supervision, we should focus on the following four aspects: 1. Strengthen the judicial supervision of people's congresses. According to the provisions of the Constitution and local organic laws, my country's people's congresses at all levels and their The Standing Committee is an organ of state power at all levels and is also a legal supervision organ. Our country's judicial organs, procuratorial organs, etc. are all elected by the People's Congress at the same level. They are responsible for, report to, and accept their supervision. Although the National People's Congress has indeed fulfilled its supervisory responsibilities to a certain extent, the intensity is far from enough, and there are many problems, mainly reflected in: the supervision agency is not perfect, supervision and guarantee are not institutionalized, and the quality of the supervision team is not ideal. Therefore, laws on supervision should be formulated as soon as possible, special supervision agencies should be established, and supervision responsibilities should be clearly defined. Due to the current serious problems of local protectionism and unfair judgments, there are strong calls for strengthening the National People's Congress' supervision of judicial trial activities. The author believes that it is indeed necessary to strengthen the supervision of the National People's Congress, but the supervision of the National People's Congress should be holistic, abstract, and general supervision, that is, through the phenomena exposed in a period of time and a batch of cases, problems are discovered, investigations are carried out, and the basis for decision-making is provided; and It should not be direct supervision of individual cases. In terms of specific operations, the National People's Congress listens to reports on specific cases, adjusts case files, and even puts forward handling opinions, and should not interfere too much. Even if individual cases are to be supervised, the focus should be on post-event supervision. If the supervision of the National People's Congress, especially the supervision of individual cases, affects the courts' independent exercise of judicial power, affects the court's final status in social disputes, interferes with the court's correct judgment of specific cases, violates the principle of judicial independence, and thus actually interferes or It is undoubtedly undesirable to deprive the court of its independent judicial power. If the National People's Congress finds that a court or judge has indeed committed illegal acts during the hearing of a case, it can recommend that the parties be held legally responsible, but it cannot give instructions on the case. Strengthening and improving the supervision work of the National People's Congress will help ensure that the judiciary conforms to the fundamental interests of the country and the will of the people from a macro perspective, and promote judicial fairness. 2. Establish an effective internal supervision mechanism. In order to ensure the realization of the value of judicial fairness in the trial management system, a strict investigation system for wrongful cases must be established and implemented. The restriction and balance of power is an important means to prevent judicial corruption. With the independence of trial organizations and the expansion of judges' powers, it is necessary to vigorously strengthen the restrictions and supervision of trial subjects to ensure that the entities are correct. The sole trial judge should be held accountable for wrong decisions made by the single trial judge. When a member of the collegial panel deliberately distorts facts or misinterprets the law when reviewing a case, resulting in an erroneous review result or a wrongful judgment, the member of the collegial panel who caused the wrong result should be held accountable. If the judicial committee studies the case, violates the facts, misinterprets the law, and results in a wrongful verdict, the erring member of the judicial committee or the presiding judge shall bear the responsibility. If a president or division chief is irresponsible for his or her work, is a selfish person, or refuses to correct his mistakes despite knowing them, resulting in a wrongful judgment, the president, division chief, and the erring judges shall bear corresponding responsibilities. Objectively analyze the reasons for wrongful cases, accurately define the scope of wrongful cases, and strictly implement wrongful case investigation procedures. Distinguish the nature and degree of fault of a wrongful case, assign the responsibility for the wrongful case to the person, and ensure the realization of the fair value of the entity. 3. Strengthen supervision of the People's Procuratorate. The People's Procuratorate is the country's legal supervision agency and has the function of supervising the trial work of the People's Court in accordance with the law. The supervision of the People's Procuratorate is a kind of supervision from outside the court. It reflects the mutual checks and balances between procuratorial power and judicial power. This check and balance must not only be reflected in the trials of criminal cases, but also be implemented in civil and economic cases. Internal supervision is definitely not enough. Without external direct supervision of individual cases, it is not enough to protect the rights and interests that the parties should enjoy. As the country's legal supervision agency, the People's Procuratorate should cover all areas of judicial activities, and should promptly hold legal responsibilities against a small number of judges who eat, take, ask for, get stuck, demand, salivate, and occupy during the litigation process. At the same time, we should reform the procuratorial supervision system, improve the procuratorial supervision system, and change the current weak situation of procuratorial supervision. Strengthen and standardize public opinion supervision. In addition to the supervision of legislative power, supervision of judicial activities should also be subject to the supervision of public opinion. The so-called public opinion supervision refers to the use of news media by the public opinion circle (mainly the press) to report on the process and results of judicial activities. , disseminate and comment to exercise the right of supervision. Some Western countries regard public opinion supervision as the fourth power besides legislative, judicial and administrative powers. In recent years, most major foreign corruption cases have been disclosed by the news media, such as the "Iran-Contra" incident in the United States and the Likurut case in Japan. Xiao Yang, President of the Supreme People's Court, emphasized at the National Forum on Court Education and Rectification that courts must consciously accept the supervision of public opinion. Except for criminal cases involving state secrets, citizen privacy, minor crimes, and criminal cases that are not open to trial as otherwise provided by law, all courts must consciously accept the supervision of public opinion. A public trial system must be implemented for all types of cases, and "secret operations" are not allowed. Allow news organizations to report truthfully and with a legally responsible attitude. The direct cause of judicial corruption is that some judges use their power to conduct various illegal transactions and operations before and behind the scenes, turning the trial activities that should be open into a "black-box operation" and the influence of news and public opinion. Supervision can be reflected in the objective, fair and comprehensive reporting of cases, so that the general public and all sectors of society can understand the court's trial process and judgment results. Being able to understand the court's trial and judgment results is a restriction on justice and can prevent judicial personnel from secretly committing fraud and perverting the law. This is a restriction on the judiciary, which can prevent judicial personnel from secretly committing fraud and making arbitrary judgments, thereby forming an effective supervision mechanism and eliminating the occurrence of judicial corruption. While we affirm the positive role of public opinion and media supervision, we should also see the negative impact of over-exaggerated reporting. For public opinion supervision and media supervision to play a positive role, they must be standardized. The reality is that, on the one hand, public opinion is not strong enough to supervise judicial activities and there is not enough social pressure; on the other hand, over-exaggerated reports may have an unfair impact on judicial activities. Undermining the independence of the judiciary and the neutrality of judicial activities. Therefore, we must pass legislation to standardize news supervision, curb and reduce irregularities in the process of news supervision, and avoid them from causing misdirection and interfering with judicial independence. To ensure the correct exercise of the people's courts' judicial power, the supervision mechanism must be strengthened. Especially with the implementation of the independent trial and accountability system of judges, the power of judges has been further expanded. If power cannot be supervised and restricted, it will inevitably lead to tyranny and abuse of power, and will inevitably lead to judicial corruption. However, while strengthening supervision, we must resolutely oppose interference in judicial trial activities. The behavior of individual leading cadres to represent the law with their words and interfere with the independent handling of cases by the courts is not only unfair supervision, but also illegal and must be resolutely corrected.