| At present, jury system reform is an important aspect of judicial reform, especially prosecutorial system reform. Though there is much criticism about it, it plays an indispensable role in restricting absolutism of judicial independence, restraining abuse of prosecutorial power, facilitating relatively wide public opinions to substantially participate in the center of judicial powers and so on. There are five parts in this essay. It begins with the perspective that people supervise the prosecutorial power, introduces the origin and nature of jury system and analyzes Grand Jury system in the U.S. in detail. It makes a comparative study between Grand Jury system in the U.S. and People's Supervisor system that is in trial implementation in our country with emphasis on people participating in prosecutorial work. On this basis, it further discusses the rationality for the existence of People 's Supervisor system and its improvement. The first part introduces the history of jury system. The concept of "jury"and "jury system"originates in ancient Greek and ancient Roman in classic sense. The classic "jury"does not contain the definition of modern jury system, but it directly represents classic democracy. Modern jury system originated in England in middle ages and it was introduced from European continent. In the period of early feudal Frankish Kingdom in the ninth century, the king set up enquiry system in order to know about his authority over the country. This system was applied to jurisdiction. In 1066, as Duke of Normandy conquered England, this enquiry system gradually permeated into this country. Thus, the center of development of western jury system moved from the European continent to British Isles. In 15th century, there was grand jury and petty jury in judicial system in England. Jurors became the judges of facts of cases and their status is almost the same as the judges'. The judgment of facts was separated from application of laws, which was the main difference between countries of common law and those of continental law in judicial system. Later, many countries followed suit and almost all countries that claimed as democratic country or institutional monarchy had more or less adopted jury by 1850. However, after 1850, with development of the colonialist and imperialist trend throughout the world, especially the appearance of Nazis and fascists, most European countries cancelled jury system. Now, only the U.S., Britain and most commonwealth countries retained this system. Jury only plays an insignificant role in Britain, while its role prospers in the U.S. The second part elaborates the essence of jury system. Though there are many defic iencies in jury system, in the view of the author, the analysis of essence of jury system ought to be based on taking in its reasonable essentials. Jury system ought to be treated in a general sense. First, the primary mode of jury system which is practical is not related to democracy. Second, jury system only exists in some countries and regions. It is predominant in America. Third, the significance of establishment and application of jury system lies in the fact that it is the basic means for the society to share right of litigation and right of trial. It endows citizens with status of authority and provides citizens specific methods of really controlling process of litigation and trial. Therefore, citizens can actually restrain prosecutors and judges who represent the country. Fourth, jury system cannot represent the widest public opinion and its social representation cannot demonstrate the total restrain of process of litigation and trial by the society. Fifth, jury system has the practical foundation for long existence because of its spiritual principles. The third part introduces practical ways that jury system restricts prosecution power. First, it begins with the origin of prosecution system. Prosecution system in common law system emerged in Britain, while prosecution system in continental law system came about in France. In modern times, these two prosecutorial systems have tended to learn from each other and mix together. Born of the base of new democratic revolution prosecution system in our countr y, which, however, needs to be developed and improved has been established inaccordance with the situations in our country through learning from prosecution system of U.S.S.R. Every country restricts judgment of prosecution power in different ways in order to ensure its functions to give full play. Among these ways, it is very important and unique for the public to participate in prosecution work. Through the restriction of prosecution decision and prosecutors'detection, the Grand Jury system in America fully demonstrates democracy of law and participation of the public. In the author's opinion, in the present situations of country, time for applying jury system hasn't come yet. However, we shall learn from the positive aspects of Grand Jury system in America and establish a balanced system between social supervision and judicial independence. Thus, democratic supervision of litigation will not disappear because of judicial independence, and meanwhile litigation will not be intervened illegitimately becaus e of too much concentration on social supervision. In the reform of prosecution system, we not only keep the same basic essentials of it in our country as those in other countries, but also retain the particularity of it in our country and keep up the proper values of our country's prosecution system. People's Supervisor system that was established in October 2003 in our country adopts the mode of masses participating in prosecution with Chinese characteristics. The fourth part analyzes People's Supervisor system in country in detail. As for cases under investigation by the prosecution itself, it does not place the case on file for investigation or trial, does not propose a lawsuit of the case or draws back the case. It is the supervision of these negative actions of enforcement that have arisen many problems with prosecution and a lot of criticism from the masses because this sort of supervision is suspected of covering up for each other in terms of internal supervision. Besides, external supervision which belongs to normal supervision does not make substantial supervision effects. The establishment of People's Supervisor system not only conforms to value orientation of Constitution and laws, but also crystallizes internal and externalsupervision of powers in jurisprudence. People's Supervisor system and Grand Jury system have a lot in common with the public participating in the process of jurisdiction, especially supervision and restriction of the prosecution's rights by particular organizations. These two systems demonstrate humanism in guiding ideology when established. From future trend of development, these two systems have social foundation for long-time existence. People's Supervisor system is almost equivalent to Grand Jury system in terms of essence and significance. But they are different in quit a few aspects such as startup program, working method, functions etc. The fifth part proposes some ideas for improving People's Supervisor system, mainly concerning such arguments as follows: One, scope of supervision .Two, selection and appointment of people's supervisor that shall be more representative .Three, more of independence and justness for selection and appointment procedures .Four, possessing or not possessing the rights that the people 's supervisor has to review files and make inquiries and so on. Above all, as for People's Supervisor system, which emerges in the process of litigation, the author proposes, it is necessary to carry out social supervision on judicial practice in the litigation mechanism of modern democratic society, and that the People's Supervisor system can pay more attention to the rationality and completeness of this system in design through learning from positive and rational aspects of Grand Jury system in the U.S. so that the effect on democratic supervision of prosecution power can be in full play.
|
PDF Full Text Request