Discuss The Relationship Between Justice And Public Opinion Under The Guidance Of Judicial Public Reason

Recently, many cases, such as the Nanjing Peng Yu case, the Henan Zhang Jinzhu case, the Shanxi Yao Jiaxin case, Yunnan Li Changkui case, the Guangzhou Xu Ting case, and the Zhejiang Wu Ying case, attracted a lot of concern by the public, and impact the relation between the popular opinion and judicial interaction. The relation between justice and public opinion is becoming the focus by scholars. Faced with widespread concern about such cases, how to coordinate the relation between justice and public opinion, so that justice is widely recognized by the public, is an issue should be solved by the people’s court.Judicial public reason is rational application in the field of public administration of justice, which pursues the fundamental value of justice, and reflects fairness and justice of "overlapping consensus" in the public. Judicial public reason emphasizes consultation, rational dialogue and communication between the various subjects, so that justice can be in dialogue and exchange with the public opinion from the opposition to negotiate, to make the administration of justice both legitimacy and rationality. Judicial public reason has legally referee, reflecting public awareness, communicative rationality and other characteristics, enabling the judiciary to maintain its openness, to make judicial consensus on law and society found in communication with the public opinion, the realization of justice, the establishment of the Court and the public consultation and dialogue from the bridge. Under the guidance of judicial public reason and rational public opinion can get into the field of justice and the judiciary as a communication and interaction, so that the relationship between justice and public opinion should be to achieve a harmonious and stable natural state.People’s courts have been exploring the public judicial communication, access to social identity path, but the effect is not obvious. Many of the social concerns cases show that public opinion of the judges judge the results, and other reasons to question the decision. In the face of questions from the public, they often take judicial or arbitrary manner or passive response to public opinion, which results the current public opinion and judicial poor communication channels, justice and public relations tense. In public reason’s point of view, the relation between justice and reason public opinion is that the tense political rationality judicial strong in the face of social concern cases, justice often serve its political functions while ignoring the most basic functions of the law the referee, resulting in judicial response to public opinion often exhibit passive situation; when the skills of rational justice is weak, judicial technical judges biased, justice reasons the lack of public property, the judge machinery applicable law, contrary to the case referee social mainstream values and emotions have occurred, justice referee process and results of the lack of public reason, the impact on public trust in law and justice. Communicative rationality judicial shift, poor communication channels existing judicial and public opinion, public opinion is difficult to enter the orderly administration of justice through the proper channels of the public can not effectively participate in justice, reflect overlapping consensus of the community in communication. All in all, the current relationship between the judiciary and the public lack of effective judicial guidance of public reason, the relationship between justice and public opinion led to tension.In result, the judicial public reason should be regarded as a guide to reshape the relation between justice and public opinion. First, it is required to accelerate the transformation of the judicial political rationality, political rationality in making judicial guidance to public reason political demands of those in power up to the height of political justice, to avoid direct political intervention in the administration of justice, leading to the public through non-institutionalized affecting judicial channels. Second, it is also required to promote the upgrading of skills of rational justice. By culturing law judge and referee referee’s awareness reasoning ability to develop public awareness of judges so that justice reflects overlapping consensus of the community, to protect the referee process and the results reflect the public nature of justice. A referee’s decision according to the law is the best response to the legislative poll, which improves skills of rational justice and can effectively avoid the public opinion of judges and judicial technical way the referee questioned the reasoning. Third, it is required to construct the communicative rationality justice. By broadening the channels of communication existing judicial and public opinion, and public opinion innovative judicial means of communication, the public opinion about the law and justice "overlapping consensus" can be brought to the administration of justice among the public reason, so that public opinion can be institutionalized by judicial channels to enter the same time, to ensure judicial adopt scientific validity of public opinion.