The Research Of Separation Mechanism Of People's Assessors

As the main symbol of judicial democracy,the system of people's jurors in our country has a short period of existence,lack of legislative support and public opinion,and there are specific issues such as the scope of application and the details of the implementation rules,the unclear division of jury and judge responsibilities,and so on.In practice,there have been many phenomena such as “accompanying and not adjudicating” and “formal jury”,which have hindered the progress of China's judicial reform.In order to remove malpractices and protect the rights of people's jurors to participate in the judiciary and supervise the judiciary,the Fourth Plenary Session of the18 th CPC Central Committee promulgated the "Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Promoting Comprehensively the Major Issues of Governing the Country According to Law." Separate trials will enable people's assessors to gradually participate only in the direction of reform of the factual issues of the case.In response to the spirit of the “Decision”,various localities have successively conducted trials to deepen the reform of the people's jurors system,formulated rules for the grand jury by reforming and participating in trials,formulated rules for distinguishing facts and applying laws,or introduced reality checklists to realize facts.The separation of legal examinations provides valuable practical experience for the construction of the triage mechanism.However,due to the high cost of the jury system reform and the lack of constitutional and legal support,when there are no feasible rules in the direction of reform,the corresponding problems are endless: factual issues and legal issues are difficult to distinguish.The unclear of the powers and responsibilities of judges and jurors led to difficulties in the selection of jury models.The uncertainty of the voting methods and the effectiveness of jury decisions resulted in difficulties in the construction of jury remedies and liability systems.This article mainly discusses how to construct the people's jury trial and the legal review from the concept of the triage mechanism,theconstruction significance of the triage mechanism,the domestic and foreign trial experience,the problems that may be faced by the triage mechanism,and the specific methods for the construction of the triage mechanism.Separation of the trial mechanism proposes ideas and elaborates.This article uses literature research,case analysis,and comparative research methods to analyze the practice of the jury trial mode,the moderate expert practice of the jurors,and the practice of the fact list system to compare and study the professional judges in jury service in the United States,Germany,Spain,and Russia.To formulate detailed rules concerning the division of jurors' rights and responsibilities,jury organization,court rules and voting methods,and combine with China's actual national conditions,analyze and draw lessons from the useful experience of China's judicial system reform,and construct a jury mechanism for people's jury in our country to improve chaos and jury chaos.This study finds that the construction of the people's jury trial mechanism has its positive and practical significance.However,how to conduct a triage,whether or not all jury trials are applicable to the triage hearing and how they should be reviewed,still requires a lot of theoretical analysis and practical investigation."The gradual realization of people's jurors only hearing the fact finding problem" is by no means a one-size-fits-all approach.The construction of the triage mechanism should be in line with China's reform requirements at this stage.It should specifically distinguish between the type of application,the form of jury organization,the distinction between facts and legal issues,and the form of jury voting.And so on,to build a dual-system trial mode and give full play to the value and function of the people's jurors system.