Analysis On The Boundary Between Question Of Fact And Question Of Law In Criminal Proceedings

Although the people’s assessor system has been running for many years,its judicial function has not been effectively played in the trial practice,and the phenomenon of"accompany without trial,review without discussion" has never been fundamentally changed.Because of this,18 by the fourth plenary session of the "the central committee of the communist party of China decided to comprehensively promote the rule of law a number of major issues" explicitly pointed out: "the people’s assessors are no longer applicable law shall be gradually practised problem,only the facts involved in trial determined problem".Therefore,the mechanism of "factual trial and legal review" will be implemented in the cases of the people’s assessors participating in the trial.’s according to the President of the supreme people’s court zhou qiang "the supreme people’s court of the people’s assessor system reform situation of interim report,due to the judicial practice,identified problems and applicable law to the facts of a crime are often intertwined and hard to distinguish,cognizance and applicable law problems,how to differentiate between facts remains to be further explored.In this context,this paper discusses the distinction between factual and legal issues in criminal proceedings from the perspective of the reform of the people’s assessor system.This paper is divided into four parts.The first part is the necessity and feasibility analysis to distinguish the factual and legal issues.The necessity of separate facts and legal problems is to distinguish between fact and legal problems is to eliminate the disadvantages "with the job with right" is the inevitable requirement,is also the inevitable choice of judicial value of people’s assessors.Separate facts and legal issues of feasibility is that both have different connotation,on any separation of the facts and legal issues in line with the logic to analyze the problem,and in the practice of separation of the two different mode selection.The second part examines the comparative law between factual and legal issues.Contrapose the west mainly to divide the distinction between the facts and legal problems for the judge and jury of permissions,determine the scope of judicial review of administrative action and trial court and divided into three areas with the authority of the court of appeal.Outside dividing mechanism for the facts and legal issues in the theoretical circle has not yet formed a more consistent view of the typical "concept","distribution" and "functional" perspective.Outside the judicial practice,mainly through the judicial process and problems ofthe "three steps" list system by assigning the powers and authorities of office of the authority of the judge and jury solve the distinction between facts and law,and presents the historical and regional features.The third part is the distinguishing mechanism between factual and legal issues in criminal proceedings in China.This part firstly summarizes the status quo and existing problems of the trial judges in China.Then separate facts and legal issues in China’s standard relatively fuzzy problems,from two aspects of the concept level and application level distinguish between fact and legal problems of China may refer to the benchmark.In the end,the author puts forward some Suggestions on how to perfect China’s problem list system.The fourth part is the safeguard mechanism of the people’s assessors to decide the fact.The aforesaid mechanism for the division of factual and legal issues can solve most of the problems of factual and legal issues.But this distinction between established corresponding review mechanism means rather than aim,the jurors to recognized the fact that problems have clear case is more important is how to ensure jurors correct and efficient to make that.Therefore,we need to start from the four aspects of reforming the structure of judicial organization,defining the obligation of the judge,perfecting the evaluation and voting mechanism,and strengthening the information security of the jurors.