摘要
从大陆法系的参审制，到英美法系的陪审团制，学界普遍认为这是司法民主的发展使然，是公民权制约司法权的逻辑连点，而我国的人民陪审员制度由于制度设计不合理，实践中形式化问题严重。2010年河南省高院在全省各级法院推行了“人民陪审团”试点改革，试图通过制度创新，改革现有人民陪审员制度的缺陷，提升司法公信力。“人民陪审团”自试点以来一直备受争议，学界也曾以怀疑的态度对之进行学术批判，称其为“不伦不类，非驴非马”。面对转型期中国司法公信力和权威的不足，“人民陪审团”能否承担起提升司法公信力的重任？问题的回答还需从实践的角度予以把握。研究中国司法改革中已经发生的人民陪审团试点，并对之进行概念化和理论提升，从而重新认识“人民陪审团”试点的制度张力。
From the assessor in the continental law system to the jury in the Anglo-American law system, the jury academics generally hold that it is the result of judicial democracy development and logic connection of citizenship constraining judicial rights. While in China the people＇s jury system is quite superficial in practice for its unreasonable system design. In 2010, to improve judicial credibility, Henan High Court carried out ＂the people＇s jury＂ pilot reform in all courts of Henan province with system innovation and remedies to the existing people＇s jury system. The people＇s jury has been controversial since the very beginning, and the academics have also once doubted with academic criticism, labelling it ＂unorthodox＂. Lack of judicial credibility and authority during its transition, can ＂the people＇s jury＂ assume the credibility？ The question can be addressed from a practical perspective to research such a pilot program, its coneeptuation and theory building, thus re-evaluate the strength of ＂the people＇s jury＂ pilot system.
