人民陪审员“事实审”的困境透视与司法选择——以《人民陪审员法》第21、22条为分析重点

Predicaments Perspective and Judicial Choice of People's Juror's Trial of Fact:Focusing on Article 20 and 21 of People's Juror Law

《人民陪审员法》第21、22条的规定标志着"事实审"在陪审领域的确立,但是根据法律文本的考察和既有陪审制度的实践来看,陪审员"事实审"还面临以下三方面的困境:新法规定的"法律审"和"事实审"难以做到泾渭分明;我国司法机关在多方压力之下形成的"规则依赖"惯性巨大,陪审员受其影响过分依赖证据而非内心确信进行审理与"事实审"的目标不符;越来越多的"科学证据"对建立陪审员制度的"知识比较优势"预设前提形成了挑战,进而影响到"事实审"的效果。通过借鉴域外的相关做法,可以着重从构建事实问题与法律问题的区分标准、创新庭审合议程序以及完善陪审员认定科学证据的相关规定等方面予以改进。

Article 20 and 21 of People＇s Juror Law indicate establishment of trial of fact in the field of jury system. However,according to law text investigation and practice of jury system,people＇s juror＇s trial of fact faces three difficulties. Firstly,trial of fact and trial of law can＇t be distinct from each other. Secondly,judicial organs are easily influenced by inertia effect of rule reliance,which makes juror reach verdict by evidence,not inner belief are inconsistent with the fundamental goal of trial of fact. Thirdly,more and more important scientific evidence challenges the presupposition of juror＇s comparative advantage of knowledge,which influences the effect of trial of fact. To draw lessons from other regions,people＇s juror＇s trial of fact should be perfected through division standard construction between issue of fact and issue of law,innovation of panel discussion procedure and regulations improvement of people＇s juror＇s cognizance to scientific evidence.