建党以来人民陪审制的历史变迁——以人民陪审员职权变迁为主线

Historical Changes of People's Jury System Since the Founding of the Party——Focusing on the changes of allocation of juror's power

人民陪审制是人民民主专政在司法领域的重要体现,而陪审员的职权配置直接关乎人民陪审制的实施效果。建党至今,陪审员职权配置历经了“职权同一”模式、“职权分离”模式和“二元模式”三个阶段。而陪审员的职权变迁与时代背景、历史环境等改变密切相关。伴随着司法改革进入深水区,当前法院案件数量日益增多、案件性质日益复杂,“职权同一”模式已无法发挥陪审员的优势,改革试点期间尝试的“职权分离”模式虽强调发挥陪审员的优势,但与我国现有诉讼制度的匹配度不尽人意。《陪审员法》确立的“二元模式”是基于当前司法实践作出的折中选择,也是最合适的选择。为了更好地落实“二元模式”,我们必须回归中国的逻辑,遵循司法传统、立足司法实践,正确认识“二元模式”的价值,使陪审员和法官各取所长,让陪审制切实成为连接司法与民意的桥梁。

People's jury system is an important manifestation of people's democratic dictatorship in the field of justice,and the authority configuration of jurors is directly related to the implementation effect of people's jury system.Since the founding of the Party,the authority configuration of jurors has gone through three stages:the“same authority”mode,the“separation authority”mode and“dual mode”.However,the change of jurors'authority is closely related to the changes of the historical background and environment.With the judicial reform entering the deep water zone,the current number of court cases is increasing and the nature of cases is becoming more and more complex.The“same authority”mode has been unable to give full play to the advantages of jurors.Although the“separation authority”mode tried during the pilot reform period emphasizes the advantages of jurors,its matching degree with the existing litigation system in China is unsatisfactory.The“dual mode”established by the Jury Act is a compromise choice based on current judicial practice,and it is also the most appropriate choice.In order to better implement the“dual mode”,we must return to Chinese logic,follow judicial traditions,base on judicial practice,and correctly understand the value of the“dual mode”,so that jurors and judges can learn from each other and make the jury system a bridge connecting justice and public opinion.