七人合议庭在刑事案件中的适用——对《人民陪审员法》第16条第1项的法教义学解释

On the Application of Seven-Person Collegial Panel in Criminal Cases——Legal Dogmatics Interpretation of Item 1 of Article 16 of the Law on People’s Assessors

据调研可知,七人合议庭在可能判处十年有期徒刑以上刑罚的刑事案件中适用情况并不理想。最高人民法院相关部门曾公开表态,合议庭的组成由人民法院依职权决定,当事人无权就合议庭组成提起上诉。人民陪审员制度除服务审判工作的功能外,还有监督、制约法院的功能,将是否使用人民陪审员,以及采用何种形式的陪审完全交给法院决定并不适当。同时,在符合条件的刑事案件中,获得陪审应当成为被告人的一项权利。被告人认罪认罚的案件不应被自动排除适用七人合议庭。基于法教义学的立场,应当对《人民陪审员法》第16条第1项重新解释,如果被告人可能被判处十年有期徒刑以上刑罚,即推定“社会影响重大”,应当适用七人合议庭进行审判。

According to researches, the application of seven-person collegial panel in criminal cases concerning the sentence of fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years is unsatisfactory. The relevant departments of the Supreme People’s Court have stated publicly that the impanelling of collegial panel should be decided by people’s court according to its authority and the parties have no right to appeal against the impanelling of collegial panel.The system of people’s assessors not only provides services for judicial work, but also imposes the supervision and restrictions on courts. So it is improper for the court to decide whether to use people’s assessors and which type of jury system should be adopted at its sole discretion. Meanwhile, in the criminal cases meeting the conditions, access to jury trial should be regarded as a right of the defendant. As for the cases that defendants plead guilty and accept punishment, the application of seven-person collegial panel should not be excluded automatically. Based on legal dogmatics, item 1 of Article 16 of the Law on People’s Assessors should be reinterpreted. If the defendant is likely to be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of more than ten years, to wit the presumption of “significant social influence”, the trial should be conducted by the seven-person collegial panel.