On New Year's Day 2024, at the beginning of the new year, everything will be renewed, and a new scene will be seen! So, should the judiciary also be reformed?
I have been engaged in the work of a lawyer for 28 years, and I have gained too much profound experience in my specific legal practice, so why is it that the phenomena of judicial injustice and arbitrary judgment cannot always be stopped? I think we should start with the building of the legal system. This is due to loopholes in the rule of law. It is only in the legal system that there are serious deficiencies in the legal system that lead to the emergence of unfair judicial adjudication and arbitrary adjudication in the course of handling cases, and the emergence of the broad masses of the people having opinions on the court's judgments.
The mainland's current adjudication system is a four-tier, two-instance final adjudication system. The courts include the Supreme People's Court, the High People's Court, the Intermediate People's Court, and the Basic People's Court. Generally, a case is final only after two trials have been studied, and only then will the legal document take legal effect.
I think this kind of trial system should be changed to a "three-tier, two-instance final adjudication system".
The Intermediate People's Courts will be eliminated and the Supreme People's Court, the High People's Courts, and the Basic People's Courts will be retained.
At present, I think that the court of second instance is just going through the motions, which is a great waste of judicial resources.
In a civil case, for example, if a person is dissatisfied with the judgment of the first instance and then appeals to the Intermediate People's Court, the Intermediate People's Court has a rate of between 5 and 10 percent. If they are not satisfied with the effective judgment of the second instance, they will apply to the Intermediate People's Court for a retrial, but it will be rejected, and then apply to the People's Procuratorate of the People's Court (prefecture and city level) (provincial level) to raise a prosecutorial counter-appeal.
Look at how many judicial resources have been wasted! The results are not good.
In my opinion, it is better to remove the level of the Intermediate People's Court and handle it directly in the High People's Court. There is no need to apply for a retrial, nor does it need to apply for a protest.
Judging from the current situation of intermediate people's courts hearing second-instance cases, it is the norm not to hold in-court hearings, and in-court sessions are the exception. Originally, the Procedural Law stipulated that second-instance cases should be tried in court, with the exception of not holding in-court trials, but the second-instance court's indiscriminate use of this non-in-court hearing has made it the norm! The appellant and the appellee do not have any right to make a decision, and even if the appellant and the appellee request to hold a court hearing, the court of second instance will not ignore it. The most important thing is that the second-instance trial judge does not strictly hear the second-instance trial case, and there is no effective legal responsibility, nor does he have any legal responsibility.
I think the second instance is safeguarding the seriousness of the law and the importance of upholding fairness and justice!
What is important is whether the second-instance trial can effectively correct the erroneous judgment of the first instance and make the final check; If the court of second instance is on official business in Hulun, then the appellant's legitimate rights will not be effectively protected, the last bottom line of judicial relief will be lost, and it will be impossible for the state's laws to be effectively enforced.
The people's procuratorate has the duty of legal supervision. Although the Supreme People's Procuratorate has formulated relevant rules for legal supervision and has played a tremendous role in legal practice, it has played a tremendous role in the people's courts' adjudication and enforcement work! However, these are only rules formulated by the people's procuratorates themselves. So, as far as the courts are concerned, are they willing to accept the supervision of the people's procuratorate? I have had the privilege of attending a meeting in which the people's court, the procuratorate, and the lawyers jointly participated, and the legal supervision meeting convened by the people's procuratorate showed that the lawyers were very supportive of the people's procuratorate's legal supervision work, and were the comrades of the people's court willing to accept the people's procuratorate's legal supervision? Because this is the work of finding fault in the work of the courts, how can people be willing? It was just a meeting convened by the people's procuratorate, and they had to attend.
I have also sometimes applied to the people's procuratorate to exercise legal supervision over the work of the courts. Their legal supervision has worked very well! But they have also talked to me about it, and that's all they can do. This is also the work that the Supreme People's Procuratorate can only engage in after it has made supervision rules. They also want to do a better job in legal supervision.
In my opinion, the assumption of the court of second instance is as follows: 1. All cases must be heard in court, excluding the exceptions of written trials and court investigations.
2. When the trial is held, it is necessary for the people's procuratorate to conduct legal supervision at the scene of the trial, and after the case is concluded, the people's procuratorate shall hear the opinions of the appellant and the appellee, and decide whether the people's procuratorate will decide to initiate a prosecutorial counter-appeal.
The Supervisory Committee appeared in court.
After the conclusion of the second-instance trial procedure, there will be no application procedure for the appellant and the appellee to apply for a people's retrial.
If the applicant and the respondent are not satisfied with the judgment of the court of second instance, they can only apply to the people's procuratorate for a protest procedure.
The court of second instance shall establish civil, administrative, criminal, and enforcement divisions.
Combine the people's procuratorates and supervision commissions with personnel to carry out legal oversight of special cases.
The role of legal supervision has changed supervision after the fact into a combination of supervision during the event and supervision after the fact, with supervision in the course of the matter as the mainstay.
I think that at present, the financial situation is tight, and removing the level of an intermediate people's court can greatly reduce the financial burden!
From a professional point of view, the handling of cases of the same nature by a professional second-instance court will be more specialized, allowing judges to take the road of specialization.
The people's procuratorate's involvement in the specific work of the case can more effectively prevent the occurrence of judicial corruption. Give practical effect to the people's procuratorate's role in legal supervision.
It also allows the work of the Supervision Commission to be implemented in the specific work in the judicial field, effectively promoting the effective operation of the state apparatus.
The levels of the central, provincial, and county levels of the state can be unified with those of the Supreme People's Court, provincial (autonomous region) high people's courts, and basic level people's courts. It can also effectively eliminate the influence of the relevant local rights departments on the interference of the second-instance (intermediate) people's courts.
The above is Houlong's own overall concept for the construction of the country's legal system.
After the building of the legal system is complete, there will be a great improvement in the specific legal environment.
The relevant mechanisms for pursuing wrongful cases must be properly implemented, and it is necessary not only to investigate internal administrative responsibility, but more importantly, to investigate the criminal liability and civil liability of judges handling wrongful cases. State compensation laws also need to be improved.
Anyone with insight is welcome to participate in the discussion. I hope that the country's top leaders will see my views. Is it possible to promote the building of our country's legal system and effectively carry out the rule of law ourselves?
