Have you ever imagined what it would be like if a legal trial was like a marathon with no end in sight? The contestants (the parties) are exhausted, the spectators (the public) are impatient, and the referees (the courts) are consuming resources on the endless track. Now, there are voices suggesting that we may be able to find a suitable finish point – the first instance final adjudication system to end this long race.
Imagine an ordinary civil dispute case, after the trial by the court of first instance, the judgment takes effect immediately, and there is no longer a long wait for the second instance. Such a system will undoubtedly greatly improve judicial efficiency and reduce the cost and time of litigation for the parties. In this fast-paced society, time is money and efficiency is life. The first-instance final adjudication system is like a shot in the arm, injecting new vitality into the judicial system.
But does efficiency mean a just sacrifice? This is something we need to think about deeply. The existence of the second-instance system is like a safety valve, providing a way for the parties to remedy. It ensures that in the event of a deviation in the judgment of the first instance, the parties have the opportunity to receive a fair decision. The second instance is like an insurance in the judicial system, guarding the balance of justice.
But let's go back to reality, how high is the proportion of the original verdict upheld in the second instance? The data shows that in mainland judicial practice, the proportion of second-instance judgments upholding first-instance judgments is quite high. Does this mean that the first-instance verdict is fair enough, and the second-instance verdict is just a formality? Probably not. The existence of the second instance is not only to correct the mistakes of the first instance, but also to supervise and balance the court of first instance.
So, can we improve the efficiency of the judiciary while maintaining fairness? The first-instance final adjudication system may be a direction worth exploring. However, this requires us to establish a more perfect first-instance trial procedure and improve the professional quality and adjudication ability of judges. At the same time, we also need to establish a sound supervision mechanism to ensure the fairness and accuracy of the first-instance judgment.
There is no absolute answer to this question. Both the first-instance and second-instance systems have their pros and cons. We need to weigh various factors and find a solution that best suits the mainland's national conditions. This is not only a question of reform of the legal system, but also a question of social justice and efficiency.
We have to admit that the improvement of the judicial system is a long process. In this process, we need to constantly explore and innovate. The final adjudication system may be a worthwhile option, but we need to carefully assess its possible impact. We cannot blindly pursue efficiency at the expense of the value of justice. In the same way, we cannot ignore the importance of efficiency for the sake of justice.
On this issue, we need more discussion and research. We need to listen to the opinions and suggestions of all parties and jointly contribute wisdom to the improvement of the judicial system. Because there are no bystanders on this issue, everyone is a participant, and everyone's voice deserves to be heard.
Finally, let's go back to the original question: is the first-instance final adjudication system feasible? There is no easy answer to this question. But what we can be sure of is that whatever system we choose, we must adhere to the twin goals of fairness and efficiency. Because in this era of the rule of law, justice is our belief and efficiency is our pursuit. Only by finding a balance between the two can we build a more fair, efficient and harmonious judicial system.
Readers, what do you think about this? Is it to support the first-instance final adjudication system to improve efficiency? Or do you insist on the second-instance system to protect justice? Whatever your position, I hope that you will actively participate in the discussion of this issue. Because your voice and your choices are crucial in this matter. Let's contribute our wisdom and strength to the improvement of the judicial system!