论人民陪审员制度存在的缺陷与完善
|
摘要
中国特色的人民陪审员制度已经走过了近八十年的风雨历程,充分显示出其在国家民主制度和司法实践中的积极效应和独特价值,值得进一步发扬光大。2005年全国人大常委会《关于完善人民陪审员制度的决定》出台,使人民陪审员制度进一步走向规范化。然而,由于立法过于原则,实践中出现了理解不一致、适用不统一和规定不到位等问题,具体反映在人民陪审员的选任方式、使用办法和管理考核等三个方面,这些问题有可能影响人民陪审员制度作用的充分发挥。本文从阐明人民陪审员制度的价值与功能入手,借鉴西方国家陪审制度的精髓,并结合司法实务,在实证分析的基础上找出问题、分析成因,针对存在的三个方面问题提出意见和建议。
The significance of the People Juror System is great; it is not only a judicial system, but also an important democracy system. Democracy is the value core of jury system. The People Juror System’s function manifests in seven advantageous: First, be advantageous to promote fair in the judicature. The citizen participates in judicial activities by juror’s status has significant meaning in ensuring fair judicature in the meaning of case. Juror’s participation will suppress judge to a certain extent some prejudice which will be constrained by the specialized angle of view or the profession benefit, it may also promote judge to handle a case with the sense of responsibility, thus will reduce fault emerging from neglecting in affirmation of the case fact. Second, be advantageous to the promote judicature democracy. The people’s juror comes from the populace, draws close to populace, and represents the populace. While comparing with people’s judge who proficient in law, the people’s juror has the superiority of understanding the people’s situation and knowing public opinion. He participates in the trial with the good and evil, the right and wrong consciousness which owned by the mass, draw on collective wisdom and absorb all useful ideas, thus effectively prevent subjective one-sided thinking and arbitrary acts of the judge. Third, be advantageous to promote publicity of the judicature. The people’s juror participates in the trial, it may enhance the transparency in judicature decision-making process, expand circumstances knowing range of the judicature decision-making and the radiating scope of justice administration, also expanded the way for the general citizens to understand the jurisdiction and to enhance consciousness of the legal system, reduce the barrier between the judge and the populace. Fourth, be advantageous to promote the reform of trial way. In order to Carry out the trial democracy, it’s needed to strengthen the authority of the collegiate bench, this will need to play the people’s juror’s role fully, change that kind of phenomenon like the Juror does not really give judge, and collegiate do not perform well. To carry out the open trial system, it must ensure the people’s juror to truly fulfill the responsibility. Fifth, be advantageous to promote the independence of jurisdiction. Participated in the judicial trial by the common populace, it may urge the collegiate bench to get rid of the excessively administrative interventions as well as the court interior higher authority leadership’s intervention, thus reduce the judge’s pressure coming from various aspects when making the judgment, and this is advantageous in strengthening the independence of the judicatory adjudication process. Sixth, be advantageous to reduce the judicature corruption. The populace participate in the trial as the juror, not only manifest the abstract judicial democracy significance, but also must be able to manifest the concrete democratic supervision’s content, prevent the phenomenon of black case work in the judicature, reduce the judicial corruption, and ensure the judicature’s fair and democracy. Seventh, be advantageous to construct the harmonious society. Through the bridge of trial jury, people participate in the management of the state affair legally in the judicial domain, which manifests the political status of the people which are the master of own affairs, then realize the organic unification of the legal effect and the social effect, reconcile disputes and conflicts to a maximum degree.
To establish the People Juror System with Chinese characteristics, it is necessary to profit from the Western Jury System; the enlightenment of the Western Jury System mainly lies in: Firstly, jury system’s goal lies in the discovery of the truth of case. It must affirm the fact before solve the dispute properly. if the case adjudicator is very familiar with the case situation or easy to infer the case truth according to the evidence, it will be quite easy to try; Once the judge is unable to affirm, it is better to invite the people who has related knowledge of the case and does not have the formidable conflict personnel with the case to participate in the trial, thus the problem will be able to solved well, also be recognized as the most effective way. Secondly, the jury system’s function may share the responsibility suitably. Once mistake appears, the juror from the populace which acts as the democracy symbol will bear more responsibility compared to the judge, thus reduce the judge’s pressure, also share the entire Judiciary’s responsibility, and reduce the national authority’s suspicion and the complaint. Moreover, the jury system also plays the function of assigning resources and enhancing the validity of politics. Thirdly, the jury system’s operation must pay corresponding cost. The cost mainly lies in four aspects like the nation, the society, the litigant and the juror. The four kinds of cost need to be weighted in a synthesizable way. It is not the case that the less the country adopts this system’s cost, the better of its effect, so, we cannot reduce the cost flatly or deny the cost which must be spent. Fourthly, the jury system’s achievements need knowledge to guarantee. The knowledge is the trial information, the question which the jury system needs to solve is one kind of knowledge-authority relational problem, that is, how the useful information of the discovery fact produce from one kind of power structure, so as to satisfy social and the litigant’s requirements. In the process of perfecting the People Juror System, we cannot imitate the Anglo-American legal system absolutely, but we must make transformation which conforms to the Chinese actual situation.
At present, to see from the angle of Grass-roots court, the People Juror System exist some insufficiencies in the aspects of appointing, usage and management: firstly, in the aspect of appointment of the people’s juror, regardless of the qualifications and the way of appointment, or various aspects of training, the tenure in office and the way of working and so on, the current standard and method of appointing the people’s juror does not ensure a more widespread citizen to participate in the trial, and falls into the Faults in arguing the elitism and civilian; secondly, in the aspect of usage of the People’s juror. Random drawing becomes just a kind of formality, even if uses the method, it still meets some difficult problem in practice, first, the people’s juror specialty is unsuitable, which is hard to play the role; second, as a result of random drawing’s uncertainty, often enable the people’s juror in place normally with difficulty; third, in the aspect of the management of the people’s juror. The current law stipulated that the juror and the judge have the same level authority, but some of the existing juror simply do not have the ability to fulfill the responsibility stipulated in the law. The people’s juror does not belong to the court, so it is difficult for the court to give restriction on them.
Various problems encountered by the People Juror System in practice have its history and the realistic reasons. The primary factor lies in the following two aspects: Firstly, the location of the People Juror System is not very accurate. All were changed as current needs, and lack of long-term plan. Secondly, corresponding matched measures concerning the People Juror System haven’t been carries out. In order to display the effect of the juror system, corresponding matched measures are required, such as make clear about the responsibility assignment and the scope of trial case which need to participate in and so on.
How to consummate the People Juror System, the author has the following considerations: First, in the aspect of appointment of the people’s juror, it is important to pay great attention to juror’s overall quality, simultaneously, manifest the juror team’s representation. Therefore, suggested that the establishment of the expert juror and the populace juror. Second, in the aspect of usage of the people’s juror, follow the principle of random drawing, but strengthen the drawing work in a scientific and reasonable way, suggested that the juror candidate should combine random drawing with individual willing of the people’s juror, and reduce the juror’s annual number of case for trial. Third, in the aspect of examination of the people’s juror, it is necessary to establish and consummate the examination method of the people’s juror. Suggested that the people’s juror’s authority, supervisory authority should be better exercised by the same level Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, and establish the juror responsibility investigation system.
The significance of the People Juror System is great; it is not only a judicial system, but also an important democracy system. Democracy is the value core of jury system. The People Juror System’s function manifests in seven advantageous: First, be advantageous to promote fair in the judicature. The citizen participates in judicial activities by juror’s status has significant meaning in ensuring fair judicature in the meaning of case. Juror’s participation will suppress judge to a certain extent some prejudice which will be constrained by the specialized angle of view or the profession benefit, it may also promote judge to handle a case with the sense of responsibility, thus will reduce fault emerging from neglecting in affirmation of the case fact. Second, be advantageous to the promote judicature democracy. The people’s juror comes from the populace, draws close to populace, and represents the populace. While comparing with people’s judge who proficient in law, the people’s juror has the superiority of understanding the people’s situation and knowing public opinion. He participates in the trial with the good and evil, the right and wrong consciousness which owned by the mass, draw on collective wisdom and absorb all useful ideas, thus effectively prevent subjective one-sided thinking and arbitrary acts of the judge. Third, be advantageous to promote publicity of the judicature. The people’s juror participates in the trial, it may enhance the transparency in judicature decision-making process, expand circumstances knowing range of the judicature decision-making and the radiating scope of justice administration, also expanded the way for the general citizens to understand the jurisdiction and to enhance consciousness of the legal system, reduce the barrier between the judge and the populace. Fourth, be advantageous to promote the reform of trial way. In order to Carry out the trial democracy, it’s needed to strengthen the authority of the collegiate bench, this will need to play the people’s juror’s role fully, change that kind of phenomenon like the Juror does not really give judge, and collegiate do not perform well. To carry out the open trial system, it must ensure the people’s juror to truly fulfill the responsibility. Fifth, be advantageous to promote the independence of jurisdiction. Participated in the judicial trial by the common populace, it may urge the collegiate bench to get rid of the excessively administrative interventions as well as the court interior higher authority leadership’s intervention, thus reduce the judge’s pressure coming from various aspects when making the judgment, and this is advantageous in strengthening the independence of the judicatory adjudication process. Sixth, be advantageous to reduce the judicature corruption. The populace participate in the trial as the juror, not only manifest the abstract judicial democracy significance, but also must be able to manifest the concrete democratic supervision’s content, prevent the phenomenon of black case work in the judicature, reduce the judicial corruption, and ensure the judicature’s fair and democracy. Seventh, be advantageous to construct the harmonious society. Through the bridge of trial jury, people participate in the management of the state affair legally in the judicial domain, which manifests the political status of the people which are the master of own affairs, then realize the organic unification of the legal effect and the social effect, reconcile disputes and conflicts to a maximum degree.
To establish the People Juror System with Chinese characteristics, it is necessary to profit from the Western Jury System; the enlightenment of the Western Jury System mainly lies in: Firstly, jury system’s goal lies in the discovery of the truth of case. It must affirm the fact before solve the dispute properly. if the case adjudicator is very familiar with the case situation or easy to infer the case truth according to the evidence, it will be quite easy to try; Once the judge is unable to affirm, it is better to invite the people who has related knowledge of the case and does not have the formidable conflict personnel with the case to participate in the trial, thus the problem will be able to solved well, also be recognized as the most effective way. Secondly, the jury system’s function may share the responsibility suitably. Once mistake appears, the juror from the populace which acts as the democracy symbol will bear more responsibility compared to the judge, thus reduce the judge’s pressure, also share the entire Judiciary’s responsibility, and reduce the national authority’s suspicion and the complaint. Moreover, the jury system also plays the function of assigning resources and enhancing the validity of politics. Thirdly, the jury system’s operation must pay corresponding cost. The cost mainly lies in four aspects like the nation, the society, the litigant and the juror. The four kinds of cost need to be weighted in a synthesizable way. It is not the case that the less the country adopts this system’s cost, the better of its effect, so, we cannot reduce the cost flatly or deny the cost which must be spent. Fourthly, the jury system’s achievements need knowledge to guarantee. The knowledge is the trial information, the question which the jury system needs to solve is one kind of knowledge-authority relational problem, that is, how the useful information of the discovery fact produce from one kind of power structure, so as to satisfy social and the litigant’s requirements. In the process of perfecting the People Juror System, we cannot imitate the Anglo-American legal system absolutely, but we must make transformation which conforms to the Chinese actual situation.
At present, to see from the angle of Grass-roots court, the People Juror System exist some insufficiencies in the aspects of appointing, usage and management: firstly, in the aspect of appointment of the people’s juror, regardless of the qualifications and the way of appointment, or various aspects of training, the tenure in office and the way of working and so on, the current standard and method of appointing the people’s juror does not ensure a more widespread citizen to participate in the trial, and falls into the Faults in arguing the elitism and civilian; secondly, in the aspect of usage of the People’s juror. Random drawing becomes just a kind of formality, even if uses the method, it still meets some difficult problem in practice, first, the people’s juror specialty is unsuitable, which is hard to play the role; second, as a result of random drawing’s uncertainty, often enable the people’s juror in place normally with difficulty; third, in the aspect of the management of the people’s juror. The current law stipulated that the juror and the judge have the same level authority, but some of the existing juror simply do not have the ability to fulfill the responsibility stipulated in the law. The people’s juror does not belong to the court, so it is difficult for the court to give restriction on them.
Various problems encountered by the People Juror System in practice have its history and the realistic reasons. The primary factor lies in the following two aspects: Firstly, the location of the People Juror System is not very accurate. All were changed as current needs, and lack of long-term plan. Secondly, corresponding matched measures concerning the People Juror System haven’t been carries out. In order to display the effect of the juror system, corresponding matched measures are required, such as make clear about the responsibility assignment and the scope of trial case which need to participate in and so on.
How to consummate the People Juror System, the author has the following considerations: First, in the aspect of appointment of the people’s juror, it is important to pay great attention to juror’s overall quality, simultaneously, manifest the juror team’s representation. Therefore, suggested that the establishment of the expert juror and the populace juror. Second, in the aspect of usage of the people’s juror, follow the principle of random drawing, but strengthen the drawing work in a scientific and reasonable way, suggested that the juror candidate should combine random drawing with individual willing of the people’s juror, and reduce the juror’s annual number of case for trial. Third, in the aspect of examination of the people’s juror, it is necessary to establish and consummate the examination method of the people’s juror. Suggested that the people’s juror’s authority, supervisory authority should be better exercised by the same level Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, and establish the juror responsibility investigation system.
引文
[1]汤维建:《英美陪审团制度的价值论争——简议我国人民陪审员制度的改造》,《人大法律评论》2000年第2辑,第37页。
[2]曹文振:《陪审制度的功效与借鉴》,中国法院网,2005年4月17日。
[3]肖扬:2007年9月3日在第一次全国法院人民陪审员工作会议上的讲话,人民法院网,2007年9月4日。
[4]叶青著:《关于人民陪审员制度价值的思考》,《华东政法学院学报》2001年第1期,第29页。
[5]王利民:《司法改革研究》,法律出版社2000年版,第390页。
[6]房保国:《我国陪审制改革十大问题论纲》,《上海法学研究》2001年第1期,第30页。
[7]蒙振祥:《陪审制的理性与理性的陪审制》,《现代法学》2003年第1期,第41页。
[8]李昌道、董茂云:《陪审制度比较研究》,《比较法研究》2003年第1期,第26页。
[9]蒙振祥:《陪审制的理性与理性的陪审制》,《现代法学》2003年第1期,第43页。
[10]何家弘:《陪审制度纵横论》,《法学家》1999年第3期,第11页。
[11]张志让:《宪法颁布后的中国人民法院》,《政法研究》1954年第4期,第21页。
[12]恩格斯:《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》,人民出版社1972年版,第132页。
[13]易延友:《陪审团移植的成败及其启示》,《比较法研究》2005年第1期,第45页。
[14]姜淑华:《司法社会化与人民陪审员制度的完善》,《山东社会科学》2006年第11期,第34页。
[15][法]路易斯·博洛尔:《政治的罪恶》,蒋庆等译,改革出版社1999年版,第268页。
[16]程雷:《人民陪审制度的现状及思考》,《人民司法》1997年第5期,第26页。
[17]魏敬胜、刘建军:《关于完善我国人民陪审员制度的几点思考》,《法学论坛》2000年第1期,第32页。
[18]陈开琦:《如何完善我国人民陪审制度》,《求是》2004年第5期,第35页。
[19]胡加祥:《人民陪审员制度构建的几点法理思考:写在〈关于完善人民陪审员制度的决定〉实施一周年之际》,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2007年第1期,第23页。
[20]姜淑华:《司法社会化与人民陪审员制度的完善》,《山东社会科学》2006年第11期,第34页。
[21]刘艺工、李拥军:《关于人民陪审制度难以执行根源的探讨》,《甘肃政法学院学报》1998年第1期,第22页。
[22]胡加祥:《人民陪审员制度构建的几点法理思考:写在〈关于完善人民陪审员制度的决定〉实施一周年之际》,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2007年第1期,第23页。
[23]裴凌晨:《论司法进程中法官与人民陪审员和谐关系的构建》,中国法院网,2008年4月2日。
[24]何家弘:《陪审制度纵横论》,《法学家》杂志1999年第3期,第17页。
[25]管丽琴:《人民陪审制度在构建和谐社会中的功能及其缺陷改造》,东方法眼网,2006年8月7日。
1.何勤华:《外国法制史》,法律出版社1997年7月第1版。
2.王利明:《司法改革研究》,法律出版社2000年版。
3.张明杰:《改革司法——中国司法改革的回顾与前瞻》,社会科学文献出版社2005年9月第1版。
4.强世功:《法制与治理》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
5.苏力:《送法下乡》,中国政法大学出版2000年版。
6. [德]黑格尔:《法哲学原理》,范扬、张企泰译,商务印书馆1961年版。
7. [法]托克维尔:《论美国的民主》,董果良译,商务印书馆1988年版。
8. [美]波斯纳:《法律的经济分析》(下),蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版。
9.汤维建著:《英美陪审团制度的价值论争——简议我国人民陪审员制度的改造》,《人大法律评论》2000年第2辑。
10.谭世贵著:《中国司法改革研究》,法律出版社2001年版。
11.王盼、程政举:《审判独立与司法公正》,中国人民公安大学出版社2002年1月版。
12.怀效锋、孙本鹏:《人民陪审员制度初探》,光明日报出版社2005年版。
13.李克:《贯彻<关于完善人民陪审员制度的决定>的实践与思考》,《法官职业化建设指导与研究》2006年第2辑。
1. [法]朱塞佩·格罗索:《罗马法史》,《比较法研究》2003年第1期。
2.左卫民、周云帆:《国外陪审制的比较与评析》,《法学评论》1995年第3期。
3.蒋惠岭:《论陪审制度的改革》,《人民司法》1995年第6期。
4.程雷:《人民陪审制度的现状及思考》,《人民司法》1997年第5期。
5.房保国:《我国陪审制改革十大问题论纲》,《上海法学研究》2001年第1期。
6.李学宽:《陪审制若干问题研究》,中国法学会诉讼法学研究会1999年会论文。
7.陈林林:《陪审在现代法治社会中功能》,《中外法学》2001年第4期。
8.魏敬胜、刘建军:《关于完善我国人民陪审员制度的几点思考》,《法学论坛》2000年第1期。
9.何家弘:《陪审制度纵横论》,《法学家》1999年第3期。
10.颜运秋、宁松:《论陪审制度的价值功能及其实现》,《当代法学》2000年第6期。
11.李昌道、董茂云:《陪审制度比较研究》,《比较法研究》2003年第1期。
12.王敏远:《中国陪审制度及其完善》,《法学研究》1999年第4期。
13.蒙振祥:《陪审制的理性与理性的陪审制》,《现代法学》2003年第1期。
14.叶青:《关于人民陪审员制度价值的思考》,《华东政法学院学报》2001年第1期。
15.公丕祥:《构建和谐社会进程中的人民法院》,《审判研究》2005年第4辑。
16.胡玉鸿:《“人民的法院”与陪审制度》,《政法论坛》2005年第23卷第4期。
17.夏菁:《完善陪审制度,实现司法民主》,《法学家》2005年第4期。
18.蒋安:《我国陪审员制度的当代命运》,《政法论丛》2000年第6期。
[2]曹文振:《陪审制度的功效与借鉴》,中国法院网,2005年4月17日。
[3]肖扬:2007年9月3日在第一次全国法院人民陪审员工作会议上的讲话,人民法院网,2007年9月4日。
[4]叶青著:《关于人民陪审员制度价值的思考》,《华东政法学院学报》2001年第1期,第29页。
[5]王利民:《司法改革研究》,法律出版社2000年版,第390页。
[6]房保国:《我国陪审制改革十大问题论纲》,《上海法学研究》2001年第1期,第30页。
[7]蒙振祥:《陪审制的理性与理性的陪审制》,《现代法学》2003年第1期,第41页。
[8]李昌道、董茂云:《陪审制度比较研究》,《比较法研究》2003年第1期,第26页。
[9]蒙振祥:《陪审制的理性与理性的陪审制》,《现代法学》2003年第1期,第43页。
[10]何家弘:《陪审制度纵横论》,《法学家》1999年第3期,第11页。
[11]张志让:《宪法颁布后的中国人民法院》,《政法研究》1954年第4期,第21页。
[12]恩格斯:《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》,人民出版社1972年版,第132页。
[13]易延友:《陪审团移植的成败及其启示》,《比较法研究》2005年第1期,第45页。
[14]姜淑华:《司法社会化与人民陪审员制度的完善》,《山东社会科学》2006年第11期,第34页。
[15][法]路易斯·博洛尔:《政治的罪恶》,蒋庆等译,改革出版社1999年版,第268页。
[16]程雷:《人民陪审制度的现状及思考》,《人民司法》1997年第5期,第26页。
[17]魏敬胜、刘建军:《关于完善我国人民陪审员制度的几点思考》,《法学论坛》2000年第1期,第32页。
[18]陈开琦:《如何完善我国人民陪审制度》,《求是》2004年第5期,第35页。
[19]胡加祥:《人民陪审员制度构建的几点法理思考:写在〈关于完善人民陪审员制度的决定〉实施一周年之际》,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2007年第1期,第23页。
[20]姜淑华:《司法社会化与人民陪审员制度的完善》,《山东社会科学》2006年第11期,第34页。
[21]刘艺工、李拥军:《关于人民陪审制度难以执行根源的探讨》,《甘肃政法学院学报》1998年第1期,第22页。
[22]胡加祥:《人民陪审员制度构建的几点法理思考:写在〈关于完善人民陪审员制度的决定〉实施一周年之际》,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2007年第1期,第23页。
[23]裴凌晨:《论司法进程中法官与人民陪审员和谐关系的构建》,中国法院网,2008年4月2日。
[24]何家弘:《陪审制度纵横论》,《法学家》杂志1999年第3期,第17页。
[25]管丽琴:《人民陪审制度在构建和谐社会中的功能及其缺陷改造》,东方法眼网,2006年8月7日。
1.何勤华:《外国法制史》,法律出版社1997年7月第1版。
2.王利明:《司法改革研究》,法律出版社2000年版。
3.张明杰:《改革司法——中国司法改革的回顾与前瞻》,社会科学文献出版社2005年9月第1版。
4.强世功:《法制与治理》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
5.苏力:《送法下乡》,中国政法大学出版2000年版。
6. [德]黑格尔:《法哲学原理》,范扬、张企泰译,商务印书馆1961年版。
7. [法]托克维尔:《论美国的民主》,董果良译,商务印书馆1988年版。
8. [美]波斯纳:《法律的经济分析》(下),蒋兆康译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版。
9.汤维建著:《英美陪审团制度的价值论争——简议我国人民陪审员制度的改造》,《人大法律评论》2000年第2辑。
10.谭世贵著:《中国司法改革研究》,法律出版社2001年版。
11.王盼、程政举:《审判独立与司法公正》,中国人民公安大学出版社2002年1月版。
12.怀效锋、孙本鹏:《人民陪审员制度初探》,光明日报出版社2005年版。
13.李克:《贯彻<关于完善人民陪审员制度的决定>的实践与思考》,《法官职业化建设指导与研究》2006年第2辑。
1. [法]朱塞佩·格罗索:《罗马法史》,《比较法研究》2003年第1期。
2.左卫民、周云帆:《国外陪审制的比较与评析》,《法学评论》1995年第3期。
3.蒋惠岭:《论陪审制度的改革》,《人民司法》1995年第6期。
4.程雷:《人民陪审制度的现状及思考》,《人民司法》1997年第5期。
5.房保国:《我国陪审制改革十大问题论纲》,《上海法学研究》2001年第1期。
6.李学宽:《陪审制若干问题研究》,中国法学会诉讼法学研究会1999年会论文。
7.陈林林:《陪审在现代法治社会中功能》,《中外法学》2001年第4期。
8.魏敬胜、刘建军:《关于完善我国人民陪审员制度的几点思考》,《法学论坛》2000年第1期。
9.何家弘:《陪审制度纵横论》,《法学家》1999年第3期。
10.颜运秋、宁松:《论陪审制度的价值功能及其实现》,《当代法学》2000年第6期。
11.李昌道、董茂云:《陪审制度比较研究》,《比较法研究》2003年第1期。
12.王敏远:《中国陪审制度及其完善》,《法学研究》1999年第4期。
13.蒙振祥:《陪审制的理性与理性的陪审制》,《现代法学》2003年第1期。
14.叶青:《关于人民陪审员制度价值的思考》,《华东政法学院学报》2001年第1期。
15.公丕祥:《构建和谐社会进程中的人民法院》,《审判研究》2005年第4辑。
16.胡玉鸿:《“人民的法院”与陪审制度》,《政法论坛》2005年第23卷第4期。
17.夏菁:《完善陪审制度,实现司法民主》,《法学家》2005年第4期。
18.蒋安:《我国陪审员制度的当代命运》,《政法论丛》2000年第6期。