司法公正与法官精英化

法官素质对于司法公正意义重大。只有高素质的法官审判案件，司法公正才有了基本的保障。而长期以来我国在选任法官时片面强调政治素质，导致法官业务紊质不高，这是我国目前许多地方存在司法不公的一个重要原因。…….     

改革完善法官制度之管见

党的十五大提出了“推进司法改革”的任务，它的最终目标是要建立一整套能够保证独立、公正审判的有权威的司法制度。司法改革是一项系统工程，其中根本性的改革是在于克服司法权地方化的司法体制改革，关键性的改革是在于建立一支高素质法官队伍的法官制度改革。对于前一个问题，笔者已在《司法体制改革刍议》一文中作了探讨和阐述。本文拟对后一个问题作一些探讨，提出一些建议。一、法官的素质要高、地位要优、待遇要丰，这是世界各国的通例法院职掌国家的司法审判．是社会公正的最后一道防线。而审判是由法官具体负责进行和运作的。法官…     

法官自由裁量权论纲

法官自由裁量权是一种制度化的司法权力，体现了某种自由，但不是任意的和不受约束的自由，它是法官正当司法权力的运用，是制约法官滥用权力的一种武器。其特征反映在权力性质、表现形式、权力内容和权力界限诸方面。其权能贯穿于法官司法的全过程。司法过程无法排除人的因素，因而法官自由裁量权必须存在。法律对法官角色的认可、品质的设定和专业素质等要求，使得只有法官才能行使自由裁量权     

阳城县人民法院推进廉政文化建设

随着司法改革的不断推进，提升法院整体形象，增强法官群体素质，促进公正与效率的实现，已经逐渐成为人民法院和广大法官的共识。作为法院文化建设重要组成部分之一的法院廉政文化建设，对于加强反腐倡廉教育，提高法官整体素质，摊进法官职业道德建设具有十分重要的积极作用。     

再论中国法官的素质

笔者在去年《人民司法》第９期发表了一篇文章，从中国法官的专业化水平、司法经验和职业操守等方面对中国法官的素质作过一些分析。现笔者试通过对中国法官人数、岗位分布情况以及中国法官审理案件情况的分析，对中国法官的素质作进一步探讨。中国法官的人数从某种意义上说，法官人数是法官整体素质的一种量化的、外在的表现形式。一般说来，法官人数太多，通常反映出法官的整体素质不高。有人曾作过这样的推论：法官素质不高，必然产生效率低下导致案件积压，故而要么牺牲质量求数量，要么增加法官人数，①即所谓“质不够，量来凑”。从逻…     

我国法官选任制度研究

“法律是靠人来执行的，司法的权力如果经过无知和盲从的非职业者之手，那么再神圣纯洁的法律也都会变质。” 经过二十余年的司法改革，我国的法治状况已经有了的长足的发展。但历史和政治体制等多种原因造成的司法人员的低素质而导致司法不公正和司法腐败的问题已经严重影响了司法的形象和权威，无法与繁荣发展的市场经济和诉讼的繁多复杂相适应。法律界于是开始把关注的视角从法律制度和法律技术层面的变革转向司法主体—法院及法官制度的变革。手握司法权柄的一个个具体的法官是司法公正和司法效率的最终实现者，因此如何建设一支适应现代法治要求的职业化法官队伍成为新世纪司法改革“公正和效率”主题中的焦点，而法官选任制度是法官职业化建设的起点和守护神。科学合理的法官选任制度的构建无疑将对整个司法改革起到重要的作用，尽管它必然离不开外部政治体制配套改革和内部其他法官制度改革的支持。本文拟在探讨法官选任制度的意义及现代法治对法官素质要求的基础上，对我国法官选任制度与国外法治发达国家法官选任制度进行比较，进而对我国法官选任制度改革中一些具体制度的改革提出建议。     

论法官的素质

随着依法治国方略的实施和司法改革的深化,法官素质问题正受到越来越多的关注,并成为世纪初的改革热点和难点。法官素质应当作为司法改革的重要内容,而司法改革的成败很大程度上也将取决于法官素质能否得到切实提高。而且,法官素质最终也决定着人民法院能否在全社会真正树立起崇高的司法权威。     

法官与司法效率

司法效率指的是以最小的司法成本获得公正的裁判,法官是影响司法效率的重要因素之一,配置合理数量的法官、提高法官素质、保证法官独立以及让法官承担严格的责任等是提高司法效率的重要举措。     

我国民事审判思维方法的构建与应用

司法实务中，任何裁判结论的得出都是法官动态思维活动的结晶，而任何法官在思维过程中都会自觉或不自觉地运用一定的方法，此即所谓“审判思维方法”。科学的审判思维方法有助於促进公正、高效司法，有助於法官素质的提升和法学研究的深入，更有助於保障民主政治和市场经济的发展。     

论法官素质

随着依法治国方略的实施和司法改革的深化,法官素质问题正受到越来越多的关注,并成为世纪之交的改革热点和难点。法官素质应当作为司法改革的重要内容,而司法改革的成败很大程度上也将取决于法官素质能否得到切实提高。而且,法官素质最终也决定着人民法院能否在全社会真正树立起崇高的司法权威。法官是什么样的职业和群体？法官法规定,法官是依法行使国家审判权的审判人员。这个规定简明清晰,同时也勾划出了法官的本质特征：其一,法官是审判人员,而不是公务员;其二,法官是行使国家审判权的法定主体;其三,法官以根据法律裁决社会…     

Lawlessness in the Federal Sentencing Process: A Test for Uniformity and Consistency in Sentence Outcomes

One of the important goals of the federal sentencing guidelines was to reduce inter‐judge disparity in sentencing. In this paper, we test the assumption that structuring discretion produced uniformity in federal sentencing and consistency in the process by which judges arrive at the appropriate sentence. We also examine whether background characteristics of judges affect the sentences they impose on similarly situated offenders. We used hierarchical linear modeling, nesting the offenders in the judges that sentenced them in order to examine the sentencing decisions of federal judges in three U.S. District Courts. While we found that significant variation between judges in sentencing is largely accounted for by our level 1 characteristics, we also found that judges arrive at decisions regarding the appropriate sentence in different ways, by attaching differential weights to several of the legally relevant case characteristics and legally irrelevant offender characteristics.     

Judicial Independence, Judicial Promotion and the Enforcement of Legislative Wealth Transfers—An Empirical Study of the New Zealand High Court

This paper investigates the Landes-Posner thesis on judicial independence using data on public law decisions in which the government was the defendant decided in the New Zealand High Court over the period 1958–2001. We use survival analysis to examine whether successive New Zealand governments have promoted judges from the High Court to the Court of Appeal (which stands above the High Court) on the basis of political considerations, the quality of the judge's decision-making or both. Our findings suggest that the quality of decision-making has generally been important. Consistent with the weak form of the Landes-Posner hypothesis we find no evidence that governments have used their powers to punish judges who decided cases against them. On the contrary, we find some support for the strong form of the Landes-Posner thesis that governments positively use their powers to secure judicial independence.     

保障法官素质的标准和方法:法官资格考核与培训

我国法官素质已经引起了社会各界广泛的关注。如何使我国法官成为法律职业群体中的精英 ,不仅是一个实践问题 ,而且是一个涉及到根本宪政体制的理论问题。从这个意义上讲 ,提议中的统一司法资格考试不仅会对提高法官素质产生积极影响 ,而且会对一些宪政制度的方面 ,特别是司法改革 ,产生潜移默化的影响。但考试制度的改革这只是保障法官素质的基本措施之一。从统一司法资格考试开始 ,各种考核法官的方法都应当跟上 ,必要和经常性的法官培训制度应当逐步健全 ,严格和公开的法官任命制度也必须建立。     

ASSESSING AND COMMUNICATING SOCIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION IN FAMILY AND CHILD JUDICIAL SETTINGS: STANDARDS FOR JUDGES AND ALLIED PROFESSIONALS

Social science is increasingly important in judicial decision making and family law development. This increased use means that judges, lawyers, mental health professionals, and social scientists must assess the quality of social science information and communicate it in a multidisciplinary environment. This article provides tools for improving multidisciplinary communication by identifying logical, methodological, and community standards for assessment and communication that are fundamental both to the scientific method and to the inquiries the Daubert decision instructs judges to make in their gatekeeper evaluations of scientific information. Employing a common set of standards can result in a significant improvement in the quality of the social science knowledge used in judicial settings.     

What judges know about eyewitness testimony: A comparison of Norwegian and US judges

Abstract

We surveyed 157 Norwegian judges about their knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony, and compared their answers to a prior survey of 160 US judges. Although the Norwegian judges were somewhat more knowledgeable than the US judges, both groups had limited knowledge of eyewitness testimony. The Norwegian judges, like the US judges, frequently differed from eyewitness experts in their responses to such important issues as whether eyewitness confidence is related to identification accuracy at trial and what is the best method for conducting identification procedures. As was true for the US judges, more knowledgeable Norwegian judges had many of the beliefs that may be necessary for reducing and mitigating the effects of eyewitness error. The results suggest that increasing judges’ knowledge of eyewitness testimony may be an important component of the solution to eyewitness error.     

非法证据为何难以有效排除——兼及中国非法证据排除的未来

既往的研究太多从非法证据排除规则粗疏这一制度层面解释非法证据难以有效排除的原因,但这并不充分。从结果层面而言,非法证据没有被排除在很大程度上意味着被采纳。对非法证据难以有效排除的研究必须深入解析法官采纳非法证据的内在原因。法官证据运用的形式主义化、刑法的主观主义倾向以及司法实务部门对证明力规则的过度追求等因素,是诱发法官采纳非法证据的重要原因,并由此造成了非法证据难以有效排除。在非法证据排除的问题上,我们不能仅限于非法证据排除规则的完善,还需将证据信息的供给、刑事实体法的调整、证明方法的转换以及证据能力规则的建设等均纳入视野。     

反思与重构:论我国预断排除规则的构建

预断排除规则是诉讼制度中保障公正审判的一个重要规则。为消除我国刑事诉讼制度中存在诸多导致法官预断的因素 ,需要实行起诉一本主义 ,建立庭前准备法官与审理案件的法官分离制度 ,规范法官的回避制度和起诉书的制作 ,将被告人自白的证据调查顺序后移 ,建立证据能力规则 ,并限制法官的庭外调查。     

How Law Rules: Torture,Terror, and the Normative Judgments of Iraqi Judges

We present a factorial survey experiment conducted with Iraqi judges during the early military occupation of Iraq. Because U.S. soldiers are immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts, there is no opportunity for these judges to express their views regarding highly publicized torture cases. As legally informed representatives of an occupied nation, however, Iraqi judges arguably have a strong claim to a normative voice on this sensitive subject. We are able to give voice to these judges in this study by using a quasi‐experimental method. This method diminishes social desirability bias in judges' responses and allows us to consider a broad range and combination of factors influencing their normative judgments. We examine why and how the U.S. effort to introduce democracy with an indeterminate rule of law produced unintended and inconsistent results in the normative judgments of Iraqi judges. A critical legal perspective anticipates the influences of indeterminacy, power, and fear in our research. More specifically, we anticipated lenient treatment for guards convicted of torture, especially in trouble cases of Coalition soldiers torturing al Qaeda prisoners. However, the results—which include cross‐level, judge‐case interaction effects—were more varied than theoretically expected. The Iraqi judges responded in disparate and polarized ways. Some judges imposed more severe sentences on Coalition guards convicted of torturing al Qaeda suspects, while others imposed more lenient sentences on the same combination of guards and suspects. The cross‐level interactions indicate that the judges who severely sentenced Coalition guards likely feared the contribution of torture tactics to increasing violence in Iraq. The judges who were less fearful of violence were more lenient and accommodating of torture by Coalition forces. The implication is that the less fearful judges were freed by an indeterminate law to advance Coalition goals through lenient punishment of torture. Our analysis suggests that the introduction of democracy and the rule of law in Iraq is a negative case in the international diffusion of American institutions. The results indicate the need for further development of a nuanced critical legal perspective.     

Judges’ sentencing decisions with older offenders

Older offenders tend to be treated with more leniency in the criminal justice system. A number of studies show that older offenders are less likely to be incarcerated, and when they are incarcerated, are more likely to receive shorter sentences. However, to date, no research has directly examined why such leniency occurs. This study asked U.S. state trial court judges to reflect on their sentencing practices with older offenders and to rate the factors considered most important when sentencing this population. Responses were received from 212 judges. Only 31% of judges acknowledged treating older offenders with greater leniency. These judges also indicated that they predominantly rely on legal factors when making decisions about sentencing with older offenders rather than factors specifically associated with age. Only cognitive impairment was identified by judges as one of the five most important factors to consider when sentencing older offenders. These results are discussed in terms of judges’ awareness of how they weigh information to make legal decisions. The influence of judges’ age and attitudes about aging on sentencing decisions are also explored.     

论民事司法鉴定制度的修改与完善——以新《民事诉讼法》为视角

新的《民事诉讼法》对鉴定制度做出了重大的调整与修改,这对于提高司法鉴定的质量、保障当事人的诉讼权利、提高法官证据采信能力、促进司法公正的实现均具有重要的价值.但仍然存在一些问题和不足,应当通过限制法院依职权直接选任鉴定人、明确鉴定人出庭质证和对异地鉴定人出庭质证等措施加以完善.