中美司法法律制度比较.docx
- 文档编号:11952510
- 上传时间:2023-06-03
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:5
- 大小:19.30KB
中美司法法律制度比较.docx
《中美司法法律制度比较.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《中美司法法律制度比较.docx(5页珍藏版)》请在冰点文库上搜索。
中美司法法律制度比较
AComparisonofJudicatureAndlegalSystembetweenChinaandUS
ChinaandtheUnitedStatesaretwomainpowerfulcountiesineconomicandmilitaryfieldsintheworld.Nevertheless,inthepoliticalsystemandsocialandculturalaspects,therearemanycrucialdifferencesbetweenthem.Thesedifferencesaretooexcessivetootremendousandtoodeep-going,asaresult,thetwocountiesdivergemarkedlywhenitcomestoalmosteveryinternationalaffair.Wedon’thavethatwisdomandstrengthofresearchingandprobingthosedifferences.Thatbeingso,let’sgiveitaheadstartinthejudicialsystemandlaw.
Judicialsystem
JudicialsystemofUSistotallydifferentfromours.Firstly,America’sjudiciaryisonebranchofthatthreebranches—thelegislativebranch,theexecutivebranchandthejudicialbranch.Thosethreebranchesdividenationalgovernment’spowerintothree.ThisdivisionofauthorityisknownasasystemofchecksandbalancesestablishedbytheConstitution,whichismeanttopreventanyofthethreebranchesfromhavingtoomuchpower.Eachbranchhascertaincontrolsovertheotherbranches.Eachbranchcanlimittheotherbranchesfromgainingtoomuchpower.Inotherwords,eachbranchofthethreebranchesisequaltoeachother.It’simpossibletoletonebedominatedbyanother.SoCourtsinAmericadon’tcareaboutwhattheadministratorsthink.TheyjustmaketheverdictaccordingtotheConstitutionandlawandonthebasisofevidence.ButinChina,thecaseiscompletelydifferent.Inversely,Chinagovernmentpursuesthecentralizationpoliticalsystemratherthanthetripartitepoliticalsystemofchecksandbalances.JudicialsysteminChinaisnotapartyofchecksandbalances,notatall.Moreimportantly,inordertosegmentandweakenjudiciary’spower,statusandweight,thejudicialsystemitselfhasbeendividedintomanybranches,mainlytheCourtandProcuratorate.CourtsinChinaisjustalittledepartmentinnationalpoliticalsystem,whichcanbecontrolledandimpactedbymanyothergovernment’sbranches,forexample,NationalPeople’sCongressStandingCommittee,OfficeofLegislativeAffairs,judicialbureauandLawCouncilofvariouslevelsCPCCommitteeandsoon.Tosomedegree,China’sjudiciaryisjustamouthpiece.Lawsarejustreference.Leader’swritteninstructionorcommentsarerealandpotentialcriterion.SowecanseethatthestatusandimportanceofjudicialsysteminAmericaarehigherandmoresignificantthanitinChina.What’smore,America’sjudicialsystemisindependentandself-governed,butamightyandindependentjudicialsystemcan’tbefoundinChina.Acase’saffirmationandverdicthavetobedirectedandinterferedbymanyindividualsandorganizationsinChina.Forinstance,ifagovernment’sleaderorofficialbreaksthelawandcommits,thejudicialdepartmentcan’tacceptthelawsuitandenquirehimatonce,beforetheCDIC(CommissionforDisciplineInspectionoftheCPC)investigatehisbehaviorandmakedecisionthatwhetherheshouldbepushedintothejudicialsystem.Iftheoffenderisadepartmentalorhigherlevelcadre,reviewinghimhavetobeapprovedandratifiedbythecentralcommitteeoftheCommunistPartyofChina.Thatistosay,ifaleaderorofficialkilledhundredsofpeople,rapedhundredsmaidensandcorruptedhundredsmillions,thecourtscan’tdoanythingtohimbeforetheCDICconfirmshisatrocitiesandcrimeseventhoughvictimshaveprosecutedhimthousandstimes.Thusitcanbeseenthatinourcountry,thereexistsanorganizationwhichhasmuchmorepowerandmuchhigherstatusthananyotherorganizations.Beforeitsrules,thelawsarehumble,faintandimpotent.So,whydosomanyunjustandunequaleventstakeplacepervasivelyandconstantly?
Whydosomanyinnocentpersonshavebeenextortedconfessionsbymeansoftorture?
Whydothosemalfeasantsandnobleculpritscangetawayunpunishedbeyondthearmofthelawandconstitution.Thereasonisthatwehaven’tacompletelyindependentandadequatelypowerfuljudicialsystemtorestrictandcontendagainstotherpoliticalsystemsorindividuals.
Secondly,anotablecharacteristicofAmerica’sJudiciaryisitsJurysystem.EverycourtfromtheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatestoaciviccourthasitsownjurywhichismadeupof12adultswhoarechosenatrandomfromthelocalElectoralRegister.Inoccidentalcountries,thejuryplaysacrucialroleinverdict,whilejudgesinacourtjustprovideevidenceandhosttheargumentsbetweenpartiesandthengivethe“charge”,orinstructionstothejury.Thejury’sverdictisbasedontheevidenceandonthejudge’sinstructionsastothelaw.Afterthejuryhasreacheditsverdict,judgesandthecourtcandeclareitsfinalcourtdecision.Sothosetwelvejurorswhoarealllaw-blindnessaretherealadjudicatorsanddecidertoacase.Juryinstitutionsmakesurethatacasecannotbemisjudgedandthataninnocentpersoncannotbeunjustlytreated.Itcanensurethetrialjustice,fairandimpartial.Itcanguaranteetheinculpablepersonscan’tbesentencedimproperlyandmistakenly.Itcanpreventthosecorruptofficialsandillegalmerchantsfromescapeoflaw.Mostimportantly,becausethejuryismadeupoftwelveordinarycitizenswhoarechosenatrandom,itcanletmorepeopleknowthepoweroflawandbeproficientattrialprocedure.Hencethelaw’sconceptscirculateamongpeoplediffuselyanddeep.Byon,wecanseethatthejurysystemisonasoundfootingintheUnitedStatesanditisveryfascinatingtothepublic.Actually,it’spopularoverseas,includingincountrieswithoutjurytrials,maybeevenincountrieswithoutruleoflaw.Forinstance,lastyear,Japanintroducedajurysystemforthefirsttimeinmajorcriminalcases.Butinchina,jurysystemisaremoteandshadowydream.TheChinesegovernment’sjudicialideaisabsolutelydifferentfromUnitedStates’.Chinesegovernmentcouldnotputtherightoftrialtopeople,atleastnotnow.Thereasonisquitecomplexandhardtotell.Butitisundeniablethatourgovernmenthasunshakableresponsibilityinthisissue.Therightoftrialandeventherightsofgoverningthecountryshouldbereturnedtopeoplebypracticalactionratherthanjustsayingsomething.Ifwecandothis,therewon’tbesomanyundeservedpersonsandmistakencases.Courtsandthosejudgeswillnotbendthelawforpersonalgaintoo.
Jurysystemhasnumerousadvantagesandmerits.Inshort,notonlythatjuriesarecompetentdecisionmakers,butalsothatthejurysystemisanimportantdemocraticinstitution.Courtsneeddemocracytoo.Butthereisn’tanydemocracyinacountries’politicalsystem,thejurysystem,ofcourse,isaremotedream.
Third,thetwocountries’judicialsystemsstillexistmanyothernuanceswhichdeterminetheirjudicialprocessistotallydifferent,forexample,thebasicstandpointtosuspectsandattitudeoftreatingcriminals.TheAmericanjudiciarypursuesaprincipletoguidethecriminalcourttrial.Thatis,theaccusedisheldinnocentuntilprovenguilty.Thedefendantdoesn’thavetoopenhismouth.Thecourtmustprovethataccusedperson’sguiltbeyondanyreasonabledoubt.Reasonabledoubtreferstothedoubtthatcouldariseinthemindofanordinary,impartial,honest,reasonableandcautiouspersonwithreferencetotheaccused’sguilty.Theconceptofholdingtheaccusedinnocentuntilprovedguiltymakessurethatacaseisnotmisjudgedandthataninnocentpersonisnotunjustlytreated.Eventhoughthecriminalsuspectisprovedguiltybycourtandfinallysentencedbyjury,asaman,hestillhasbasicandfundamentalpersonalrightswhichhedeserves.Hehasbeendeniedhisentireorpartialliberty.Orevenhislifewouldbedenied.ButheremainshisdignityandsomerightswhichGodgavehimandnoonecanviolatenomatterintermsoflaworintermsofethics.Itsinfluenceandmeaningisfar-reachingandmultitunous.ButinChina,thesituationsareabsolutelydifferent.RatherthanAmerica’sprincipleofinnocenceuntilprovenguilty,Chinapursuesacontraryprincipletoguidethecriminalcourttrial.Theprincipleisthattheaccusedisguiltyunlesshe(she)canprovehis(her)innocence.Asuspect,whoarejustsuspectedguilty,ifhe(she)can’tprovehis(her)innocenceandpurity,wouldbeadjudicatedbreakingthelaworbesentencedguiltybycourt.SoinChina,policemancanarrestanyindividualsinstreetrandomlyandthentransferhim(her)tothejudicialadministration.Theindividualcanbeyouandalsocanbeme.Mostly,beforetransferringtocourt,theindividualhasbeentormentedwithsomeinhumanmethods.Itiscleartohim(her)thathecan’tfightwithsomepowerfulpersonsandtheauthorities.Whathe(she)candoisadmittingtheguiltwhichdoesn’tbelongtohim(her).Hemayalsobepunishedjustbythepolicewithoutanyjudicialprocedure.InChina,policeman’sroleisveryembarrassed.Policemannotonlyactsasexecutortoperformthelawandpolicybutalsoassumesomejudicialresponsibilityandhassomejudicialpower.比如说,警察可以随便抓一个人去劳教所workcamp让他劳动改造reformcriminalthroughlabor,而这改造可能是几个月,也可能是几年。
这个过程则不需要司法部门的任何批准和ratification。
警察作为一个行政者,就可以对人的自由甚至生命进行限制。
更为严重的是,当警察抓获任意公民是,他们可以对他刑讯逼供,严加拷打直至他不得不承认自己的罪行。
有时候,这种行为甚至造成了许多无辜人士的悲惨死亡。
这就致使了许多本应受罚的罪犯逍遥法外,而这有些就是警察或部分政府官员有意帮助这些罪犯的。
这还致使许多无辜之人冤枉wronged被迫害甚至致死。
警察的这种行为是对人权的漠视。
在中国的人是不具有人权的或者说不具有完整人权,更何况那些嫌疑犯和已被定罪的罪犯。
人权距离他们就更加遥远了。
以上讲到的只是导致两国司法体制不同的众多细微差别的主要两点。
除此之外,还有许多细微差别我们来不及叙述。
但就从这两点我们就可以推断出来,美国的司法体系更加独立和完善,对待违法现象也更加公正公平,即使有,徇私枉法的现象相对来说更少一些。
而且他们对待普通人还是受罚之人都尊重属于他们的权利,丝毫不敢侵犯这些属于他们的权利和尊严。
但中国就差许多了在这些方面,我们需要更大的进步和努力。
法律制度
我们
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 中美 司法 法律制度 比较