英文摘要 |
因應日本實施裁判員參審制度將屆10週年,本文檢視其成立之背景、基礎理念,並探討裁判員參審制度之現狀、評析及課題。起初,人們對不具備法律知識的市民以裁判員與補充裁判員身份組成刑事審判之合議制感到不安。在專業法官適度的引導下,於重罪案件的刑事第一審審判中,裁判員與補充裁判員的合議制之評決等制度被認為具有發揮一定的功能。從注重裁判員參審的角度來看,不得在控訴審及上告審(第二審、第三審上訴審)時,否定裁判員之判決。然而,從公正審判為首的角度來看,控訴審及上告審不可避免地會糾正其事實判斷和量刑判斷中的任何誤認或偏差。本研究介紹在控訴審及上告審中放棄自判之案例,並顯示其判斷之妥當性。未來課題將是減少裁判員與補充裁判員退出的比率。
This paper considers the background and basic concept of the Saiban-in (lay judge) system which has been started from 2009, and evaluates the implementation and problems. People, at first, are uneasy towards criminal cases trial by a panel of the Saiban-in and alternate Saiban-in participation; because they are chosen from the general public and lack legal knowledge. However, under the professional guidance of judges, the Saiban-ins participation can play a role in the primary ruling of felony trials in the district court. It is said that the ruling of the Saiban-in cannot be overruled in appeal trials (the court of second instance and the final appellate instance). However, from the perspective of a fair trial, it is unavoidable that appeal trials could correct any misunderstanding or errors that were made in the previous trials. This research introduces cases of abandoning self-ruling during trials and appeals to determine the validity of such judgement. One of the most important problems is the reduction of dropout rate of the Saiban-in and alternate Saiban-in. |