比較法視野下庭審公開的制度功能

庭審公開制度關涉到一個國家司法的價值取向與功能定位，不能簡單地移植他國做法，須在功能比較的基礎上審慎定奪。法國、俄羅斯、美國的庭審公開，分別代表了司法保守主義下的“不公開”、以公開強化監督和法律實用主義下的個案探索三種制度實踐。它們根植於三個國家不同的政治社會環境與法律傳統，體現了司法的不同功能與角色。在“政法傳統”下，我國的司法公開當以提升司法公信力為終極目標。因此，我們應該適當借鑒域外庭審公開的制度設計，重視本國個案，根據不同制度的實施效果，在一個恰當的功能體系內，平衡各種公開制度的角色分際，實現從追求公開數量向提升公開質量的轉變。

The open trial system is related to the value orientation and functional orientation of a country's judiciary, and it cannot be simply transplanted from other countries, but must be prudentially determined on the basis of functional comparison. The openness of court trials in France, Russia, and the United States represent the three modes of institutional practices: “non-openness” under judicial conservatism, “openness” for the sake of strengthening supervision, and case-based exploration under legal pragmatism. They are rooted in the different political and social environments and legal traditions of the three countries, and reflect the different functions and roles of the judiciary. Under the “politics and law tradition”, China's judicial openness should aim at enhancing judicial credibility. Therefore, it is necessary to properly learn from the institutional design of open trial in other countries, pay attention to local cases in China, and balance the various roles of the open trial systems within an appropriate functional system according to the implementation effects of different systems, so as to realize the transformation from pursuing the quantity of open trials to improving the quality of open trials.