重庆市高院院长：一些法官八小时外醉生梦死

happylux

2010年02月22日 05:52　来源：重庆晚报　

　　“问题法官有两面人生。小圈子外，冠冕堂皇，正人君子；小圈子内，漆黑一团，腐败透顶。八小时内，受人尊敬；八小时外，醉生梦死。”作出这番描述的，是市高级人民法院院长钱锋。

　　昨日，市高院召开全市法院党风廉政建设工作电视电话会议，高院院长钱锋到场给法官们念了一番“紧箍咒”。

　　搞小圈子都有可悲下场

　　钱锋说，结党营私、朋比成奸、编织小圈子的官场病态，历朝历代都存在。时至今日，这种现象仍未彻底清除。重庆法院去年发生的部分法官违纪违法的案件背后就藏着一些“见光死”的小圈子。

　　钱锋给这些小圈子“画”了一个“素描”——以权力为纽带，围绕某位核心人物，编织权力网，形成利益同盟，一荣俱荣，一损俱损。不是小圈子的人被排挤出局、冷落一边。一切灰色交易都在小圈子内操作，圈外人甭想窥得圈中内幕。

　　钱锋还“画”了问题法官的两面人生——小圈子外，冠冕堂皇，正人君子；小圈子内，漆黑一团，腐败透顶。八小时内，受人尊敬；八小时外，醉生梦死。

　　钱锋指出，搞小圈子，归根结底的后果就是谋私乱法。小圈子离不开一个“私”字，公权与私利结盟，是小圈子的“运行法则”。圈子内相互关照，利益共享，将手中司法权视为私人物品恣意玩弄，正常的同事和上下级关系异化为赤裸裸的金钱和权力关系。

　　然而，这些小圈子迟早都会有一个可悲的下场。圈中人虽曾“招摇过市，风光一时”，但都逃不脱锒铛入狱的宿命。在这个过程中，曾经的“兄弟伙”不再是铁哥们，而极具讽刺意味地成为相互的“掘墓人”。

　　灰色交易产生枉法裁判

　　钱锋一针见血地说，法院内的小圈子身份比较特殊。法院的院、庭长，既有政务管理权限和审判管理职责，又有作为法官的具体审判职权，普通法官也具有一定范围内的独立裁判权。一旦形成利益均沾的小圈子，就会产生巨大的操作空间。

　　“程序的掩盖更会使得灰色交易产生枉法裁判。”钱锋严肃地称，法官及合议庭办案、院庭长监督指导审判均有相应程序，但如果这个程序被小圈子利用，就会使枉法裁判披上合法外衣，就可以把灰色交易“洗白”。钱锋指出，若个别审判组织成员结成利益共同体，互相通融，相互利用，将会捅出天大的窟窿。这三大危害，是悬在头上的三把匕首，把把致命。究其根本，小圈子就是窝案之源，一旦东窗事发，必定一倒一大片。

　　钱锋说，法官良知最基本、最重要的莫过于六个字：不贪赃、不枉法。唯有彻底隔断小圈子，法院方能风清气正。

　　做领导亲属不能当律师

　　据了解，市高院近日将出台《关于对配偶、子女从事律师工作的审判岗位领导干部实行任职限制的规定(试行)》，对有直系亲属做律师的法院领导提出要求，要么自己不再当领导，要么让亲属不再做律师。针对社会上有“让法院领导配偶不当律师，是不是说当律师有罪？”的质疑声音，钱锋说，单方退出不是有罪推定。

　　钱锋坦言，单方退出，是在回避制度外围再扎一道篱笆，从源头对法院领导干部与律师实行彻底的身份隔离，并非是对“法官+律师”关系的有罪推定。司法公正的实现取决于多方面因素，不能指望通过“物理隔离”解决所有问题。实行单方退出之后，还有一系列的 “组合拳”要出台。单方退出解决的是法官律师关系中最尖锐的问题，对于其他问题，将通过健全完善和严格执行回避制度来解决。

金牛银熊

牛二买刀

单纯强调人的素质是治标不治本。
司法体系应该考虑融入海洋法系的一些操作方法。
东亚以大陆法系为主，依法令判案；西欧（美国）以海洋法系为主，依已有案例判案。
大陆法系，法官权力很大。因为无论法律规定多么细致，中间的弹性空间是无法避免的。好处是变法比较容易，断案的效率较高；坏处自然是法律的稳定性和连续性不好。
海洋法系，律师的操作空间就出来了。好的律师能够知道很多的已判案例，能够根据以往案例选择于自己当事人有利的案例加以套用。好处是法律的连续性和稳定性好。当然，坏处就是诉讼耗时很长，律师的费用高昂，一个大案的诉讼可以拖上十年。

另一方面，东亚不少国家目前采用的是合议庭制度（包括中国）。就是每一个案件，由奇数个法官组成合议庭（至少5名法官），当大家对案件有分歧的时候，在合议庭内部以少数服从多数来实行权力的平衡及民主的原则。 好处是法官受过专业训练，断案较有章法；坏处是一群人长期共处，很难杜绝结党营私。

欧美采用陪审团制度。从社会随机抽取奇数个公民作为陪审员，有罪或无罪认定由陪审团多数票决定。如果认定有罪，具体量刑有律师法官达成妥协。陪审团的好处是公平性较易保证。

大陆直接引入陪审团制度还有一些困难。（和现有法令的衔接问题，公众的接受等等）。在美国的都知道，一旦被通知自己被抽取为陪审员，则需要给公司请假，如有自家私事，也需为出庭让路。（和征兵是一个道理）

但即使是沿用现有合议庭制度，法官的有计划轮调也应考虑，以避免可能的结党营私。

胡诌两句。若能抛砖引玉，就求之不得了。

Kami

Most Western European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.) also use statutory laws.  Only the US, the UK and their colonial nations use case laws.  In recent years, the distinctions between these two systems become less distinctive.  In the US, you can find tons of statutes, laws, regulations, combined with tons of case laws and the federal/state dual legal systems, which create the world's most complicated legal system.  

Case laws are changing faster than statutes.  Getting laws passed by the Congress is time consuming, while the judges under the case law system can de facto adjust the "interpretation" of law to cope with the changes in the society and the specifics of the underlying case.  However, case laws create complexity (instead of looking at statutes, you need to search tons of cases and the judges' opinions (a lot of time more difficult to understand than the language in statutes), uncertainty and inconsistency.

Jury system, although seen a lot in movies, is used extremely limited in reality.  Because of it is costly and time consuming, and particularly, dependent highly on the "quality" of the jurors (and thus create yet another inconsistency - those who know laws better will render a fairer opinion vs. those who lack legal knowledge may only render opinions based on his/her own "good hearts"), substantially all commercial cases are not judged by jurors and most of the criminal cases are not judged by jurors too.

In the morden US/UK legal systems, juries only act as decorating factors, not as an important role.  

To improve China's legal system, the first thing is still to improve the "quality" of the judges and create an influential "legal community" (including judges, lawyers, scholars and their lobby groups).  China should encourage judges to write longer opinions with detailed "reasoning" (not just reiterating the laws and facts and then render the opinions - there should be a key part connecting the laws and facts - the reasoning).

牛二买刀

4# Kami

It is good to read your elaborations.
But how to systematically prevent the organized corruption in the judges?
1. Probably do the scheduled rotation of judges similar to that in the army.
2. A computer evaluation system to calculate the fairness of the cased, and issue warnings when the fairness is out of the standard deviation.

Kami

China has tried, and actually impemented, quite a few ways to control mistakes made by judges (not to mention corruptions, but that is mostly dealt with by already harsh criminal laws; actually corruption, like many other crimes is a social problem, and is a result of multiple reasons: cultural residue of giving gifts, not so high salary (which is dependent on governmental budget), lack of third party watchdog, some system design defects ...).  

I believe there is in place an examination/evaluation system inside the court system.  Periodically, each judge will be examined based on how many "wrong" cases he rendered, and depending on the severity of the mistakes, their salaries/bonuses will be deducted.  "Wrong" cases are defined as those that are appealed and determined by higher courts as wrong.  An overruled case would cost a residing judge a good chunk of money which brings great pressure on the judges.  But all system designs have their side effects - the award/punishment system gives judges huge incentive, (i) in civil lawsuits, not to determine the case, but to urge the parties to settle the case -- in essence, judges will act like mediators (judges in all countries have the inclination to have the parties settle their disputes, but when combined with a compensatory punishment, judges have more incentive mediating than judging), and (ii) in all cases, to consult with judges in higher court and seek their advise/opinions before rendering his/her own opinions, to reduce the overruling risks, which essentially combined the two tier legal system into one and denied the disputing parties' second chance.

Rotation of bench members does happen in Chinese courts, but mostly only within the same court (depending on each judge's caseload, different benches will be formed for different cases, but given the limited number of judges within the same court, there are not that many different combinations of bench members).  It is very hard to rotate judges among different courts, especially in lower courts, given the huge amount of those courts.  It might be a good try to implement a mandatory rotation of judges in the higher courts which seems more manageable.

A computer based evaluation is still far from reality at the current stage.  If the computer could ever reach that level of sophistication, maybe we do not need judges any more.  

牛二买刀

6# Kami

You know way more new information about the system than I know. Are you working as a judge/attorney?
Thank you anyway.

Kami

I am a lawyer