Analysis of the Hierarchy of Judges'Responsibility
Because of the diversity of their role composition,Chinese judges undertake multiple responsibilities.Based on their special way of performing duties and the professional characteristics of their exercise of judicial power,judges'responsibility should be defined from two dimensions:the requirements of judicial duties and the limitation of professional identity.According to this standard,the responsibility of judges can be divided into the case handling re-sponsibility for violating judicial duties and the professional responsibility for violating profes-sional ethics.Case handling responsibility can be further divided into criminal responsibility,responsibility for erroneous judgments,and responsibility for general illegal trials based on the degree of the illegality of the behavior and its consequences.Because Chinese judges are not passive adjudicators in purely adversarial procedures,being held accountable for wrongful judg-ments resulting from illegal trials is a requirement for them to be responsible for the cases they handle,which should not be simply denied.However,erroneous judgments should and can only be judgments that have been revised through trial supervision procedures.The responsibility for erroneous judgments borne by judges should also be strictly limited in terms of the composition of responsibility.The current regulations in China limit the application of disciplinary proce-dures for judges to situations where intentional violations and gross negligence lead to erroneous judgments and serious consequences,but this does not mean that Chinese judges cannot be held responsible for other illegal trial behaviors.In this round of judicial reform,a Judges Discipli-nary Committee has been set up to be responsible for making professional judgments on judges'violation of their judicial responsibilities and their subjective faults.This is a limited judicial transformation of the existing judge's accountability procedure,leaving room for improving the social credibility and professionalism of the punishment imposed on judges.The imposition of punishment on judges and state supervision go hand in hand,with each having its own institu-tional functions and operational space.As an important way and means for judges to achieve self-management,professional ethics of judges have higher requirements for judges than the moral standards for ordinary people.To enhance the credibility of judges,it is necessary to em-phasize their professional ethical responsibilities.For judges who violate professional ethics and engage in"improper behavior",accountability procedures can be directly initiated without the need to consider whether their behaviors have caused adverse consequences.However,the ad-ministrative color of accountability should be downplayed to be in line with the nature of the punishment imposed on judges as an autonomous means to maintain professional purity.
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
