The Behavior Experiment Comparative Study of Jury Mode
- 法学院－已发表论文 
陪审制是司法民主的重要体现。在陪审制改革与试点的今日,我们进行陪审制的实验测试,以同一刑事案件的证据材料,对"十二人陪审团""六人陪审团"和"4+3陪审团"三种陪审模式进行实验比较分析,并对一批司法审判人员的个体进行参照测试。通过三种陪审团的集体合议和表决结果,我们发现陪审团在事实认定方面并不逊色于法学专业人士。我们进一步发现陪审员个体在证据证明力的认知以及罪名是否成立的判断方面,与法学专业人士的差距也不大,而且陪审员的工作积极性也很高。实验和实证调研表明,法官指示、证据规则和陪审团合议过程等要素,显著影响了部分陪审员对证据的认知和最终事实判断。这些对于我们今后的陪审制改革和探索,具有不小的参考意义。The jury system is one of the most important systems for judicial democracy. Today, when our country is reforming and experimenting the jury system, our research group organized the jury experiment, using the evidence material in the same criminal case, to compare three kinds of jury mode： jury of twelve,jury of six and jury of 4＋3, moreover, we conducted individual test for a group of judge to be comparative.Through the collective collegiate and voting results of the three kinds of jury, we found out thatthe jury was not inferior to law professionals in fact-finding. Meanwhile, we observed that the juror had no significant difference to the law professionals in the ability of evidence＇s cognitive, judging a crime or not; the juror were more positive, moreover, they behaved well in fact-finding and judging. What the experimental and empirical research show was that, the judge instructions, evidence rules and jury panel had obvious influence to partial jury＇s cognition of evidence and the final fact judgment.All these have marvels significance for reforming and exploring the jury in the future.