Paper代写：Judge's disciplinary action

本篇paper代写- Judge's disciplinary action讨论了法官惩戒事由。法官惩戒事由的实体范畴是指法官应当在什么情况下受到惩戒的问题。对此，世界各法治国家均表现出了对法官惩戒事由的重视，出于共同的制度愿景，结合自身司法传统、法治观念、法官职业化程度等司法条件的差异性，在法官惩戒事由的确定上形成了行为到结果和法内到法外两种不同的模式。本篇paper代写由51due代写平台整理，供大家参考阅读。

The substantive category of judge's disciplinary cause refers to the issue under which judge should be punished. To this, the world each country under the rule of law are showed to the attention of the judges disciplinary proceedings, for a common vision system, combined with its own legal tradition, the concept of the rule of law, the judge professionalism, the difference of the judicial conditions, such as on the determination of the judge disciplinary proceedings formed "behavior - result" and "outside the law - in" two kinds of different patterns.

The behavior-outcome model refers to the determination of judge's disciplinary causes based on judge's behavior and judgment results, which are respectively incorporated into two sets of systems and adopted different identification standards. Some countries only include behaviors as disciplinary causes, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, which can be called the single-track system of disciplinary causes of judges. Some countries put the two into disciplinary causes respectively, such as Germany, which can be called the dual-track system of disciplinary causes for judges.

The monorail system of judge's disciplinary cause refers to the mode of imputation that only includes judge's behavior into disciplinary cause and has a judgment standard for judge's improper behavior, and at the same time completely exempts judge's error from liability, which is typical of common law countries. The United States has two sets of judge punishment systems at the federal and state levels. However, except for some crimes that constitute crimes, the standard of "improper conduct" stipulated in the model code of judicial conduct formulated by the American bar association is adopted for the purposes of judicial punishment, that is, all the activities of a judge must avoid improper and seemingly improper. In the judgment of misconduct, the standard of "credibility" is adopted, that is, whenever a judge's behavior impairs the public's trust in judges and confidence in judicial justice, no matter when and where such behavior takes place, no matter how large or small, it will all fall into the category of violation of professional discipline and should be punished. The ruling is a disciplinary exclusion zone for U.S. judges, meaning they are not punished for substantive issues related to the ruling. Similar to the United States, the issues that can be investigated by the British judicial conduct investigation office mainly focus on various improper behaviors of judges, while those that cannot be investigated focus on substantive issues related to the results of judges 4. It can be seen that the UK also excludes substantive issues from the disciplinary causes of judges, and only includes judges' behaviors into the disciplinary causes and adopts "public trust" as the judgment standard of misconduct.

America and Britain is the birthplace of the modern concept of rule of law, the judicial system is based on a relatively ideal condition, the judge retribution for behavior change is the inevitable outcome of the modern rule of law concept extension under, such as the principle of judicial independence, judge professionalism, concept of due process and so on all has become the consensus of the country under the rule of law concept, but in Anglo-American countries relatively is attaining the unity of theory and practice.

Judicial independence plays an important role in the judicial system of Anglo-American law system. Professor geweibao put forward a thinking framework when thinking about the contradiction between independence and responsibility: "since experience tells us that judicial independence is absolutely necessary but relatively fragile, it is right to insist on independence as the starting point and regard all appropriate forms of accountability system as the necessary limitation of the independence principle. The most important words are "starting with independence" and "necessary". Entity referee results if the case will be affect the vital interests of the judge whether to be held accountable, judge the heart that had been injected with the process of the law to other factors and damaged the judge independent basic status, the judge has formed the verdict will judging through outside the program again, this is considered to the judge's discretion to review, serious threat to the independence of the judge. The erosion of the independent exercise of the judicial power of judges will cause a real and serious crisis of confidence not only for judges but also for the whole judicial system compared with the occasional error of the judicial entity results. Therefore, all system design should not harm the independent jurisdiction of judges, is to "take independence as the starting point". The judge's behavior involves the most direct feelings of the public, and is also a representation of the judge's own professional integrity, which directly affects the public's trust in judicial justice, and has a more direct, extensive and far-reaching impact on judicial credibility. Therefore, judges should be cautious in their words and actions at all times, and it is "necessary" to punish all judge behaviors that affect judicial credibility.

The formation of the British and American national judges professional group means that its overall quality at a higher level, the public believe that people with higher a liberal education is full of wisdom, legal specialized trained people with excellent legal skills and good professional ethics, thus believe that the judge can shoulder the burden of private rights protection is particularly important. The behavior of a judge is the representation of his inner character. The improper behavior and anomy of a judge indicate his bad character, which means that the foundation of law and the rule of law is shaken, and the judge must face the possibility of being punished. The judges with high overall quality have obtained the public's trust in their professional ability because of their superb legal skills to minimize wrong judgments and use their profound professional skills to create judgments that can stand public examination. When the height of the judges professionalization have the trust of the public on their behavior ability, the inevitable referee mistakes will be for the common good of its behavior should be understanding and forgiving, combined with national special wash the case for this program and the state compensation of the vicarious liability system, make the occasional mistake will not affect the judgement of judicial credibility generally maintained.

In addition, under the influence of the litigant mode, the Anglo-American law system emphasizes the active role of the litigant and his defense lawyer. Comparatively speaking, the judge maintains a relatively neutral position, and only makes the judgment on the basis of listening to the opinions of both sides, showing a passive characteristic. Accordingly, both parties feel that their opinions have been fully expressed and listened to and accepted by the judge, and they have reason to believe that the judge's decision is made on the basis of their own full defense. Therefore, their trust in the verdict depends on procedural matters such as whether their right of defense is limited and whether the neutral status of the judge is affected, that is, whether the judge's behavior conforms to the requirements of due process. If the judge's trial behavior fails to meet or exceeds the requirements of due process, it means that the judge's conduct and integrity will be questioned and the public's trust in the judiciary will be shaken. Then the standard of judicial punishment should be that the judge's misconduct constitutes a violation of due process. "Judicial activities are carried out by certain organizations specially established by the state in accordance with certain procedures, and their credibility is mainly reflected in the specific process. Because the public's understanding and evaluation of the judiciary is mainly completed through the perception of its specific process, as far as judicial judging activities are concerned, it mainly comes from the theatrical effect of judicial trials. Common law countries the independence of the judicature concept entrenched, judges, high degree of professionalism and principles of due process contributed to judge disciplinary proceedings monorail system mode, only the behavior of the judge should be brought into the punishment and the credibility standard to evaluate the behavior, to judge the possibility of miscalculation made by the appeals process as punishment for the area.

The dual-track system of judge disciplinary causes means that not only the misconduct of the judge may be punished, but also the substantive result of the judgment is wrong and the judge may be punished. The two systems adopt different judgment standards. Typical of Germany is the continental law system. The German criminal code prohibits judges from committing two ACTS: accepting money or other bribes, coercing evidence and forging documents; A wrong judgment that brings an innocent person to justice. Both ACTS are considered judicial ACTS that seriously undermine public confidence in the court as an institution of justice. For the latter, however, only those who intentionally commit the crime or whose innocence is caused by gross negligence are sentenced in principle subject to punishment. In the judgment of misconduct, Germany adopts a standard of public trust similar to that of Anglo-American law system countries. As stipulated in its law of judges, "a judge shall not damage his trust in impartiality and independence, whether in or outside the jurisdiction." In Germany, judges have been punished for their intemperate, contemptuous criticism of a prosecutor's or another court's ruling, or for making sweeping statements in judicial opinions about political parties' incompetence or corruption. In terms of the significance of judge's behavior to judicial credibility, Germany and Britain and the United States have a high degree of consensus. Therefore, the punishment of judge's behavior does not include time, place and occasion, but only requires the objective effect that damages judicial credibility.

The disciplinary system of German judges is different from that of British and American countries in that there is no absolute exemption for the case of wrong judgment result, which is caused by the difference of litigation mode between British and American law systems and continental law systems. In contrast to the relatively passive nature of the judge in the U.S. trial process, "the judge carefully studies the dossier the prosecutor hands over, actively questions the defendant and decides on the witness list. German lawyers are relatively passive in court... ". This reflects the civil law countries to judge the role of the main authority model, since the judge has a broader power, the corresponding accountability should be more stringent. This is consistent with the principle of power and responsibility. However, civil law countries, like common law countries, highly believe in the independence of judges as the basis for the survival of the entire judicial system. Judge, therefore, although the Anglo-American countries have more than the absolute dominance, but the process belongs to the core areas of discretion inviolability, still wrong punishment must and judge the result of the referee ability when there is a direct causal relationship between subjective fault into disciplinary reason concerns category, resolutely resist with only the judgement mistakes and punishment to the judge, it is in the protection of judicial independence and to maintain a balance between judicial credibility measure.

At the same time, the strengthening of the role of judges by the litigation mode of civil law countries' authoritativeness makes Germany extremely strict on the quality of judges, and sets a higher admission standard for the selection and appointment of judges, which provides a higher guarantee for the overall quality of judges. In addition to the inviolability of the principle of judicial independence, there are few cases in which judges intentionally or negligently lead to wrongful cases in these countries, and few judges are subject to punishment. Therefore, the case of punishing the judge for the wrong result of the judgment is at most a preventive setting under the mode of authority litigation, which is not often started in practice. Model with the authority of the civil law countries make the judge need to assume more responsibility, and formed the judge disciplinary proceedings will commence, namely misconduct disciplinary USES credibility to the judge standard of objective imputation principle, and the results of the entity's punishment must be asked a judge to have both subjective imputation of has led to judge the result. Although the two models differ in the choice of whether the judgment result should be included in the punishment, they both attach great importance to the fundamental principle of judge independence, take a prudent attitude to the consideration of "error of substantive judgment result", and put forward higher requirements for the judge's behavior both inside and outside the judicial system.

要想成绩好，英国论文得写好，51due代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯，专业辅导，还为你提供专业英国essay代写，paper代写，report代写，需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due工作客服QQ：800020041或者Wechat：Abby0900吧。