论文部分内容阅读
2003年3月28日,北京市第一中级人民法院对足球裁判龚建平受贿案(以下简称龚案)作出终审裁定,驳回龚建平的上诉,维持北京市宣武区人民法院以受贿罪判处被告人龚建平有期徒刑十年的一审判决。作为“黑哨”第一案,此案从检察机关起诉,到法院受理并作出终审裁定的近一年时间里,一直是社会舆论关注的焦点,并引发了法学界对“黑哨”是否应该定罪的激烈争论。如今终审已经结束,司法机关最终介入黑哨问题,并对受贿的裁判定罪量刑,该案已经“盖棺论定”。但是这并不意味着没有继续讨论的必要,因为在此案的审理中,法官在面临着激烈争论的情况下,并没有去寻求最高司法机关的批复或解释,而是大胆地对法律条款直接作出解释,走出了迈向司法能动主义的关键一步。这种司法转向颇值关注,所以笔者试图透过对此案的分析,对司法能动主义的理论进行一番探讨。
On March 28, 2003, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court made a final ruling on Gong Jianping, a soccer referee, and dismissed Gong Jianping’s appeal and upheld that the defendant Gong Jianping, a member of the People’s Court of Beijing Municipality, sentenced him to a bribe. Ten years of first instance sentence. As the first case of “black whistle”, this case has been prosecuted by the procuratorial organs. It has been the focus of public opinion for nearly one year before the court accepted and final ruling, and it has caused the jurisprudence of whether to prosecute the “black whistle” Intense debate. Now that the final trial has ended, the judiciary eventually intervened in the issue of black whistle and convicted and sentenced the bribed referee, which has been “overwritten”. However, this does not mean that there is no need to continue the discussion. In the trial of the case, the judge did not seek the approval or explanation of the highest judicial authority in the face of heated arguments. Instead, he boldly made direct legal provisions Explained and stepped out of the crucial step towards judicial activism. This kind of judicial shift is of considerable concern, so I try to analyze the case by analyzing the theory of judicial activism.