论文部分内容阅读
类似的案件应当有类似的判决,这是体现司法公正的一个重要衡量标准。如果类似的案件判决存在天壤之别的话,必然会损害司法公正的权威。黄河水污染案虽然最终以内蒙古高级人民法院的主持下调解结案,但是,调解的结果和包头市中级人民法院的判决相差甚微。然而,在随后发生的松花污染案甚至没有进入司法诉讼程序,为什么同样是水污染案,一个判决巨额赔偿,一个没有进入诉讼程序,本文通过对两个水污染案的不同结局予以初步的探讨。
Similar cases should have similar judgments, which is an important measure of judicial fairness. If there are any differences in the judgment of similar cases, they will inevitably undermine the authority of judicial fairness. Although the case of Yellow River Water Pollution eventually settled down under the auspices of the Higher People’s Court of Inner Mongolia, the result of the mediation and the judgment of Baotou Intermediate People’s Court are quite different. However, in the ensuing Songhua pollution case did not even enter the judicial proceedings, why is the same case of water pollution, a huge compensation for the judgment, one did not enter the proceedings, the paper through two different conclusions of the water pollution case preliminary discussion.