Lawyers and jurists

We note that an increasing number of judges in the public media published an article on judicial decisions to the country's legal system, to comment, my judicial authorities also encourage the judge in the Magistrate's reasoning instruments to add the ingredients, and even the State system the judge appointment also advocated the reform of the judges and scholars. These are very encouraging. However, we also have a little bit of worry, this will not be a serious pan-academic activities of the administration of justice will not undermine the national judicial dignity, will delay the process of China's rule of law? For example, when the parties get the case after the entry into force of the verdict, on a sudden to see a judge in open court published an article on the case of the judge to the contrary, the parties will enter into force the decision to have a resistance? When the judge in a television interview with reporters and openly to the existing law harshly criticized the parties to the legal norms in the judicial activities of the application will have a negative thought? It can be said that the judge is of the scholars, but, the judge frequently in public media comment on the case, even the author of the law of the country for criticism, seems unlikely to match the identity of the judge. We are carrying out judicial reform, lawyers must not be blurred with the concept of these two jurists, in many cases, lawyers and jurists can not be confused with the role, but can not be wrong. Judges should be the law, and He is fluent in the law of the country, to skilled legal norms to link up with the facts in order to make a judicial judgments. The inadequacy of the existing law to other judges of the court decision, he can have their own views, but in the open to express their point of view, we must be careful. Justice is the practice of law, and during the administration of justice, his work is transparent, but, in the face of the other judges of the administration of justice or the lack of legal norms, he must be limited to maintain silence, as it relates to the law the dignity of the judicial activities related to the seriousness of the problem. When the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Justice Ti-liang Yang, a bill of Hong Kong public opinion, have repeatedly reiterated that they are not in his capacity as a judge to express their views, and reassuring, even if they do not agree that the Government's bill, in the future decision in accordance with the law will appear. As a family law judges, the acts of the basic bottom line is that legal norms. He should not be too much of the current criticism of the law should not be on the other judges over judicial activities of the judge, in court, he should be the convergence behavior of the hermit. Only in this way, when he was making a decision in accordance with the law, will have credibility. Can not imagine that a criticism of the existing law was devoid of any merit the judge able to apply what he considers the "laws" to decide the case. Can not imagine a regular criticism of other judicial decisions made by the judge's ruling will be the people's respect. Professional judges in published papers, not because of professional publications for the general public, not circulation, but the judge, speaking in public media must be careful, because judges are people who have a special mission. In the Microsoft case, Judge Jackson, the Court of First Instance in adjudicating cases, the frequent contacts with the mass media, Microsoft made public on the adverse remarks, resulting in the court were withdrawn. To withdraw the Court of Appeal ruling in the remand determination, the judge clearly pointed out that Jackson's actions violated the judge's professional conduct. Code of Practice for the future of our judges should also be clear that the judges can not be in the public media, the judicial activities and to comment on the current legal system. Of course, in the specific operation, the actual situation can be considered to develop a more detailed code of conduct. Jurists are different, they are a group of social woodpecker, their country's legislative and judicial activities criticism, the rule of law so as to promote the development of society as a whole. If family law is the rule of law in the pursuit of objectivity, then the jurists is the rule of law in pursuit of the scientific. The functions of the two different mechanisms of social restraint are also different. One of the greatest jurists of the privilege is that we can openly criticize the country's laws, because only jurists continue to carry out "constructive sabotage", the country's legal system will become more scientific. Jurists of the bottom line is social responsibility, by his or her academic accomplishment for the rule of law continue to provide new food for change, thereby promoting the progress of the rule of law. Jurists should be able to play the role of legislators, but in many cases, jurists merely "neutral" position that people may be more conducive to building the rule of law. Can not deny that lawyers and jurists of the role is interchangeable. Jurists today, tomorrow it may become law at home. On the contrary, the law has the potential to become the home of Jurists. However, in the role of change, our lawyers or jurists must become familiar with their new roles in order to avoid, "deviance" is not conducive to the rule of law matters. It is true that judges have the task of popularizing legal knowledge, but the judge is a judicial law popularization activities more performance out. Jurist Law Popularization he means completely different. Such lawyers and jurists of the natural division of labor, in fact, in order to better serve the rule of law, because if the administration of justice as the legal home of jurists who lack the "spot" supervision, may be fit of narcissism, satisfied with the status quo, China's the rule of law is the lack of power. The author claims to be lawyers and jurists separated from home there is no legal theory as a lack of preparation for the meaning of technocrats. My point is that the role of the judges of their own must have a clear understanding, to some extent to be willing to loneliness. Can not be overemphasized in the mass media publicity on the idea of their own. A judge advocate is not a good judge, a judge is not too much publicity is a good judge.