Judges should be strictly according to the law, but this does not mean everything should be abided to the regulation. There are difference and connection between the law of the legislator and the law in the mouth of the judge. All legislators have their own purposes in making laws. Its intention is to allow the general public to carry out activities in the rules of the law . But the social changes frequiently .It is difficult to achieve complete justice in the complex situation because the law is a general rule . This would require "specific treatment", which means to judge flexiblely under the provisions of general law, in a certain range in the process of practice.so as to protect the litigant legitimate interests and maintain the justice of law. If legislators do not know what the purpose of legislation is, we will say that he is not rational. Similarly, judges as the adjudicators, if only make decisions step by step, only act as the "mouthpiece" of the law, we will say it is irrational. Because if only according to the provisions of the law, "the same treatment in different situations", it is bound to produce a lot of inequality, which is difficult to achieve the essential requirements of the law - equity and justice. The suggestion— "rule under the law in governing the country" we advocated is not simply and mechanically in accordance with the law and discretion. It is to require the judiciary in a certain legal rules, the use of their own knowledge and discretion in a certain range of discretion. Only in this way can we really build a socialist country under the rule of law.
温馨提示:答案为网友推荐,仅供参考