Who is better, the court or the procuratorate?

Question 1: Which is more powerful, the court at the same level, the procuratorate or the public security bureau? 10 floor building is too complicated. Let me put it briefly, the landlord is easy to understand.

The name of public security is half a level lower than that of legal inspection, but it has great power, many people, quick mobilization, wide management and everything. The disadvantage is that the grass-roots police are very tired and have little power.

Prosecutors of the procuratorate go out to handle affairs, and the general organs will give face. It is the easiest to handle affairs for relatives and friends, and it is also the most useful for grassroots civil servants. The disadvantage is that the power is relatively empty and there is little oil and water.

Courts are not only responsible for criminal trials, but also monopolize civil and administrative affairs, and there are some violent institutions such as executive boards. The characteristic of a judge is that there is no problem. People don't care about you. Once you have a problem, you are the master.

Question 2: Which is more powerful, the court or the procuratorate? From the level, the public security bureau is lower than the courts and procuratorates, but the public security bureau is in charge of very practical things, so the power that can be directly used is quite large. ...

The procuratorate has a little more power than the court because it has the function of supervising the court.

Question 3: Is the provincial procuratorate more powerful or the municipal procuratorate more powerful? Procuratorates in China are divided into four levels: the highest level, with provincial procuratorates (municipalities directly under the Central Government), municipal procuratorates (prefecture-level cities) and county procuratorates as vertical leaders.

Question 4: Which is more powerful, the Commission for Discipline Inspection or the Procuratorate? In reality, the real power of the commission for discipline inspection is greater than that of the procuratorate. China's current situation is actually governing the country by the party, and the Commission for Discipline Inspection is responsible for inner-party supervision. At the same time, the leader of the Commission for Discipline Inspection must be a high-ranking official with great power within the Party (currently Huo Guoqiang, member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau). The procuratorate should have great power, but the judicial organs in our country are not independent. Even after the 15th National Congress of 1998, the rule of law was formally put forward, so the judicial system is a walk-on for the party and younger brother. This has caused the real power of the procuratorate to catch up with the Commission for Discipline Inspection!

Question 5: Who has more actual power, the court or the procuratorate? What about the Public Security Bureau? Public security law, just look at this statement.

From the level, the public arc bureau is lower than the courts and procuratorates, but the public security bureau is in charge of very practical things, so the power that can be directly used is quite large. ...

The procuratorate has a little more power than the court because it has the function of supervising the court.

Question 6: According to the principle of separation of powers and checks and balances, courts and procuratorates have the same power. But in fact, it is still very popular in court.

Question 7: Is the procuratorate more powerful or the court more powerful? The procuratorate is Qingshui yamen. Courts have business income, courts exercise judicial functions, and procuratorates exercise the functions of investigation, arrest and prosecution. For personal future, the court is far better than the procuratorate, but the court will be busier and have more entertainment, so the power of the court is greater than that of the procuratorate.

Question 8: What does the power form difference between the procuratorate and the court show? In recent years, no matter how the government and public opinion emphasize the importance of judicial power and how to highlight the importance of the court as the terminal of judicial power, the reality that China society is dominated and centered by administrative power will not change. The strength of China's social administrative power is reflected in all aspects of social operation. Although the importance of the court in social operation is gradually increasing, its marginal position in the state power system is obvious. Even compared with the procuratorate, which belongs to the same judicial organ, the court is quite weak, not to mention compared with the administrative organ.

From the perspective of power form, there are five main differences between the procuratorate and the court: First, the investigation and prosecution work of the procuratorate is confidential, and the trial work of the court is basically open. As an investigation and prosecution organ, the procuratorate should handle specific cases in secret. A prosecutor's disclosure of work is a leak, and other people's inquiries are taboo or even illegal. Especially * * * cases involving * * officials are even more mysterious! The procuratorate sued the case to the court, and the court knew the inside story, and the whole world basically knew it; Two, the work of the procuratorate is active, and the work of the court is passive. The procuratorial organ may file a case for investigation according to any possible clue, or decide whether to prosecute according to the specific case. The court must wait for the procuratorate to sue the case to the court before it has the power to hear it. Even ordinary civil cases are ignored. Three, the attorney general's power is reflected in the one-vote decision. The attorney general has the right to ask questions and give decisive opinions on the direction, intensity and nature of any case investigation. The power of the president of the court is embodied in consultation and decision. Because the collegiate bench of the court and the judicial Committee implement the organizational principle that the minority is subordinate to the majority. Of course, the president of the court can also impose personal influence on the case, but the way is definitely secret (not worthy of the name), and the effect depends on whether the following people are obedient; Four, the case transferred to the court by the procuratorate, the judge should organize the trial, analyze the case, listen to the defense of lawyers and prosecutors, and return the case to the procuratorate for investigation if the case is vague and the facts are unclear. The final judgment itself is also a summary and analysis of all the procedures and processes of a case. Prosecutors have gone through such a process, and the quality of handling cases must be greatly improved. In recent years, corruption cases involving judges have emerged one after another, and the procuratorate should be responsible for the investigation of such cases and "take away" many people from the court. On this issue, the difference between the two can be summarized as follows: the court helps the procuratorate improve its quality, and the procuratorate helps the court clean up its ranks; Five, the depth and intensity of mutual restraint authority are different. If the procuratorate is not satisfied with the court's decision, it can lodge a protest, including in the criminal and civil fields. This restriction on power seems simple, but it is actually quite beneficial. The only way for the court to restrict the public prosecution case of the procuratorate is to return to investigation. The power of this restriction seems interesting, but it is not painful.

If we only look at the current situation of the judicial system, the above five differences are institutional (some even belong to nature), and there seems to be nothing to refute! But the problem is that compared with the procuratorate, the responsibility of the court is more macro and political! Compared with the responsibility of strategic buildings, its power is passive, trivial, subject to many constraints, and even often interfered! This unequal power and responsibility makes the image and status of the court very strange. In the judicial power system, the procuratorate is too independent and strong, and the external procuratorial power is becoming more and more administrative (in fact, the internal structure of the court is also becoming more and more administrative, which is another topic that needs to be discussed. ), greatly diluted the importance of the court as the king of justice. Under the current atmosphere of value evaluation of state organs oriented by the size of power, the court is still in the embarrassment of being marginalized. So, is there a problem with our current judicial system? Although we can't change the weakness of judicial power relative to administrative power for the time being, we can at least reform the judicial system and "arm" the courts with more judicial power to make them relatively strong. After all, the most important standard of a country's legalization degree is the status of the court! You know, only when the supreme position of the judicial terminal power represented by the court or the court is truly confirmed and implemented can this country truly enter the track of legalization!

Question 9: Which is better, the court or the procuratorate? each attends to his own duties

The responsibilities of the Supreme Court and the courts at all levels are very different.

But in a word, it is trial and administration.

The Supreme Court has increased the review of death penalty, and the judicial interpretation and the specific provisions of criminal law have no explicit charges, so it has the right to approve the application of analogy.

The duties of the procuratorate:

1. exercise procuratorial power over major criminal cases of treason, individual attack on the state and serious damage to the unified implementation of state policies, laws and decrees.

2. For major criminal cases such as corruption and bribery, dereliction of duty by state functionaries, illegal detention, extorting confessions by torture, retaliation and framing, illegal search by state functionaries, and crimes against citizens' interests, initiate investigation and decide whether to arrest or prosecute criminal suspects.

3. Review cases investigated by public security organs, state security organs, smuggling crime investigation organs and other investigation organs, decide whether to approve arrest and prosecution, and supervise the legality of investigation activities of investigation organs.

4. Prosecute criminal cases and support public prosecution; To supervise the legality of judicial activities of the people's courts.

5. Supervise whether the criminal judgments and rulings of the people's courts are correct, and lodge a protest if there are mistakes; Supervise the legality of the execution of criminal activities by the executing organs.

6. To exercise legal supervision over the civil trial activities of the people's courts.

7. To exercise legal supervision over administrative litigation.

8. To protect citizens' right to lodge complaints and accusations against illegal state functionaries according to law, investigate the legal responsibilities of those who infringe upon citizens' personal rights, civil interests and other rights, and accept citizens' complaints, reports and accusations.

Question 10: which is better, the court or the procuratorate? What does it matter? These are two different departments, with different powers, different division of labor and no difference in size. Of course, there are good and bad units, probably in terms of material benefits. One is the treatment, and the other is the convenience. Who can get more respect from others? From a legal point of view, the procuratorate is responsible for criminal prosecution, investigation of corruption and bribery cases, and supervision of court trials. The court is responsible for hearing all kinds of cases, and finally draws a conclusion and gives the result. This is the procedure for all kinds of cases to finally draw a conclusion.