Reflections on, and Improvements of,the Mediation Functions of People’s Assessors

Wang Gali*

Kunming University of Science and Technology

Abstract: Legislatively, the people’s assessors are defined as individuals who share judicial power.However, in the context of dispute resolutions, their role is restricted by the courts, which affects the extent of their assessorial activities.It is imperative to reconsider the implications of the people’s assessors’ deep involvement in mediation from the standpoint of societal division of labor.To enhance this division of labor, it is advisable that the people’s assessors relinquish their mediation roles.It is necessary to redefine the distinctions between people’s assessors, judges, and people’s mediators, including specially invited mediators.This would not only make up the deficiencies in the role of professional judges but also relieve the tension between judicial professionalism and popular accountability.

Keywords: social division of labor, assessor system, mediation function, reflection,improvement

Phenomenon, Controversy, and Inquiry

Emile Durkheim held that division of labor brings efficiency and organic solidarity to society (2000, p.24).This demonstrates the necessity of occupational classifications in modern society.However,despite the importance of division of labor, cooperation remains essential.Against the backdrop of building diversified mechanisms for dispute resolution, new players have been joining the efforts of the courts to create dispute resolution platforms.This is evidenced by the presence of permanent people’s mediators or specially invited mediators at courts.Moreover, the number of people’s assessors, an effective supplement to judges, has significantly increased nationwide since 2015.On April 1, 2015, Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, presided over the 11th meeting of the Central Leading Group for Comprehensively Deepening Reform, which reviewed and approved thePilot Program for Reforming the People’s Assessor System.Following this, on April 24, 2015, the 14th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People’s Congress passed a resolution authorizing a two-year pilot reform of the people’s assessor system in selected courts across ten provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions.On April 28, 2015, the Supreme People’s Court and the Ministry of Justice co-convened a meeting to deploy the pilot reform, marking the formal initiation of this project.Subsequently, the Supreme People’s Court, in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice, issued a number of related documents, including the Measures for Implementing thePilot Program for Reforming the People’s Assessor System, theNotice on Further Strengthening and Improving the Pilot Program for Reforming the People’s Assessor System, and theProvisions for the Oath of the People’s Assessors(Trial).These documents have facilitated the smooth progress in the reform of the people’s assessor system.The successful implementation of the pilot program prompted the adoption of thePeople’s Assessors Law of the People’s Republic of Chinain April 2018, which explicitly stipulates that the number of people’s assessors shall not be less than three times the number of judges in the court.As of April 2019, the number of people’s assessors across the country had exceeded 300,000 (Lu, 2019, p.3).The legislation specifically outlines the duties of the people’s assessors in participating in court trials.To prevent issues like one assessor participating in too many trials, it mandates that courts should reasonably set a maximum annual case participation limit for each assessor, based on local circumstances.Nevertheless, the involvement of the people’s assessors in mediation remains controversial.The role of the people’s assessors is undoubtedly to assist the people’s courts in adjudicating cases.①Adjudication refers to the authoritative and binding decision made by a legally empowered third party, intended to adjust and resolve conflicts of interest and disputes within social relationships.See Huang, S.Y.(2003). On the Power of Civil Adjudication in Modern China: Practices in Developing the Power of Civil Adjudication for the People.Beijing: Law Press of China.p.49.Yet, the phenomenon of their engagement in mediation, or their dual role as mediators,sparks divided opinions among scholars and practitioners.Proponents of the people’s mediators also serving as people’s assessors argue that their experience and proficiency in mediation can enhance the legal expertise and operational effectiveness of the people’s assessors (Wang,2015, p.17).They suggest recruiting people’s assessors from among experienced mediators(Chen, 2010, pp.107–110), enabling them to utilize their mediation skills in preliminary conflict resolution before court proceedings (Su, 2013, pp.101–107).Opponents contend that the participation of people’s assessors in mediation is an aberrant extension of court staffing needs(Yu & Zhang, 2016, pp.192–197), which could result in role confusion and cognitive dissonance(Lu, 2015, p.2).This debate is accompanied by broader reflections on the functioning and interplay of the people’s assessor and mediator systems.

TheInterpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the People’s Assessor Law of the People’s Republic of China(JI[2019]No.5), which came into effect in May 2019, provides that people’s assessors are allowed to participate in mediation, recognizing the function of judicial mediation served by the people’s assessors.①Article 10 provides that people’s assessors have the right to participate in case investigation and mediation according to the law during the trial process.However, it also stipulates that the people’s assessors shall not participate in the adjudication of cases in which they have previously mediated in their capacity as mediators.

It seems that this judiciary interpretation has provided a definitive resolution and clarification on the considerable controversy.The rationale behind the aforementioned provisions is to acknowledge that the people’s assessors are distinct from the people’s mediators, and their functions should not overlap.The people’s assessors can only assist judges in achieving judicial mediation during the trial process.However, the issue arises from the recurrent interaction and influence between the identity of people’s assessors, the timing and location of their role enactment, the authorities conferring the identity, the individuals receiving the identity, and the specific dispute cases.This cyclical process of communication and influence intensifies and potentially alters the textual content, practical applications, and the public mindset.How exactly this process unfolds requires further examination.Is there a deviation between the role of the people’s assessors in judicial mediation and their initial functional mandate? How does the identity of a people’s assessor merge with their involvement in mediation? What influence does the interaction between individual activities and existing mechanisms have, and how might this influence shape the future of civil judicial reform?Answering these questions requires attention to the individuals who serve as the people’s assessors and the identity bestowed upon them.It also necessitates considering the relationship between the expression of the people’s assessor system in textual representation and practice, as well as the theoretical context underlying the actual operation of this system.Only then can we address the profound implications that may arise from the institutional arrangements.

How Are Identities Established?

The delineation of the identities of the people’s assessors and the people’s mediators stems from a formal legislative framework,②According to the People’s Mediation Law, people’s mediators shall be members of and persons hired by the people’s mediation commissions.According to the People’s Assessors Law, citizens have the right and obligation to serve as people’s assessors.with each identity entailing distinct responsibilities.The division of labor not only establishes strong relationships among individuals by limiting their activities but also enhances their effectiveness.Moreover, it strengthens the unity of organisms while nurturing their vitality.Both coexist symbiotically under normal circumstances (Durkheim, 2000, p.353).The division of labor among the different roles contributes to the establishment of legal foundations.According to thePeople’s Assessors Law, the general qualifications for a people’s assessor include having a minimum of a high school education and being at least 28 years old.The qualifications of a people’s assessor require review and consultation with the candidates.The candidates for people’s assessor can be selected in three ways: random selection, individual application, and nomination by organizations or groups.①See Articles 9 and 11 of the People’s Assessors Law.However, individual citizens still have their own considerations in establishing these two identities.Not all individuals who meet the legal requirements are inclined to take on these roles, nor does a willingness to do so guarantee the attainment of these identities.Individual considerations are crucial behind the assignment of these roles.Empirical research in academia shows that the more prevalent method for appointing assessors is through designated selection (Liao et al., 2018, p.7).Although the method of selecting the assessors differs, China’s people’s assessor system aims to achieve democratic,free, judicially authentic, and justice-oriented goals, similar to jury or lay assessors’ systems worldwide.②Although some countries have restricted the operation of the jury system or even abolished the system due to its political nature, jury systems have been established in countries around the world (common law countries like the UK and the US, as well as continental law countries).

The different method of selecting assessors does not necessarily determine the effectiveness of the system.While the law as a normative framework possesses seriousness and stability, legal activities are carried out by individuals with strong subjective agency.The imprint of individuals is evident in the processes of making, administering, enforcing,and abiding by laws.Identity is an active element that serves as a political act of recognition.The work of the people’s mediators, due to the nature of mediation, particularly emphasizes subjective abilities and is closely related to an individual’s subjective consciousness.By contrast, the people’s assessors are relatively bound by legal norms and should be conscious of conducting trials in accordance with the law.Apart from these two roles, the individuals inherently possess subjectivity as citizens and have their own preferences and biases.The expressive coherence that is required in performances points out a crucial discrepancy between our all-too-human selves and our socialized selves.A certain bureaucratization of the spirit is expected so that we can be relied upon to give a perfectly homogeneous performance at every appointed time.The socialization process not only transfigures,it fixes.③George Santayana holds that there are inevitable conflicts between the true self and social roles.See Goffman, E.(2008).The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.In (G.Feng, Trans.).Beijing: Peking University Press.p.45.As a specific type of individual, one must not only possess the characteristic qualifications mandated by the law but also uphold the behavioral and outward standards associated with their affiliated group (instrumental and moral requirements) (Goffman,2008, p.94).Identity, status, reputation, etc.are not tangible entities that can be displayed;rather, they are appropriate patterns of behavior that exhibit internal consistency, constantly refined and polished by individuals and possess strong coherence.Law, as a social construct,permeates and cannot be separated from everyday life and cognition.However, human agencies can avoid, resist, leverage, or reconstruct this structure.The reciprocal affirmation,communication, and influence between the construction of legal identities and individual agency occur in a cyclical manner, continuing until boundaries are delineated.

According to the prevailing view, the functions of the assessor system include achieving judicial democracy, ensuring judicial supervision, complementing the limitations of judges’functions, and promoting legal education (Jiang & Xiao, 2015, p.73).Given that the primary agents in the assessor system are the people’s assessors, and considering that various participants—including courts, judges, lawyers, parties, and the assessors themselves—bring different perspectives and biases to these activities, it becomes necessary to categorize these functions.Utilizing the emic-etic approach from anthropology, this categorization can be achieved.①Understanding culture from within and observing culture from an external perspective to comprehend cultural differences are known as emic and etic approaches that have become important concepts in ethnographic investigation and research after being systematically studied and used by Marvin Harris.The key lies in truly grasping factual issues, as the interactions between emic and etic perspectives, different emic perspectives, and different etic perspectives imbue the emic-etic complex with dynamism and liveliness.See Ma, C.W., & Qin, L.Y.(2017).Emics/etics: research on the Kaquewa Festival of the Derung ethnic group and methodological insights. Journal of South China Normal University (Social Science Edition), 3, 148–155 & 192.From the perspective of the people’s assessors as the main actors exercising the adjudicatory power on behalf of the court, they exercise the power as insiders, contributing to judicial democracy and compensating for judges’ limitations.From the perspective of the people’s assessors having their own professions and not being part of the court system, they perform the functions of judicial supervision and legal education as outsiders.In this case,participation in mediation activities at the court should be considered a function performed by the people’s assessors as insiders.From this perspective, we can see clearly how the people’s assessors engage in both adjudication and assessment and understand how the mediation function is fulfilled.

Reflection on the Mediation Function

Assessors come from various professions, and individuals may not necessarily belong to any specific organization.Even if they were previously affiliated with government agencies,public institutions or enterprises, their status does not automatically transform into being a“staff member” of the people’s court after being appointed as assessors by the local people’s congress.The identity of assessors only becomes “substantiated” when they participate in the trial of specific cases.For individual assessors, the appointment itself is often seen as an honor rather than a duty.When assessors arrive at the court to participate in a trial, they as individuals enter the domain of the court, which is their “home field,” to carry out their work.Assessors working in their home field have external identifiers such as work pass and office.More importantly, they enjoy the same authority as judges when participating in the trial.Whether serving on a three-member or seven-member collegial bench, assessors are able to independently express their views on fact-finding, exercise voting rights, and wield judicial power.①The Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the People’s Assessors Law of the People’s Republic of China (JI [2019] No. 5), which came into effect in May 2019, further clearly defines the assessors’ power as accessing case files, participating in case investigations, mediating, questioning the parties involved, expressing opinions during deliberations, and voting.The advantage of working in their home field allows assessors to freely assess cases and present their opinions on the facts and application of law through participation in collegial bench deliberations.Furthermore, in accordance with the principle of majority rule within the collegial bench, the opinions of assessors are respected and even supported.

Empirical observations in academia show that individuals who have ample time and regularly participate in case hearings are better able to fulfill their function as assessors.This includes relatives of court staff, retired teachers, and officials (Liao & Liu, 2018, pp.32,120), primary-level officials (Liao & Liu, 2018, pp.91, 104), and others.These individuals can establish a relatively close working relationship with the judges (Liao & Liu, 2018, p.72).This suggests that there is a process for the people’s assessors to transition from being unfamiliar to becoming proficient in their assessment work.It takes time for judges and assessors to feel comfortable about working together and ensure the normal functioning of the system when sharing the exercise of the adjudicatory power.②The communication between different adjudicatory power holders may even go beyond the mastery of legal knowledge.See Liao, Y.A., & Liu, F.Y.(2018).Whose Assessment: Survey on People’s Assessment of China.Beijing: China Renmin University Press.p.97.More importantly,social networks featuring strong subjective experience serve as a guarantee for the people’s assessors to effectively exercise their power.Networks provide identity, defining and interpreting individual members; social identity largely comes through association.As instrumental social networks can facilitate the dissemination of information, consciously constructing relationship networks helps to control situations and improve status (Burt,1995, p.18).The functioning of the assessor system and the attainment of intended goals still rely on proactive collaboration between judges and assessors.According to thepeople’s assessors Law, the people’s assessors and judges participate in the trial activities together and share common powers.Therefore, the involvement of the people’s assessors in trial activities should primarily focus on complementing the limitations of judges’ functions and sharing their work pressure.As for the role of judges, resolving disputes and achieving judicial order are the purposes of civil litigation.③For individual judges, the people’s assessors are meant to address the workforce shortage.See Liao, Y.A., & Liu, F.Y.(2018).Whose Assessment: Survey on People’s Assessment of China.Beijing: China Renmin University Press.p.26.Under the principle of justice for the people, the primary goal is to efficiently conclude cases.As a result, a significant number of cases are resolved through judicial mediation.Likewise, although the cases whose trial the people’s assessors participate in involve significant, difficult, and complex situations for which a collegial bench is established, they should be handled with the same mindset that the judges have: resolving disputes and efficiently concluding the case.①When judges and assessors reach a mutual understanding and are willing to make efforts towards this objective, the success rate of mediation is considerably high.See Liao, Y.A., & Liu, F.Y.(2018).Whose Assessment: Survey on People’s Assessment of China.Beijing: China Renmin University Press.pp.168 &192.Although the people’s assessors share some similarities with judges as to how they are selected, such as both requiring appointment by the people’s congress,②The act of appointment by the People’s Congress itself explicates the legitimacy and legality of the power vested in the people’s assessors.there are significant differences between them in composition,management, and utilization.Therefore, as non-professional judges, the people’s assessors are not able to think like judges when participating in case mediation.③One way to address this problem is to establish full-time or permanent people’s assessors.In this case, based on extensive experience in the collegial bench,they would gradually familiarize themselves with and even grow proficient in applying the judges’ ways of work and thinking, thus becoming “quasi-judges.”However, establishing such full-time or permanent positions goes against the original intention of involving people’s assessors in trial activities.Despite regular training and involvement in case hearings, they cannot attain the professional expertise of judges.Moreover, judges need to accept and adapt to the changes in judicial reform, such as the “one-stop trial service” or other trial methods.It undoubtedly adds to the difficulty of the people’s assessors in fulfilling functions beyond mediation.Assessors come from various social strata.Given the state-society dichotomy adopted in China, their participation should be considered a form of democratic supervision over the state’s judicial organs.Due to the stress on the random selection of assessors, their diverse backgrounds represent the public’s evaluation of the court’s work.However, when individual assessors participate in trial work that they are not familiar with on a daily basis, they primarily demonstrate their understanding of the court’s work and legal expertise.

The legitimacy of the people’s assessors is beyond doubt since they are appointed by the local people’s congress.However, the significance of their work in the home field only becomes apparent when compared to individuals outside the court.When working together with judges or other court staff or participating in important court activities,④According to the Notice of the Supreme People’s Court and the Ministry of Justice on the Issuance of Measures for Training, Assessment, Rewards, and Punishments of People’s Assessors (FF [2019] No. 12), the training of people’s assessors during their term of office is primarily provided by primary people's courts in conjunction with the corresponding judicial administration authorities.The training program should be approved by an intermediate people’s court, or by a high people’s court in the case of municipalities directly under the central government.This arrangement regarding the training process places assessors in a subordinate, secondary position, while underlining the difference in professional competency between judges and assessors.The very existence of this training underlines the fact that trainers occupy a higher standing than trainees, as the necessity for training inherently implies deficiencies amongst the assessors.assessors would consciously or unconsciously “show weakness” to draw a line between their identities.With the implementation of the assessor system, democracy is achieved in the sense that the people run the country and participate in and deliberate on state affairs.For the courts, it signifies judicial democracy and the legitimacy of their judgments.This is the fundamental purpose of the assessor system.However, the assessor system has formed its own logic of operation.Assessors desire more than mere participation, and the courts expect more than basic forms of involvement by assessors.Both parties are demanding more, leading to participation on deeper levels in the court’s work.Mediation, a normal way of concluding cases for judges, thus becomes a derivative function for the people’s mediators.

However, the existing selection process of the people’s assessors determines that they cannot attain the same level of expertise as judges.No matter how much training is provided to them or how much they are involved in case handling, there is a limit to reaching or approaching the level of professional thinking of judges.In terms of performing the function of dispute resolution, the people’s assessors may be more adept at mediation based on their own knowledge and experience (playing to their strengths).Nonetheless, the establishment of the people’s assessor system does not intend for them to serve as mediators.Despite the similarities in the composition of personnel, the crucial difference lies in the divergent purposes represented by the two systems.①As directed by the People’s Mediation Law, the objective is to promptly settle civil disputes and uphold societal harmony and stability; whereas, as per the stipulations of the People’s Assessors Law, the legislative aim is to guarantee citizens’ lawful engagement in trial proceedings, foster judicial fairness, and enhance the judiciary's public credibility.Even though the unification of judge-led mediation and adjudication results in a role for judges somewhat distinct from their Western counterparts, the systemic value and aims of the people’s assessor have been legislatively established.This implicitly suggests that the main task or central focus of people’s assessors is not mediation.An examination of the non-professional judge systems in other countries shows that mediation has never been a function of non-professional judges.②Non-professional judicial characters around the world take various forms, including jurors, lay assessors, and magistrates.Broadly, they serve both adjudicatory and societal-political functions.Even within their adjudicatory roles, they primarily engage in fact-finding and law identification, facilitating dispute resolution, and advancing rule-based governance, but they do not explicitly perform as third-party mediators.See Peng, X.L.(2012).Research on Non-professional Judges: Ideas, Institutions and Practices.Beijing: Peking University Press.p.71.Even though countries worldwide are increasingly emphasizing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for resolving disputes, the applicability of non-professional judges still has prerequisites and a limited scope.③Apart from jurors whose application is a right of the parties as stipulated by Constitution of the United States, albeit requiring the parties’ application, other types of non-professional judges, including magistrate judges, lay assessors, and associate judges, have limited and specific jurisdiction in the cases they handle.Given the prevailing trend of diverse dispute resolution mechanisms, the use of non-professional judges or ADR remains a legitimate choice for the parties involved.These two approaches are not mutually exclusive and can coexist harmoniously under certain conditions,④Some American courts have started experimenting with jury-determined settlement (JDS), a procedure that involves the parties, their attorneys, the jury, and the judge jointly present.Once the parties agree to the JDS procedure and the scope of compensation, evidence is presented before the jury and the judge.Following the judge’s instructions, the jury then determines the specific amount of compensation to be awarded.See Vidmar, N., & Rice, J.(1991).Jurydetermined settlements and summary jury trials: observations about alternative dispute resolution in an adversary culture.Florida State University Law Review, 19, 89–103.thereby ensuring that non-professional judges follow the trend, and their legitimacy is highlighted (Syverud, 1997, pp.1935–1945).

Improvement of the Division of Labor

The more a profession is characterized by scientific and intellectual features, the higher its prestige (Zhou, 2003, p.277).Conversely, professions deeply involved in interpersonal interactions or holding a dominant position in power dynamics are more prone to social conflicts.Such professions may face challenges to their legitimacy and potentially suffer negative impacts on their reputation.People’s assessors, sharing equal status and authority with judges in judicial proceedings, depend on effective interactions with judges for the proper exercise of their authority.The mediation role emerging from the assessor system might adversely affect its legitimacy and reputation.Consequently, the operational logic of the system should be predicated on maintaining a suitable distance between judges and assessors: The people’s assessors ought to independently express their views on factual determination and legal application, drawing upon their own experiences.This approach is essential to uphold the value and significance of the assessor system.

The legal arena and legal discourse are crucial for constructing power, providing space and resources for establishing authority and legitimacy (Coombe, 1989, 1991).The presentation of legal activities is always somewhat different from the activities themselves.Individuals rely on various symbols to portray these activities.However, miscommunication can inevitably lead to the destruction of the image individuals construct.Mediation, unlike adjudication, is a task that courts intentionally assign to people’s assessors.This function prevents the assessors from fully leveraging their advantages as the primary decision-makers and does not align with their positioning as neutral participants.As adjudicators, judges and the people’s assessors do not have uniformity in terms of status, income, and reputation,despite a shared appointment process.Therefore, it is unreasonable to demand uniformity between the two in terms of the quality of judicial services they provide.The organizational form of the collegial bench, in which the people’s assessors participate, reflects the complexity and challenges of cases.However, the selection and management mechanisms for the people’s assessors before they join the collegial bench give rise to the mediation function.Strictly speaking, the independent mediation of people’s assessors, utilizing their own influence, as well as their involvement in judge-led litigation mediation, are both “deviations”from the intended function.The reform to improve the people’s assessor system should be focused on retracing and restoring the fundamental functions of the system, thus returning to the right track.

Reversion of Identity

Identity is an active element.When one’s identity is established, the scope of their activities is determined simultaneously.Judges render decisions according to law, but legislative texts do not always yield straightforward answers.They often need to use analysis and reason and apply their judicial experience to make legally sound judgments in the face of complex and ambiguous facts (sometimes based on intuition).This helps them avoid obvious biases.Sometimes, judges may even seek assistance from the theories, data, and insights of social sciences, as well as the experiences of others.In such circumstances, individual judges may need support and guidance to compensate for their own deficiencies in knowledge,experience, and abilities.

When the people’s assessors participate in judicial trial activities, they are typically involved in first-instance cases adjudicated by a collegial panel.Most of these cases are handled by primary courts under a single-judge system.①According to the 2019 Work Report of the Supreme People’s Court, primary courts settled 8.299 million cases using expedited proceedings, summary proceedings, and small claims procedures, which accounted for a significant portion of all the cases they handled.Therefore, the use of a collegial panel implies potential precedential significance in case resolution.In terms of the role played by People’s Assessors, it is crucial to define the boundaries of their legal actions and differentiate their roles from those of judges and other legal actors through legislative or judicial interpretation texts.The involvement of assessors in mediation underscores their non-professional judge status, enhancing the democratization of the judiciary.This contrasts with the increasing focus on the professionalism and elitism of the legal field.There ought to be a perceptible distance between public justice and legal professionals.While establishing a “mysterious” distance between judges and the public may not be feasible, removing the ceremonial and mystical aspects of the judiciary could lead judges to continually step down from their pedestals and delve deeper into the community, diverging from the legally defined functions.Specifically for people’s assessors, the endowment of their identity stems from their prior role, i.e., the existence of a prior identity.In the participation of people’s assessors in trial activities, this prior identity inevitably influences and even determines their perception of facts and the judgments they make.Hence, returning to this prior identity,by reverting people’s assessors to their foundational role, allows them to more effectively embody the public representation inherent in their prior identity during assessments.This approach addresses any limitations that might arise from professionalism and elitism in the judiciary.

Promotion of Law and Order Through the Division of Labor

The hierarchy and cross-application, or deliberate misuse, of identities demonstrate the distinction between the roles of the people’s assessors in adjudication and mediation.This is significantly different from jurors in other countries whose sole task is to help deliver the verdict.Take the example of the jury system in the United States.Jurors are selected through a screening process to include ordinary individuals.Despite their personal biases,their ultimate task is to give a verdict guided by the story constructed through firsthand experiences and case information (Huntley, 2003, pp.29–51).This paper advocates for accessors’ focusing on their democratic functions of participation and oversight.In other words, to achieve judicial democracy, it is essential for the people’s assessors to play a role distinct from judges.Treating them as equals with the same rights and responsibilities would blur the line between the two, whereas acknowledging the division of power and responsibilities is the right path forward.The system should be designed in such a way that people’s assessors are responsible for fact-finding and their findings constrain judges.In this case, assessors’ participation in mediation is no longer necessary.With a clear division of functions, the jurisdiction of assessors in adjudication is established, ensuring that they do not become excessively involved in determining the facts of the case.This allows the people’s assessors to make judgments on case facts based on their own conscience and experiences as ordinary people.On the one hand, the factual judgments made by assessors can constrain judges and alleviate their pressure.①Due to the limited number of assessors involved in the trial process, the judges collaborating on the same case can also influence the assessors’ decisionmaking by expressing opinions or providing instructions.On the other hand, through the assessor system,assessors establish their own authority and develop their awareness of judicial democracy.②The Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Advancing the Rule of Law defined the objectives of the reform of the people’s assessor system as follows: to improve the people’s assessor system, safeguard the right of citizens to serve as assessors, expand the scope of participation, refine the random selection process, and enhance the credibility of the system.Over time, the direction will veer towards a model, whereby the assessors no longer undertake matters related to the application of law but merely participate in the determination of facts.If the stress on professionalism and elitism of judges is considered to be a direction of judicial reform, incorporating assessors into the “l(fā)egal domain” of judicial adjudication implies a counterbalance to move towards professional judges.This approach avoids the pitfalls of elitism and excessive professionalization that could alienate the judiciary from the public.Therefore, envisioning different functions for different actors in the reform of the assessor system and the role positioning of the people’s assessors is aimed at avoiding the negative consequences of role confusion.

As non-professional judges, people’s assessors certainly have their primary jobs and social roles, which can lead to a “work-assessment conflict”③The “Work-Assessment Conflict” refers to the conflict emerging between the primary occupations of people’s assessors, who come from various professions,and their obligations in the capacity of assessors.when participating as assessors in trial activities.Focusing on people’s assessors’ original identity and the division of functions is not meant to negate the existence of this conflict, but rather to alleviate it.The reform ideas from the Supreme People’s Court regarding the people’s assessor system also recognize the importance of a clear division of labor (Liu, 2022, p.2).④The Supreme People’s Court, in its publication The People’s Assessor System: China’s Practice, outlined perspectives on reform and stressed the necessity to“allocate the duties and privileges of assessors and judges appropriately during the adjudication of cases.”The intention is to achieve judicial democracy more effectively by specifying the roles and responsibilities of judges and assessors in a detailed manner, and by substantiating assessors’ participation in trial activities.

Conclusion

Human activities are governed by a set of rules, and the design of rules for judicial activities should prioritize scientific rigor.Although it is common to see confusion between the roles of individuals in the context of a comprehensive social governance system,commonness does not equate to normalcy.The normal functioning of the litigation system is maintained precisely because of the designated roles of the individuals involved.Therefore,prior role setting is essential.Organic solidarity in society is based on roles and division of labor in different domains.The meaningful and effective participation of the public in the judiciary is crucial to procedural fairness.The people’s assessor system is a manifestation of whole-process people’s democracy in the judiciary.Based on the original functions of the assessor system, the judicial reform and extensive involvement of the people’s assessors in trial activities make sure that ordinary citizens can engage in judicial activities, showcasing judicial democracy.This helps to shape social governance based on collaboration,participation, and common gains.The normal and effective functioning of the people’s assessor system serves as a practical pathway to modernize the system and capacity for social governance.