The effectiveness of the reform of the judicial system should be judged by the people, and in the final analysis, it should be judged by whether the credibility of the judiciary has been enhanced. Regarding deepening the reform of the judicial system, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that it is necessary to "adhere to the fundamental criterion of improving the credibility of the judiciary". Judicial credibility is a public force that can arouse universal obedience and respect from the public, which is manifested in the ability of judicial power to win the trust and trust of the public, and the degree of respect and recognition of the public for judicial subjects, judicial operation processes and judicial rulings. Judicial credibility is not only an objective reflection of judicial ability and judicial level, but also an important cornerstone for cultivating legal beliefs and ensuring fairness and justice. Practice has proved that if the judicial line of defense lacks credibility, crimes go unpunished, and justice cannot be served, social justice will be widely questioned, and social harmony and stability will be difficult to guarantee.
Through years of reform of the judicial system, the mainland has made great achievements in the building of the judicial system, which is prominently manifested in the increasingly rational system of judicial organizations, the gradual improvement of judicial mechanisms, the continuous expansion of judicial functions, the continuous improvement of judicial procedures, the continuous standardization of judicial behavior, and the continuous improvement of the quality of judges. However, the construction of judicial credibility still faces some difficult "hard bones", one of which is that the evaluation system of judicial credibility is not yet mature and complete. Scientifically constructing an index system for the public's evaluation of judicial credibility, and objectively and comprehensively measuring the level of judicial credibility building, is conducive to judicial organs understanding, grasping, and analyzing the public's evaluation of judicial credibility, and using this as a "baton" to improve the quality and effectiveness of work in a targeted manner, and truly achieve the goal of "making the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case".
Accurately grasping the manifestations and internal elements of judicial credibility is the premise of constructing a judicial credibility assessment system. Only by identifying the right starting point, responding to concerns, and highlighting key links can we ensure that the assessment itself is targeted and the assessment results are reliable. Judicial credibility refers to the ability of judicial products, judicial organs and judicial personnel to gain public recognition and convincing.
From the perspective of external performance, judicial credibility is the interactive cognitive relationship between the judiciary and the public. On the one hand, judicial organs gain the general trust of the public and embody judicial authority by exercising their powers in accordance with the law, taking responsibility for their actions, and accepting questions. On the other hand, the public recognizes, respects and obeys the judicial subject, the judicial process and the adjudication results from the bottom of their hearts, so as to promote the benign operation of judicial power and realize the authority of the law.
From the perspective of internal elements, judicial credibility includes multiple contents: first, the subject element, that is, the correct judgment of judicial personnel (judicial subjects) on the facts of the case and the application of law, and the rejection of external interference. The second is policy elements, which refer to those policy elements that can promote the improvement of judicial credibility, mainly including the strength of judicial openness, the support of the administrative, legislative, supervision and social organization systems, etc. The third is institutional elements, which refer to those institutional arrangements that can promote the improvement of judicial credibility, such as the formulation and implementation of provisions such as the "Provisions on the Recording and Accountability of Internal Personnel of Judicial Organs Prying into Cases" and the "Opinions on Further Deepening Judicial Openness". Fourth, the elements of science and technology. The auxiliary and supporting force of modern science and technology for judicial activities is increasing day by day, and the science and technology of justice not only realizes the deep integration of judicial rationality and scientific and technological rationality, but also effectively promotes the openness of justice, improves judicial efficiency, and promotes the realization of "visible justice", thereby effectively improving judicial credibility. Accordingly, indicators can be designed from the aspects of trial enforcement, team building, system construction, and smart court construction, so as to form a focused and wide-ranging evaluation system. It should be noted that the content of the assessment should cover the influencing factors of judicial credibility as comprehensively as possible, and at the same time, it should not list the indicators in detail, so as to be as simple and clear as possible to improve operability.
Taking into account the subjective feelings of the masses and the characteristics of judicial professionalism, build a logical and clear evaluation system. Judicial credibility is the people's subjective feeling about the judiciary, and the evaluation of the judiciary inevitably has a strong subjectivity. However, blindly emphasizing subjectivity is not in line with judicial rules and judicial requirements. Judicial work has some objective indicators and considerations, and judicial power has its own laws in terms of power allocation, power operation, and specific activities. Among them, the professionalism, passivity, and neutrality embodied in judicial rules are obviously different from the acts of other public authorities, and should be fully respected when conducting conduct assessments. To determine the evaluation indicators of judicial credibility, it is necessary to grasp the following three aspects. First, attention should be paid to digging deep into the basic laws and characteristics of judicial activities, based on the overall goal and spirit of the current reform of the judicial system, and there should be both subjective indicators that reflect the feelings of the broad masses of the people and objective indicators that reflect judicial specialization, and try to transform the subjective and arbitrary judgment criteria into objective and operational evaluation indicators. The second is to keep pace with the times, not only to reflect the main functions of the judicial organs in the new era, but also to echo the phased and annual key work of the judicial organs. Third, there should be a logical relationship between the elements, no disorder, no omission, no overlap, and an effective, comprehensive, credible and flexible evaluation system should be established through practice.
Establish a scientific and comprehensive evaluation operation mechanism to ensure that the evaluation results are objective and effective. Evaluation indicators have been identified, and the question of who will carry out the evaluation is also very important. In terms of the subject of assessment, it is necessary not only for the court to provide objective data for the evaluation, but also for the outside world to conduct an assessment of the court; There must be both the participation of the public and the participation of the legal profession. At the operational level, from a practical point of view, third-party institutions have become one of the most operational and dependent assessment bodies, and many local law schools, scientific research institutions, legal service units, law firms, non-governmental legal think tanks and non-governmental assessment organizations have actively assumed the responsibility of third-party institutions. Of course, the third-party institution should carry out the assessment work under the auspices of an authoritative body, and the division of responsibilities between the two must be clear and clear, with the former responsible for implementing and issuing the assessment report, and the latter responsible for system design, organization and coordination, and review of the assessment report. In addition, in the use of assessment results, the evaluation agency should conduct quantitative analysis and qualitative research on the survey data and materials, and write a comprehensive research report, analyze in detail the specific directional significance of each evaluation result, sort out the weak links and outstanding problems that affect the credibility of the judiciary, and put forward specific opinions and suggestions, and reasonably incorporate the evaluation indicators and data rankings into the evaluation system for the work of courts and judges, and use them as an important reference for judicial organs to strengthen and improve their own work, and give full play to the role of promoting judicial quality, The role of judicial efficiency, judicial effectiveness and the improvement of the quality of the judicial workforce.