司法目的必须去政治化

（一）司法目的必须去政治化，以维护社会正义为最高司法目的司法目的，是指全部司法活动所共同追求的目标。

司法目的政治化，就是指司法活动的目的被政治目的所取代。

在这种情况下，司法活动失去了应有的中立特征，不是以居中裁判的方式解决社会矛盾纠纷，而是按照政治的意图和要求去处理具体案件，使对案件的处理活动变成维护政治需要和追求政治利益的活动。

显然，司法目的政治化决定了全部司法活动的总状态，是形成“司法波荡”以及司法不公正问题的根本原因。

法律的中心内容不过是对社会正义的全面描述，法律实施的目的，就是为了维护社会正义。

司法活动作为法律实施的一个环节，目的当然是维护社会正义。

当社会已经基本实现了社会正义，那么司法活动的目的，就是维护已经基本实现了的社会正义；当社会正义受到损害而没有得到实现，那么司法活动的目的就是努力使社会正义得到实现并加以维护。

司法活动本质上就是一种维护社会正义的专门活动。

政治虽然有时是实现社会正义的重要方式和有力的手段，但是很多时候政治会因其理论的偏颇和主义的极端而损害社会正义，政治主体很多时候会以牺牲社会正义的方式来实现自己的政治追求。

司法不能在政治目的面前迷失自己的目的；司法不能完全被政治控制。

因此，必须将司法目的与政治目的剥离开、去除长期存在的司法目的政治化的状态。

否则，司法就不是真实的司法。

司法活动被称为维护社会正义的最后防线，也就是意味着在一切政治的、德治的、人治的手段都不能满足维护社会正义需要的时候，才会采取司法这一独特方式来维护社会正义。

因此，对于维护正义来说，司法的方式是不可替代的。

司法的方式，无论表现为刑事司法，还是表现为民事司法、行政司法，背后隐藏的司法目的仍然是维护社会正义。

（二）司法标准必须去偏执化，以坚持实质公正为最终司法标准司法标准，是指司法活动的工作要求和行为倾向。

司法标准偏执化，是指司法主体实施司法活动的工作要求和行为倾向不是中立、中正、居中，而是以司法主体自身利益（主要是政治利益）最大化为标准，并实际表现为处理案件的工作要求不断地从一个极端走向另一个极端。

如在刑事司法中，有时要求处理刑事犯罪案件越严越重越好；有时要求处理刑事犯罪案件越宽越轻越好；有时要求民事案件严格依法审判，有时要求调解结案的比率要不断提高，等等。

显然，这种偏执化的司法工作要求和标准，正是导致“司法波荡”的直接原因，理应予以革除。

司法只能运用自身特有标准，即以实质公正的标准来对矛盾争议做出处理。

只要确定司法是维护社会正义的专门活动，那么检验和评价司法活动的唯一标准就是看其是否符合实质公正标准。

实质公正是司法活动得以专门存在并成为维护社会正义的重要手段和基本条件。

司法以实质公正为最高标准时，不能以其他价值为更高标准，无论是“政治任务”的要求、“稳定大局”的要求，都不能与实质公正的标准同时适用于司法活动之中，因为司法活动在适用实质公正标准时，再适用其他任何标准都会使实质公正失效或者被抵销、被扭曲；无论是什么层级的上级，在法律面前也只是实施法律的一个主体，其意志不能作为司法活动的标准，因为并不是每一个上级指示都符合法律原意、都符合实质公正的标准要求。

实质公正之上也不能再以法律条文作为更高的司法标准。

实质公正高于法律条文和过去的判例，实质公正就是适用法律条文也不能体现社会正义的时候，司法主体所应遵循的工作标准。

实质公正标准通常是以司法主体的潜意识、内心良知的形态存在，在其适用法律判断事实和予以裁断的瞬息之间就已被应用了。

内心没有实质公正标准的法官，不是一个真正的法官。

实质公正是司法主体思想和行为的最高境界。

The judicial purpose must get rid of politicization in order to defending social justice which is regarded as the highest judicial purpose.Judicial purpose refers to the common goal pursued by all judicial acts. The politicization of judicial purpose means that the purpose of judicial act is replaced by political purpose. In this case, the judicial acts has lost their due neutrality, not to resolve social contradictions in the manner of mediation, but to deal with specific cases in accordance with political intentions and demands, so that the acts of handling cases become acts of defending political needs and pursuing political interests. Obviously, the politicization of judicial purpose which determines the total state of all judicial acts is the root cause of forming "judicial fluctuations" and judicial injustice.The core of the law is nothing but a comprehensive description of social justice and the purpose of the law is to defend social justice. Judicial acts as a part of the implementation of the law whose purposes are definitely to defend social justice. When the society has basically achieved social justice, then the purpose of judicial acts are to defend the basic realization of the social justice; While when social justice has been destroyed and not been achieved, then the purpose of judicial acts are trying to make social justice to be achieved and defended. Judicial act is essentially a special activity to defend social justice. Although politics is sometimes a crucial way to achieve social justice and a powerful means, but often politics will destroy social justice because of his biased theory and extremism, the legal subject often sacrifice social justice to achieve their own political pursue. Justice cannot lose its purpose in the presence of political purpose; Justice also cannot be completely controlled by politics. Therefore, the judicial purpose and political purpose should be divided in order to remove the long-standing state of politicized judicial purpose. Otherwise, justice is not real justice. Why the judicial acts are called the last line of defending social justice, which means the unique judicial style will be taken if the rule of law, rule of moral and rule of man cannot meet with the needs of defending social justice. Therefore judicial style is irreplaceable to the maintenance of justice. The judicial style no matter is showed as criminal justice or administrative justice, the purpose concealed behind is still to defending social justice.2. Judicial standards must be paralyzed to uphold substantive justice as the ultimate judicial standardJudicial standard refers to the job requirement and behavior tendency of judicial act. Judicial standards of paralysis refers to the legal subject implement the job requirement and behavior tendency of judicial acts are not neutral and just, but to maximize their own interests (mainly political interests) as the standard, and the actual job requirements of dealing case constantly move from one extreme to the other. Such as, sometimes it requires criminal case the worse the better. Sometimes it requires the handling of criminal cases the more lenient the better; sometimes it requires civil cases should be consistent with the law, and sometimes it requires the rate of mediation to be improved constantly. Obviously, the "judicial fluctuations” results from the paranoids of job requirement and standard directly and it ought to be reformed.Judiciary can only execute their own standards which are to deal with contradictions in a fair way. As long as the judiciary is the particular activity of defending social justice, the standard of inspecting and evaluating judicial act is whether it fits with substantive and fair standard or not. Substantive justice is the special existence of judicial act and the substantial means and basic condition of defending social justice. Judiciary cannot take other value as higher standards when it regards substantive justice as highest standard. No matter it is the requirements of “political mission” or “stabilization”, it cannot be applied in the judicial act with the substantive and just standard simultaneously. The judicial act will be no longer in force or be offset and distorted when it is applied in just standard and other standards simultaneously. No matter what the level of superior is, he is just a core executor in the presence of law, and not every instruction from high up would adhere to the specification of law and requirement of substantive and just standard. On the basis of substantive justice, the legal regulations cannot be used as a higher judicial standard. Substantive justice is superior to the legal regulation and former cases. Substantive justice is the application of legal provisions which the judicial subjects should follow the work standards when social justice cannot be reflected. The standard of substantive justice is usually based on the subconsciousness and inner conscience and has been applied in the moment of using the law to judge the facts and rendering verdict. The judge who has no substantive and just standards inner is not a real judge. Substantive justice is the highest level of legal sense and action of legal subject.。