作者：毛一炜
编辑：周志刚 责任编辑：罗志飞 校对：程筱筱
（摘要）本文是作者在中国法院工作的亲身经历。揭露了中国司法体系的黑暗。
在中国的地方法院，司法公正往往只是表面功夫。官员贪腐、权力干预、熟人关系——这些，比法律条文更能决定案件走向。
2022年7月，我通过考试进了法院，当了一名书记员，在诉前调解室工作。我们这个城市人口五十多万，从东到西打车也就半小时。地方不大，大家互相认识，所以法院里的人都清楚：结案率比公正更重要，关系网也比证据管用。刚进去不久，我就听说院长因为贪污受贿被抓了。这件事让我第一次真切地意识到，这里的“公正”，只是数字和权力的游戏。
调解室很小，只有一台电脑、一台打印机，前面摆着几张长桌和几条凳子。空间有限，紧张气氛常常弥漫在空气里。
调解室里有三位领导，都是退休返聘回来的老法官，年纪六十、七十出头，在法院工作三十多年，见过各种案件和纠纷。现在，他们的主要工作就是“打圆场”，让矛盾在表面上平息。
这里处理的案件大多是合同纠纷（如借贷、买卖、小额合同）、侵权纠纷（如交通事故、工伤）以及离婚案件。很多当事人彼此认识，双方和证人往往是熟人或邻里。在这样的环境下，诉前调解不仅是处理纠纷，更像是一场复杂的人情博弈。
我经常看到当事人吵得面红耳赤，拍桌子、互相指责成了常态。三位老法官却面不改色，笑着劝：“大家都不容易，各退一步吧”。
表面看起来温和，但他们打圆场的目的并不是为了公平，而是为了结案率。只要双方签了字，系统里就多一个“调解成功”的记录，案件就不会进入法院审理。谁吃亏、谁占便宜，都不再重要。
我记得一次民间借贷案，男方证据明显有问题。女方坚持要上庭，但法官劝她：“算了吧，调解一下，反正都是熟人，别闹大。”女方最终哭着签了字。那一刻，我彻底明白，这里的“司法公正”，往往只是数字背后的假象。
在这样的体系里，没人敢认真讲是非。法官怕结案率低被问责，当事人怕事情闹大。大家都在努力维持表面平静，而真正的不公被彻底掩盖。
后来我主动辞职了，无法忍受这种压抑的工作氛围。我认为法院原本应该维护正义，可在中共的司法体系里，权力和关系说了才算。
My Days in the Court: False Justice in the Mediation Room
Author: Mao Yiwei
Editor: Zhou Zhigang Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei
Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator:Peng Xiaomei
Abstract:
This article is based on the author’s personal experience working in a Chinese court. It exposes the darkness of China’s judicial system.
In local courts across China, judicial fairness often exists only on the surface. Corruption, political interference, and personal connections—these factors, more than the law itself, decide the outcome of cases.
In July 2022, I passed an exam and entered the court system as a clerk, working in the pre-trial mediation office. Our city has a population of just over half a million; it takes only about half an hour to drive from east to west. It’s a small place where everyone knows everyone. Inside the court, everyone also knows this unspoken truth: the case-closing rate matters more than justice, and interpersonal relationship connections better than evidence. Not long after I started, I heard that the court president had been arrested for corruption and bribery. That was the first time I truly realized that “justice” here was nothing but a game of numbers and power.
The mediation room was small—just one computer, one printer, a few long tables and benches. The cramped space often filled with tension.
There were three supervisors in the room, all retired judges rehired after decades on the bench. They were in their sixties and seventies and had handled every kind of case imaginable. Their main job now was to “smooth things over”—to calm disputes on the surface.
Most of the cases handled here involved contract disputes (such as loans, sales, or small-value contracts), tort cases (like traffic accidents or workplace injuries), and divorces. Many of the litigants knew each other; the parties and witnesses were often friends or neighbors. In such an environment, pre-trial mediation was not just about resolving disputes—it became a delicate game of social relationships.I often saw parties shouting at each other, faces red with anger, slamming tables and trading accusations. The three old judges would remain calm and smile, saying, “Let’s not make this hard on anyone—why don’t both sides take a step back?”On the surface, it seemed kind, but their goal was not fairness—it was efficiency. As long as both sides signed the papers, the system would record another “successful mediation,” and the case would never go to trial. Who gained or lost no longer mattered.
I remember one civil loan case where the man’s evidence was clearly flawed. The woman insisted on going to court, but the judge persuaded her, saying, “Come on, just settle it—everyone here knows each other; don’t make it bigger than it is.” In the end, she signed the agreement in tears. That moment made me fully understand that “judicial fairness” here was nothing more than an illusion behind statistics.
Within such a system, no one dares to speak the truth. Judges fear being punished for low case-closure rates; litigants fear making trouble. Everyone works hard to maintain superficial peace, while real injustice is buried completely.
Eventually, I resigned voluntarily. I could no longer bear the suffocating atmosphere. I believe a court should stand for justice, but under the Chinese Communist Party’s judicial system, only power and interpersonal relationship connections decide what is right.
