圍繞著司法責任制中「責任」這個概念的界定，是強調審判獨立， 還是對法官問責，在不同主體間形成了對於司法責任制重心的「闡釋爭奪」。政治家對於錯案終身問責的政治承諾和民眾對於糾正錯案後問責的呼聲是一致的，然而這卻與法律家所持「重獨立審判，輕法官問責」的豁免法官責任的傾向產生了斷裂，以至於法律人建構出一種「去責任化」的司法責任制。在對司法責任制的闡釋上，法律職業主義話語暴露了自身無法消除的矛盾。法學界不能只依賴法律職業主義話語，也要反思這套話語背後所追求的職業利益和職業特權，必須要認真對待司法責任制的政治性維度。

Around the definition of the concept of “responsibility” in the judicial responsibility system, whether it emphasizes the judicial independence or the accountability of judges has become a “contested ground for interpretation”. The political commitment of politicians to life-long accountability of misjudged cases is in line with the public’s call for accountability after correcting misjudged cases, which is at odds with the tendency displayed by lawyers who seek to exempt judges from their responsibilities by “emphasizing independent trial while neglecting judges’ accountability”. When it comes to the interpretation of the judicial responsibility system, legal professionalism discourse constructs a judicial responsibility system without accountability, which has its own contradictions that cannot be eliminated. Legal academia should not take the discourse of legal professionalism for granted: by rethinking the professional interests and privileges that this discourse entails, one takes seriously the political dimension of judicial responsibility system.