略论联合国刑事司法准则

联合国刑事司法准则是指由联合国制定或批准的有关刑事司法的标准和规范。它具有两个显著的特点 ,即高度重视刑事司法中的人权保障和从长远着眼于对犯罪的预防。我国对“条约必须遵守”原则一贯信守不渝。如何进一步保证联合国刑事司法准则在我国切实得以实现 ,还有许多工作要做。     

声音

“‘欣弗事件’如果作为个案来看,可以从各种角度来质疑这个企业,甚至可以和前不久发生的‘齐二药事件’相提并论,但是如果放到目前的药品制造市场大环境来看,此次事件体现的是中国本土药品制造业遭受的洗牌动荡,以及在此过程中存在着的市场潜规则。”"——一位自始至终关注此事件的业内人士说,从某种角度讲“欣弗事件”具有标本作用。“大灾之年,农民颗粒无收,所以也就没有向农民收取农业税。农民不交农业税,政府也就没钱给灾民们出运费。”——内蒙古阿荣旗有的领导干部说。2003年,内蒙古阿荣旗遭遇大旱。2004年春天,党和政府为灾区人民送…     

论刑事辩护制度的现代性构架

本文首先从现代社会所具有的主体性和程序性这两个基本特质出发,初步探讨了刑事辩护现代化的基本原理、程序主体性原理和程序正义原理,然后分析了刑事辩护现代化所具有的人权保障、诉讼民主、诉讼效率和实现正义四方面的功能,并结合联合国刑事司法准则分析了刑事辩护现代化的主要指标。     

合同责任与侵权责任竞合的比较研究

在民法上，不法行为人实施的某一违法行为符合多种民事责任的构成要件，从而在法律上导致多种责任形式，此种现象被称为“责任竞合”。从权利人（受害人）的角度来看，因不法行为人的行为的多重性，使其具有因多种性质的违法行为而产生的多重请求权，此种现象称为请求权竞合。     

"犯罪治理"作为刑事诉讼目的的若干思考

学界的主流观点以及现行立法对我国刑事诉讼目的皆持“二元论”的立场,即一方面为惩罚犯罪,一方面为保障人权,并没有把“犯罪治理”作为刑事诉讼的一个目标。从刑事政策的视角来看,这样的程序设计并不妥当。未来的刑事诉讼法修改,应该考虑赋予诉讼程序在治理犯罪方面的制度功能。     

危险犯的犯罪中止问题探讨

按照通说,危险犯在法定危险状态形成后,行为人又主动采取措施防止危害结果发生的不成立犯罪中止,但这一通说却也面临许多质疑。按照我国中止的立法规定、犯罪构成、危险犯的特性来看,危险犯达到既遂状态后成立犯罪中止是完全具有合理性和可行性的,并且应该是危险犯的中止而不是实害犯的中止,从刑事政策的角度来看也给了犯罪人回头是岸的机会。     

开放的中国数据刑法体系之建构——基于本体法益与功能法益的区分

现行关于数据刑法体系的探讨执着于从立法论上设计一套周延的数据罪名体系，在研究方向上误入歧途。数据法益具有本体和功能的二元结构，数据犯罪包括数据本体犯罪和数据功能犯罪两大体系。数据功能犯罪体系具有开放性，总是随着数据不法行为的发展而变化，难以周延。数据刑法的重心在于数据功能犯罪体系，应通过解释论之方法，从数据作为手段、数据作为对象、数据作为结果三个维度持续实现对数据不法行为的功能性关联，不断根据数据不法行为的发展而认定与之相应的数据功能犯罪。对撞库、网络爬虫、外挂、流量劫持等数据不法行为的定性，除了认定非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪，提供侵入、非法控制计算机信息系统程序、工具罪等数据本体犯罪，还应认定侵犯公民个人信息罪、盗窃罪、破坏生产经营罪等数据功能犯罪。单一数据不法行为触犯数据本体罪名与数据功能罪名的场合，属于想象竞合，从一重罪处断但应作数罪宣告；复数数据不法行为触犯数据本体罪名与数据功能罪名的场合，数据功能犯罪的特定实害无法吸收数据本体犯罪的多元危险，属于实质数罪，应当数罪并罚。     

我国刑事被害人国家补偿问题的研究

在诉讼过程中,被害人只被认为是客体,欠缺参与地位,因而被称为“被遗忘的人们”.随着犯罪学理论的不断发展,侵害人、被害人相互作用理论逐渐展开,如刑事和解制度出现,强调了被害人、侵害人以及国家社会之间的一种利益衡平,国家不再一味苛责侵害人的不法行为,而是在认定侵害人不法行为的基础上强调被害人的利益,对被害人提供充分的保护,从和解的角度对轻微刑事案件进行处理,被害人成为了刑事和解案件三足鼎立之其一①.     

刑事执行监督功能探讨

刑事执行监督的应有功能是指人民检察院对刑事执行活动实行监督,保障刑事执行活动依法进行所应当具有的发现违法、纠正违法、建立预防机制的功能。刑事执行监督的法定功能是指法律所确立的检察机关在刑事执行监督过程中发现违法、纠正违法、建立预防机制的功能。应当以立法为先导,以规范派驻检察室建设为基础,以提高派驻检察人员的素质、建立责任制为保障,完善刑事执行监督的功能。     

从李庄案看辩护人伪造证据、妨害作证罪的认定

从法条关系的角度以及现实适用来看,辫护人伪造证据、妨害作证罪的存在本身就是一种职业歧视的结果。现实中所出现的一些判例固然可能是罪名本身的问题．但是也可能是对于罪名理解偏差所致。辫护人伪造证据、妨害作证罪之所以是结果犯,既是因为其犯罪对象即刑事证据具有特殊性．又是因为该罪与其他伪造犯罪的不同性在于其他伪造犯罪的伪造行为与欺骗行为是可以分开的,刑法惩罚本罪行为的重心是作骗行为,     

Punishment and Beyond: Achieving Justice Through the Satisfaction of Multiple Goals

We investigated the hypothesis that people's need for punishment does not preclude a desire for restorative sanctions that address the repairing of the harm to victims and communities caused by wrongdoing. Study 1 showed that although people felt it was important to punish the offender to achieve justice, they viewed additional justice goals as equally necessary. Study 2 revealed that people viewed sanctions as differentially able to fulfill various justice goals. Study 3 showed that the target on which respondents focused—the offender, victim, or community—determined which sanctions they selected to achieve justice; and that people did tend, by default, to focus on punishing the offender when responding to crime. These findings, taken together, suggest that people view the satisfaction of multiple justice goals as an appropriate and just response to wrongdoing, which allows for a possible reconciliation between the "conflicting" goals of restorative and retributive justice.     

The scope of punishment: an economic theory

The harm caused by many acts is not certain but probabilistic. Current public enforcement of the law combines harm-based sanctions (usually in criminal law) with act-based sanctions (very common in administrative law and regulation). We propose an economic theory of the choice between harm-based and act-based sanctions in public enforcement. The efficiency of act-based versus harm-based sanctions is analyzed and a typology of the determinants is drawn up. Our model suggests that harm-based sanctions are more efficient when (1) acquiring information about the act is important, (2) engaging in harm avoidance activities is advisable, (3) judgment-proofness is not a very significant problem, (4) punishment is especially costly, (5) changes in law are expensive or difficult to negotiate and (6) on average, potential criminals are better informed than the government about losses for society. Legal policy implications are discussed.     

联合国制裁之定性问题研究

国际社会虽然使用“联合国制裁”的措词来表述联合国宪章第七章中规定的强制措施,但却因为其带有浓厚的政治色彩而对其法律制裁的特性深表怀疑,这种怀疑无疑将严重影响联合国制裁机制的进一步发展。然而,按照法律制裁的基本标准来判断,联合国制裁不失为一种专门的法律制裁机制,虽然与国内法律制裁机制相比较,它具有许多缺陷:制裁领域的残缺性;制裁对象的局限性;制裁环节的分权性。但这些缺陷不能从根本上影响其作为法律制裁的本质特性。认识到联合国制裁的这一特性具有十分重大的现实意义,它将为联合国制裁系统最终通过改革而发展成为一种更加全面、完善的法律制裁机制奠定坚实的思想基础。     

Justifying Imprisonment: On the Optimality of Excessively Costly Punishment

The criminal punishment literature has focused on justifyingnonmaximal punishments and the use of nonmonetary sanctions.It has not addressed why imprisonment, rather than cheaper formsof corporal punishment, should be the dominant type of nonmonetarysanctions. David Friedman (1999) recently hypothesized that,because convicts lack political influence, it is desirable tomake punishment costlier than necessary to prevent policy makersfrom excessively punishing convicts. This article explicitlymodels this hypothesis and uses simulations to determine underwhat circumstances this hypothesis justifies using imprisonmentrather than cheaper nonmonetary sanctions.     

Does Fault Matter?

In this article, I try to go beyond the traditional objections to strict liability public welfare offenses and confront other possible justifications for punishing non-culpable conduct. Specifically, I consider the following arguments:

• Penalties for public welfare offenses are punishment by name only, thus traditional justifications for punishment are not needed;
• Even if those penalties are punishment, punishing those who produce or threaten significant harm to others is not necessarily unjust; and
• Even if such punishment is not entirely just, it is consistent with other widely accepted criminal law doctrines.

     

论国际经济制裁对海上保险的影响——以伊朗制裁为例

国际经济制裁是国际社会为实现特定的政治目的而针对特定对象施加的直接或间接限制或禁止其经济活动、资产利益的强制措施.联合国、欧盟、美国均对伊朗实施了经济制裁,涉及贸易、航运领域,相关制裁规则的制定及执行在理论和实践层面对海上保险的提供、理赔等环节均产生了诸多障碍.中国也不可避免地受到了国际经济制裁的影响,欲维持国家能源和经济安全,中国可在制裁规则的框架内或突破制裁规则予以应对.     

A New Leviathan: Benefit Sanctions in the Twenty‐first Century

This article highlights the spectacular growth of benefit sanctions in the United Kingdom which, at their peak, exceeded the number of fines imposed in the criminal courts. It proposes a three‐fold typology of monetary sanctions – punitive judicial sanctions, exemplified by court fines, regulatory administrative sanctions, exemplified by parking penalties, and disciplinary administrative monetary sanctions, exemplified by benefit sanctions – and compares them in terms of their main aims, how they are imposed, whether the interests of those sanctioned are protected, their severity, the socio‐economic characteristics of offenders, the hardship caused, how proportionate they are, and whether they are compatible with justice. It argues that they are particularly problematic because their severity causes great and disproportionate hardship, and because, in addition to punishing offenders, they also attempt to discipline them by managing their behaviour, and concludes that, in the United Kingdom, they function as a key instrument for disciplining and managing the poor.     

The Priority of Politics and Procedure over Perfectionism in Penal Law, or, Blackmail in Perspective

Criminal law theory concerns itself with the justification of punishment. Conflicting moral theories of punishment will be held in liberal democracies. The positive law therefore neither will nor should reflect exclusively a single moral theory of punishment. Like the institutions for making law, the institutions for enforcing it will cause punishments imposed to deviate from what pure moral theory might prescribe. These claims are illustrated by the debate over blackmail prohibition. The best rationale for prohibition is not the moral argument that blackmailers culpably cause harm, but the political argument that blackmailers threaten the state’s claimed monopoly on punishing crime.     

Retributivism and the inadvertent punishment of the innocent

Retributivism is generally thought to forbid the punishment of the innocent, even if such punishment would produce otherwise good results, such as deterrence. It has recently been argued that because capital punishment always entails the risk of executing an innocent person, instituting capital punishment is tantamount to intentionally taking innocent lives and therefore cannot be justified on retributive grounds. I argue that there are several versions of retributivism, only one of which might categorically forbid risking punishing innocent persons. I also argue that our moral practices reveal either that we do not hold this particular version of retributivism, or that we reject equating risking punishing the innocent with intentionally doing so. *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** A9102008 00005     

论修复性司法模式

与重惩罚的传统刑事司法模式不同,修复性司法模式,强调的是如何对犯罪造成的损害进行修复,而非单纯惩罚犯罪人。修复性司法作为一种刑事司法改革运动与一种刑事司法理念,还不是一个完全成熟的理论。因此,其内涵关系真实性是否存在还需要进一步检验,同样,修复性司法在我国能否进入实务过程似乎还有一段困难的路要走,仍有待加强实证研究。