刑事和解的困境与出路

由于我国司法理念、诉讼制度、工作机制等因素的约束,刑事和解制度的推行遇到理念冲突、角色矛盾、制度缺失、价值失衡等现实困难。在修订《刑事诉讼法》、确立刑事和解制度的同时,要对相关的司法理念、诉讼制度、工作机制进行深入的革新,为刑事和解制度的立法和实践创造可能的出路。     

论多元化纠纷解决机制内的刑事和解制度

刑事和解是西方法学的创举，是刑事司法领域一项方兴未艾的刑事诉讼改革思潮。刑事和解制度创立和推行，为社会矛盾的多元化解决提供了一种更为经济、更有效率的解决机制。文章重点论述刑事和解的概念及渊源、刑事和解的一般功能和在我国的意义体现，旨在对构建我国刑事和解制度提供价值取向上的参考。     

在宽严相济的语境中浅谈在校学生犯罪刑事和解

刑事和解是司法上的非犯罪化措施,我国研究和引入刑事和解制度应当以现行的刑事政策为指导,在宽严相济的语境中谈刑事和解的运作。本文以在校生犯罪为视角,从刑事和解制度的理论基础出发,对在校生犯罪刑事和解的现实需要与制度缺失、构建在校生刑事和解需要破解的难题等方面进行了较为深入的阐述。     

我国刑事和解制度的构建

刑事和解制度作为一种新兴的犯罪处理模式,创生了一种新的利益争端解决方式,具有诉讼分流、满足不同主体利益、化解被害人与犯罪人之间矛盾和冲突等司法功能,能够弥补现行刑事司法体制的不足与缺陷。本文对我国现在的刑事和解面临的问题和制度困惑进行了解析,立足于问题,从实体制度、程序制度、和解监督和辅助制度等四个角度提出了全面构建我国刑事和解制度的设想。     

刑事和解制度的本土化思考

本文在对我国刑事和解的评价与分析的基础上,揭示了刑事和解制度有效化解社会矛盾、更好地维护被害人利益、更有利于犯罪人回归社会的特点,并对刑事和解实践和刑事和解制度本土化的可行性进行了论证,从而提出了设置基层调解员,确认检察机关调解权,确立加害人赔偿与国家补偿相结合制度的建议.     

和谐检察视野下的刑事和解制度再探讨

刑事和解制度是对轻微刑事案件采用非刑事化方式处理的一种制度。我国构建刑事和解制度,建议法律应明确规定:将刑事和解程序的适用限制在审查起诉阶段;范围限于未成年人犯罪和轻微刑事案件;检察机关在刑事和解程序中担当调解人;赋予和解协议具有法律效力;参照民事诉讼建立赔偿标准;对当事人权利进行救济。     

刑事和解制度之探析

刑事和解制度由于其显著的价值功能,已经备受世界各国的青睐。在我国,刑事和解有源远流长的传统文化基础,也有现实可行的刑事政策背景。构建刑事和解制度,我国应当结合现实国情,在继承传统和文化的基础上,合理地吸纳国外刑事和解制度之精华,确保刑事和解功能的充分发挥。     

论我国刑事和解制度的弊端与完善

刑事和解,是近年来司法机关为促进社会和谐而推出的一项制度创新。自我国引入刑事和解政策,并应用于司法实践,至今已有近十年时间。期间,刑事和解在化解社会矛盾方面发挥了一定的作用,促进了社会和谐稳定,但也暴露出一些不容忽视的问题。本文结合我国国情,对刑事和解制度面临的现实问题进行分析,并提出一些针对性的完善构想。     

论多元化纠纷解决机制内的刑事和解制度

刑事和解是西方法学的创举,是刑事司法领域一项方兴未艾的刑事诉讼改革思潮。刑事和解制度创立和推行,为社会矛盾的多元化解决提供了一种更为经济、更有效率的解决机制。文章重点论述刑事和解的概念及渊源、刑事和解的一般功能和在我国的意义体现,旨在对构建我国刑事和解制度提供价值取向上的参考。     

刑事和解的潜在风险

【编者按】近年来,我国法学界对于刑事和解制度已有较多讨论和研究,刑事和解的意义和作用也得到了普遍的肯定和认同。但刑事和解是否存在一定风险和弊端,理论界对此关注不多。本期笔谈的各位学者分别从刑事和解的潜在风险、认识误区、适用空间拓展、制度构建中的困境以及其与刑法基本原则间的矛盾等角度进行探讨,以期进一步完善我国刑事和解制度。     

刑事和解借鉴之分析

刑事和解是一种新型的刑事司法关系。我国借鉴刑事和解制度的依据在于刑事和解可以更好地解决特定类型刑事案件中行为人的责任。借鉴刑事和解制度并不会弱化预防功能,也不违背法律面前人人平等的原则。目前借鉴刑事和解制度有利因素与不利因素并存,但不利因素并非刑事和解自身的弊端。应该以既积极又谨慎的态度看待刑事和解借鉴。     

On restorative justice practiced in China

The victim-offender reconciliation (VOR), practiced by the basic public security, procuratorates and courts since the advent of 21^st century, is a new mode different from the mediation or conciliation in the procedure of civil litigation or of that accessory to the public prosecution in criminal proceeding. This mode connects the criminal justice with the mediation or private reconciliation by themselves. Thus, non-official settlement can influence the criminal justice and the decisions of authoritative agencies. It is beneficial to restore the victim’s interests, urge the offender to repent for his wrongdoings, compensate for the victim’s loss and restore the damaged social relationship. The VOR in China is the same in essence as the Western restorative justice, so it could be regarded as a Chinese mode of global restorative justice movement. Though the VOR mechanism works well, it still brings some matter in further consideration: (a) the legitimacy of VOR; (b) the conflict against the basic concept of crime; (c) the effect to the social reality.     

浅析中国适用刑事和解的必要性——从传统刑事司法体制弊端的角度

伴随全球范围内兴起的审视传统刑事司法体制弊端的思潮，作为旨在全面恢复为犯罪所破坏的多方平衡的刑事和解制度，开始逐步进入人们视野。在较好地弥补传统刑事司法体制固有缺陷的同时，它也顺应了保护被害人权益的呼声。“它山之石，可以攻玉”，在海外多国早已将这一制度正名、收编，国内不少城市、地区的司法机关也对其试点实践的大背景下，从传统刑事司法体制弊端的角度，借鉴国外实践研究经验，有助于探讨中国适用刑事和解制度的必要性问题。     

论刑事和解在我国司法实践中的完善——以恢复正义理论为视角

近年来,肇始于西方的刑事和解成为了我国刑事法理论界和实务界研究的热点,司法机关更是对其进行了试点并取得了一定的成绩。由于对刑事和解内涵的把握存在一定的偏差,实践中司法机关大多把金钱赔偿作为实现加害人与被害人和解的唯一手段,致使公众对刑事和解不甚了解。以恢复正义理论为视角,从提倡和解手段的多样性、鼓励社区参加刑事和解程序和设立司法机关监督下的独立的调解机构等方面入手,对完善我国司法实践中的刑事和解大有裨益。     

Restorative justice and probation decisions – an analysis of intentional assault cases in China

The restorative justice model focuses on amending offender-victim relations. Compared to Western countries, China's criminal justice policy has relied on both formal and informal mechanisms in dealing with criminal offending. Recently a victim-offender reconciliation (VOR) program has been codified in China to provide incentives for offenders and victims to resolve their disputes through court-guided mediation sessions. Using restorative justice as an interpretive framework and drawing upon 1000 minor intentional assault cases, this study examines the impact of core VOR concepts on probation decisions. Our analysis suggests that offender compensation and attitude were significantly related to the likelihood of receiving probation, and the defense attorney played an unexpected yet impactful role in shaping judges’ probation decisions. Theoretical and policy implications are discussed.     

质疑与废止:刑事附带民事诉讼

刑事附带民事诉讼制度在其产生之初,具有一定的历史合理性,但是已经不适合当前的现实。现实中,该制度矛盾重重,包括刑事诉讼与民事诉讼的矛盾,刑事附带民事诉讼与普通刑事诉讼、民事诉讼的矛盾,刑事附带民事诉讼程序内部的矛盾。同时,国外以刑、民分诉为主流和方向。因此,对该制度应该予以废除。     

预防侦查错误视角下公安刑事鉴定制度的反思与完善

刑事鉴定对于公安机关侦查破案发挥着日趋重要的作用,公安机关在侦查线索的寻找、侦查方向的确定乃至侦查终结的定案证据等方面都极为依赖刑事鉴定.然而,因公安刑事鉴定制度本身存在某些缺陷而容易产生诸多鉴定问题,进而导致侦查错误的发生,以致酿成了一系列刑事冤案.完善现行的公安刑事鉴定制度首先亟需解决公安机关内设鉴定机构的组织管理制度问题,即应确保内设鉴定机构的相对独立,同时应明确对刑事鉴定技术的采用标准.诚然,完善公安刑事鉴定制度并不能完全杜绝侦查错误的发生,但是可以减少侦查错误发生的概率.     

我国刑事赔偿制度的困境与出路

刑事赔偿制度要发挥调整、缓解司法权与公民权的矛盾和冲突的功能,就必须将平衡司法权与公民权所要求的内容表达出来。我国现行刑事赔偿法律制度在制度规范层面存在严重缺陷,不能满足调整司法权与公民权的矛盾和冲突的实际需要,应当在刑事赔偿范围、归责原则、赔偿义务主体、赔偿程序以及赔偿经费管理体制的设定上进行修改完善,使其与其他相关制度构成一个完整的权利救济体系。     

Was Ellen Wronged?

Imagine a citizen (call her Ellen) engages in conduct the state says is a crime, for example, money laundering. Imagine too that the state of which Ellen is a citizen has decided to make money laundering a crime. Does the state wrong Ellen when it punishes her for money laundering? It depends on what you think about the authority of the criminal law. Most criminal law scholars would probably say that the criminal law as such has no authority. Whatever authority is has depends on how well it adheres to the demands of morality inasmuch as morality is the only authority we have. Thus if morality says that money laundering should not be a crime then the state wrongs Ellen when it punishes her. But if the criminal law as such does have authority, and if in the exercise of its authority the state has decided to make money laundering a crime, then the state does Ellen no wrong when it punishes her.     

Motives,Reasons, and Responsibility in Hate/Bias Crime Legislation

Hate/bias crimes, according to what we may call the literal interpretation, are crimes distinguished by their connection to a certain kind of motive. Hate crime laws and sentencing provisions state that such motives may result in penalty enhancements. According to the standard objection to hate crime laws, this position is problematic: first, criminal law should not be used to pass moral judgments on motives. Its concern should be with actions as modified by intentions, not with the values and reasons of perpetrators. Second, our motives are not directly responsive to the will, so we should not be held responsible for them. In reply to the second part of the objection, this article defends a version of the literal interpretation of hate crime that conceives of it as acting on a bad reason. Hate crime laws add punishment not for motives/thoughts, but for the decision to treat a patently bad reason (such as racism) as a reason to commit a criminal act. If the act itself is reason-responsive, we can be held responsible for what reasons we act on. Given that the truth or falsity of hate/bias on these grounds is not a disputed matter, we can justify using the criminal law to recognize the moral status of such motives.