论社会管理创新中的刑事法治问题

刑法的天然属性使得其与社会管理存在紧密的互动关系,同时,刑法的保障法地位,又决定了社会管理创新需要刑法做坚强的后盾,保障秩序稳定。为了适应社会管理创新的要求,基于两者的契合,刑事法治发展需要从五个     

论宽严相济刑事政策与社会管理创新——以检察机关贯彻实施《刑法修正案（八）》为切入点

宽严相济刑事政策在实践中的具体贯彻执行需要以社会管理创新为出发点，也有利于进一步推动社会管理创新。《刑法修正案（八）》对刑法作出的修改，坚持了宽严相济的刑事政策，也体现了社会管理创新的需要：检察机关在贯彻实施农刑法修正案（八）》时，要注意将宽严相济刑事政策与推动社会管理创新结合起来，充分发挥法律监督职能，实现法律效果与社会效果的统一。     

刑事政策与刑法关系的应然追求

刑事政策与刑法的关系一直是个争议问题.在刑事法治观念日益深厚而刑事政策地位日隆的今天,讨论二者的关系意义尤其重大.刑事政策与刑法关系的核心,是在区别二者前提下的互动、制约、促进关系.刑法对刑事政策的制约主要涉及刑事政策的制定和实施,这是法治的要求,是权利保障的要求;刑事政策对刑法的指导主要体现在法律的制定、实施和法律变革上,这是时代发展的要求,也是社会防卫的要求.而倡行法治、保障人权是刑事政策和刑法都应该奉行的基本原则,是已为现代法治国家的刑事司法实践所证实的理性选择.     

现代法治社会的刑法理念

刑法理念在刑事法治建设中占据着极其重要的位置。我国一直偏重于刑法规范的法治化,而忽视了与之相应的刑法理念的法治化,使得传统刑法理念仍依着惯性持久地存在,并深刻影响乃至困挠着我国当代的刑事法治建设。为此,我国应当致力于破除传统刑法理念,树立人权保障观、刑法谦抑观、社会防卫观、刑法理性观等现代刑法理念,并以此指导开展刑事立法、司法工作,以进一步推进我国的刑事法治建设。     

中国刑法理念的前沿审视

刑事法治建设中的刑法理念超越刑事立法、刑法解释技术和刑法规范文本占据着更高的位置,具有根本性的引领作用。刑法理念引领、统摄刑事立法、刑法解释和刑事司法,但其作用场域不应包括刑事政策领域,其根本和关键在于坚持形式与实质统一的罪刑法定原则基础上的罪刑法定理念。罪刑法定既是一个原则,更是一种理念,刑法规定罪刑法定原则并不等于罪刑法定理念的树立和恪守。罪刑法定的核心归结为一点即是通过强调限制国家刑罚权即立法者的制刑权和司法者的求刑权、量刑权以实现对被告人人权的保障,审视"两点论"与"一点论"的争议,"一点论"更可取。单单坚持罪刑法定原则并不能消解由此带来的不可避免的"文字困境",需要以人为本、保障人权的人道主义理念的补足和调济,即在刑事立法上需要由重刑主义、功利主义、万能主义刑法立场向表征人道主义、以人为本核心理念的非犯罪化、非刑罚化、宽缓化刑法立场转变,在司法上需要恪守和践行国家刑权力的克制、宽容和谨慎,在刑法解释中需要贯注和坚守人道主义。基于宪法与刑法之间母法与子法、上位法与下位法的关系分析,刑法突破自身"视限"寻求正当性的更高指向和衡量标准应当是合宪性。"风险社会"理论无法为"风险刑法"提供理论支撑,二者没有直接的逻辑联结。"敌人刑法"在本质上与"风险刑法"有契合之处和内在共通性,二者都强调刑法介入早期化、法益保护前置化,实际上都是对刑法威慑恐吓效应特别是积极的一般预防机能的重视和强调,凸显注重以行为人为基础的社会防卫理念的抬头,实质上都对以行为为基础、坚守罪刑法定原则的人权保障理念提出了挑战,蕴藏着不可控制的隐性法治风险和人权保障风险。基于刑法的保障法地位、后置法角色,结合中国法治建设的历史,"风险刑法"和"敌人刑法"理念应当慎行。     

风险刑法的现实风险与控制

“风险社会”理论所要解决的是如何在民主的体制下应对新的社会风险,而不是通过扩张与公民基本权利相对的国家权力来解决这一问题。在“社会风险”理论者看来,无限制扩充国家权力来抵御社会风险就是最大的风险。刑法应对风险绝对不是通过确立风险刑法的模式来强调刑法的恐吓性。我国当前刑法理论所说的“风险社会”实际上不是“风险社会”论意义上的风险社会,而是通喻社会风险,有时还包括“人为风险”。“风险社会”理论不能直接为风险刑法奠基。抽象危险犯本身作为一种立法拟制的结果,无法为风险刑法提供适当的支撑;行为无价值理论更是以客观主义为基础,与风险刑法的理论基础并不契合,无法在客观归责理论中获取共识。风险刑法的实质是刑法威吓作用在新时期的重新泛滥,是对合法性原则的突破。信守刑事政策和法治的底线、厘清刑事政策与刑事法治的关系才是根本出路。     

和谐世界的“国际刑事法治”——对国际刑法的价值思考

在国际刑法中,世界的和谐与不和谐有其特定含义。国际犯罪是最严重的世界不和谐,国际刑事法治是世界和谐的最后保障。世界的基本和谐需要文明基础、政治基础、观念基础和秩序基础支撑。这些基础目前并不牢靠。国际刑事法治是国际刑法的价值论。     

试论刑事政策与国际刑法的关系

刑事政策是对犯罪有组织的反应,国际刑法以研讨国际犯罪为己任,对国际犯罪的研究需要以刑事政策为视角。本文通过分析刑事政策的含义及其国际化特征与国际刑法的发展方向,在刑事政策的视野下,揭示国际刑法的发展趋势——刑事政策的国际刑法化与国际刑法的刑事政策化,进而把握刑事政策与国际刑法两者的契合性。     

社会治理“过度刑法化”的法哲学批判

法治国家权力合法性的全部基础在于保障公民的权利与自由,国家对公民的惩罚必须要有正当化根据。"过度刑法化"是我国当前社会治理中的一种病态现象,反映在立法、司法和思维多个层面。社会治理"过度刑法化"具有高度的社会风险与危害,它将改变国家权力与公民权利的结构,导致国家司法资源的不合理配置,削弱刑法的公众认同,阻碍社会的创新。防止社会治理"过度刑法化",必须确立刑法参与现代社会治理的机制。当前,我们必须反对刑法对刑事政策的过度回应,强调刑法的司法法属性;要积极提倡刑法参与社会治理的最小化;坚守近代社会所确立的刑法保护公民自由这一根本使命。     

刑法机能的话语转换——刑法目的论的一种探讨路径

刑法机能,也可以归结为刑法目的,关涉刑法存在的正当性与合理性,因而是考察刑法的基本出发点之一.任何一种刑法必有其存在的理由,因而有其功能定位,但正是机能上的差异使得专制社会的刑法与法治社会的刑法在性质上得以区分.我国社会目前正面临着从人治到法治的转型.刑法机能也发生着某种转换.在刑事法治的背景下,如何认识我国刑法的机能,是一个需要深入研究的重大课题.     

罪刑法定在刑事司法中的命运——由一则案例引出的法律思考

刑事司法活动中 ,司法机关不能逾越刑法的明文规定去寻求法律的灵活性价值 ,更不能以“社会需要”为借口侵入立法权的领地。基于对安全价值的偏重 ,刑法之确定性与适应性的矛盾不可避免。在这二者的对立中 ,我们可以通过以下三种力量达成一种相对合理的平衡状态 :司法能动的有限发挥、立法权力的适时跟进与社会对刑法无能的部分耐受。可以说 ,忍受法无明文规定的危害行为 ,是社会为了维护刑法正义所付出的必要代价 ;而对刑法根基的真正伤害 ,更可能来自刑罚权的不当使用。在肖永灵投寄虚假炭疽杆菌邮件一案中 ,就可隐约嗅出类推适用的腐尸气息     

Criminal Mediation in Mainland China: A Leap from Judicial Endeavor to Legal Norm

The use of mediation in the public prosecution of criminal matters has had a nation-wide impact since being introduced by China’s Judiciary. After almost 10 years, mediation in criminal prosecution cases has, in 2012, now been adopted by the newly revised Criminal Procedure Law 2012 (NPC 2012). This paper examines the characteristics of Chinese criminal mediation, and its introduction and development, by analyzing the empirical data collected from the practice. The ineffectiveness of collateral civil proceedings to criminal procedure to compensate victims, the resulting complaints and petitions argued by them, and the need to resolve the disputes in a way that promotes social harmony, were seen as important reasons to bring criminal mediation practices to China. Varying from ‘western’ restorative justice practices, China’s criminal mediation is closely associated with China’s powerful state criminal justice apparatus, which itself is restricted by the rigidity of the law.     

醉驾:“一律入刑”还是“区别对待”

如何合理划定"醉驾"犯罪圈的大小,"一律入刑"与"区别对待"两种见解存在实质性分歧。罪刑法定原则作为刑事司法不可逾越的屏障,司法机关应该通过"一律入刑"呼应其明确性要求,同时限制司法机关的权力扩张;主观主义与客观主义作为两种不同的解释方式,在实践选择的位阶上应该以文本映射的主观主义优先适用;刑法总分体系需要刑事立法与司法进行一体化贯彻,在刑事立法已然兼顾总则要求的前提下不能通过"区别对待"再次限缩分则罪名的适用范围;"一律入刑"的主张不违背宽严相济刑事政策的内在精神,刑事政策的刑法化要求刑事司法必须坚守这一法治立场。     

Terrorizing Criminal Law

The essays in Waldron’s Torture, Terror, and Trade-Offs have important implications for debates about the criminalization of terrorism and terrorism-related offences and its consequences for criminal law and criminal justice. His reflections on security speak directly to contemporary debates about the preventive role of the criminal law. And his analysis of inter-personal security trade-offs invites much closer attention to the costs of counter-terrorism policies, particularly those pursued outside the criminal process. But is Waldron right to speak of a ‘welcome the return to the criminal justice model’? This article considers the arguments in favour of prioritizing the prosecution of terrorist suspects and asks if their prosecution can safely proceed without undue hazard to the criminal law and criminal process.     

Luhmann: Law,Justice, and Time

Time is central to Luhmann’s writings on social systems. Social systems, as systems of meaning, operate within three dimensions: factual, social and temporal. Each of these dimensions entails selections of actualities from potentialities (or contingencies) within horizons. Whilst the factual dimension involves selections based on distinguishing ‘this’ from ‘something else’, and the social distinguishes between alter and ego (asking with respect to any meaning whether another experiences it as I do), the temporal dimension operates with the primary distinction of before and after. In the temporal dimension, everything is ‘ordered only according to the when and not to the who/what/where/how of experience and action’ (Luhmann in Social systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1995, p. 78). In this paper, we explore the connection between the temporal dimension of meaning within the legal system and its connection to justice. We begin by setting out succinctly the role played by justice within the legal system, as presented by Luhmann, particularly in his book Law as a social system (2004). From this beginning, we move on to consider the relationship between law, justice and time, taking two examples. The first is the temporality of judicial decisions. The second concerns the relationship between the temporal meaning of law’s own operations, and the presumption of innocence.     

Lessons from the Third World for Understanding American Criminal Justice

This paper argues for and attempts to demonstrate the case for including materials related to the operation of Third World criminal justice in courses dealing with American criminal justice system. The author argues that an examination of the contexts and processes of criminal justice in Third World nations increases one's ability to understand and critique the history and operations of our criminal justice enterprises. The Third World context offers laboratories for testing assumptions about American criminal justice without the implicitly pervasive ideological overtones we come to accept unquestionably in our own system simply because it is the one in which we operate.

Within the context of poverty, “dual societies,” chronic political instability, the struggle for economic development, and colonialism, the Third World offers an opportunity to study the interaction and impact of law, politics, economics, social control, and social change on the development and operations of criminal justice. Using examples from the literature of anthropology, law and social change, and political and economic development, the author attempts to demonstrate the usefulness of this interdisciplinary approach and the Third World context in teaching about the criminal justice system.     

论我国刑事司法模式的回应型改造

司法实践过程中出现的诸多困境反映出我国当前的刑事司法改革在目的观念、价值选择、组织结构和裁判理念上面临着一系列冲突。作为一种法治发展范式,回应型法理论主张以契约关系作为回应的逻辑前提,以开放和参与作为权威的构成要素,以目的作为规则和制度的评价标准,以司法审查作为公共政策形成的重要途径,其所蕴含的价值取向为我国的刑事司法改革指明了一个新的方向。回应型刑事司法模式在目的、主体、角色分化及其对应的实现方式上呈现出显著的发展优势。长远来看,增强司法的回应性是我国刑事司法改革的必然选择,但短期内回应型刑事司法模式在我国的发展空间却较为有限,在模式改造过程中还存在压制性增强的风险。     

Revisiting the role of distributive justice in Tyler’s legitimacy theory

Objectives

Tyler’s theory of legitimacy identified procedural justice and distributive justice as antecedents of legitimacy, but placed distributive justice in a relatively minor position compared with procedural justice. This has led to researchers paying less attention to distributive justice in the development of theory, despite consistent findings that distributive justice is important to a number of outcomes for criminal justice authorities. This report uses uncertainty management theory to revisit Tyler’s legitimacy model and gain a more nuanced understanding of distributive justice.

Methods

The proposed model is tested using a series of latent variable analyses conducted on a sample of 2169 adults and a factorial vignette design. The vignette design randomly manipulates outcome favorability and officer behavior during a hypothetical traffic stop. Multiple indicator multiple cause (MIMIC) models are then utilized to test the impact of these manipulations on perceptions of procedural justice and distributive justice. This is followed by a structural equation model that tests the relationships between procedural justice, distributive justice, and legitimacy.

Results

Officer behavior is a primary predictor of both procedural justice and distributive justice. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that distributive justice judgments are shaped by perceptions of procedural justice. Accordingly, distributive justice mediates the relationship between procedural justice and legitimacy.

Conclusions

Distributive justice should not be treated as a competing explanation for legitimacy evaluations, but as a concept that contextualizes why procedural justice is important.

     

The Coverage of American Indians and Alaskan Natives in Criminal Justice and Criminology Introductory Textbooks

This paper examines the coverage of American Indians and Alaskan Natives (AI/AN) in the most widely read introductory criminal justice and criminology books published between 2004 and 2010. The current research extends upon Young’s (J Crim Justice Educ 1:111–116, 1990) assessment of AI/ANs in criminal justice and criminology introductory textbooks, where he found no mention of AI/ANs. The replication of Young (J Crim Justice Educ 1:111–116, 1990) is especially important because AI/ANs continue to face a wide array of social issues (i.e. substance abuse and poverty), which leads to an overrepresentation of AI/ANs in the criminal justice system. To accomplish this, a content analysis was conducted on thirty-one introductory criminal justice and criminology textbooks to determine whether AI/ANs have received more academic coverage in current textbooks. The findings reveal that introductory criminal justice and criminology textbooks still under represent AI/ANs despite experiencing crime, victimization, and justice related problems.     

相对积极主义刑事司法观的提倡

新的十六字方针是法律体系建成之后的必然选项,其实质是追求法律的正当性与司法的公正性,提倡一种相对积极主义的司法理念,强调社会安全与司法人权保障的平衡。司法积极主义是对简单遵循文义的专属主义反思化的结果,并非意味着基于秩序安宁而造法。司法克制主义和积极主义,都有相同的出发点。二者的根本分歧在于如何理解解释法律、寻找法律和创造法律的关系。绝对的积极主义因存在明显的违背教义学和罪刑关系的痕迹而应当引以为戒,相对积极主义因包含着法律的道德价值从而更能促进公正性的实现。当前我国的司法犯罪化理论如果被不加甄别地践行,或者不进行细致化的推演,可能具有绝对积极主义色彩而走向公正的反面。因为刑法包含着规范属性和道德属性,这意味着人道精神与法定理念互为补充,意味着公正和人道成为刑事司法的目标。相对积极主义的特征是注重方法论的合刑性以及合宪性要求。