刑事和解的理论基础及其在我国的制度构想

平衡理论、叙说理论和恢复正义理论是当今西方刑事和解理论中流行的三种解说,其中恢复正义是刑事和解最重要的理论基础。在我国刑事司法领域中,并不存在严格意义的刑事和解制度。基于刑事和解在被害恢复与加害恢复方面的双重价值,应当对此制度进行合理化的借鉴。     

刑事和解的正义价值探析

刑事和解制度是加害人与被害人直接对话协商解决刑事纠纷的方式,它具有公平价值、效率价值、节约司法资源等多重价值,以恢复正义理论、平衡理论、叙说理论为三大理论基础,并以正义价值为核心价值。司法正义是一种矫正的正义,而刑事和解的正义价值就是对矫正正义的矫正,它的正义是＂和谐的正义＂,是＂无害的正义＂。但是,刑事和解从其产生开始就存在价值瑕疵,其在刑事司法实践中存在诸多的缺陷,为了避免它的缺陷所带来的弊端,我们必须构建一套科学合理的刑事和解制度,要明确界定刑事和解案件适用范围与适用刑事和解的前提条件,并且从程序上完善刑事和解制度的监督制约机制等。     

刑事和解的正义价值探析

刑事和解制度是加害人与被害人直接对话协商解决刑事纠纷的方式,它具有公平价值、效率价值、节约司法资源等多重价值,以恢复正义理论、平衡理论、叙说理论为三大理论基础,并以正义价值为核心价值.司法正叉是一种矫正的正义,而刑事和解的正义价值就是对矫正正义的矫正,它的正义是"和谐的正义",是"无害的正义".但是,刑事和解从其产生开始就存在价值瑕疵,其在刑事司法实践中存在诸多的缺陷,为了避免它的缺陷所带来的弊端,我们必须构建一套科学合理的刑事和解制度,要明确界定刑事和解案件适用范围与适用刑事和解的前提条件,并且从程序上完善刑事和解制度的监督制约机制等.     

论我国的刑事和解制度的可行性

刑事和解制度源于西方的恢复正义理论,我国的相关法律规定也有少量的体现。纵观世界各国的和解制度的建立及其发展,本文将从刑事和解制度的理论基础、我国构建刑事和解制度的可行性以及我国的刑事和解制度的具体建构等方面进行论述。     

恢复正义视野下的刑事和解制度构建

目前,刑事和解在我国司法实践的运用,是作为贯彻宽严相济刑事司法政策的新事物,体现了刑事司法从"有害的正义"到"无害的正义"的进步,符合中国传统文化底蕴和当下社会的和谐理念。因此,有必要结合理论和司法实践,在恢复正义视野下构建我国和谐社会的刑事和解制度。     

我国适用刑事和解制度泛化倾向之检省与矫正

虽然目前刑事和解制度在我国尚未法制化,但是在我国的司法实践中却出现了适用刑事和解制度泛化的倾向。适用刑事和解制度泛化的隐患在于:可能产生罪刑不均衡的现实结果;可能导致被害人在刑事诉讼程序中重新被边缘化;可能伴生更多的司法腐败。而要矫正适用刑事和解制度泛化的倾向,就必须合理解读刑事和解制度恢复正义的内涵及限度并合理界定刑事和解制度的适用范围。     

论刑事和解的价值取向和制度构建

依照一些学者的理解,刑事和解的首要理论基础是恢复正义理论。有学者进而认为,恢复正义理论并不能涵盖刑事和解的全部价值,因为正义的恢复属于公正价值的范畴,除此之外,刑事和解还具有效率价值。[1]但是依照笔者的理解,该种认识事实上是一种误认,刑事和解的价值诉求主要在于效率,而且由于现今刑事和解制度还存在着亟待完善的地方,     

刑事和解制度的运行机理与逻辑缺陷——兼评我国《刑事诉讼法》第277-279条

我国新修订的《刑事诉讼法》规定了刑事和解制度,但刑事和解制度在理论上存在诸多逻辑缺陷:和解与刑事领域公法性的冲突;依据可能判处的刑罚决定是否能够和解是典型的由果导因的错误思维方法;被害人得到赔偿与对犯罪嫌疑人、被告人从宽处罚相对应,在实质上是犯罪嫌疑人、被告人赔偿能力的比拼,既会导致同案不同罚的结果,也存在对加害人人格歧视的不公平;赔偿的积极与否与犯罪嫌疑人、被告人是否悔罪以及人身危险性的大小没有必然因果关系;提高被害人地位与刑事和解制度没有推导逻辑,不能作为该制度的理论基础。在评价刑事和解制度上,有必要澄清契约自由、个体本位、恢复正义等相关基础概念,进而为反思该制度提供一个新的视角。     

刑事和解的价值构造及中国模式的构建

刑事和解的价值构造是其制度化的根据。以恢复正义为核心 ,刑事和解的价值构造包括公正价值与效率价值。通过新西兰、英国、德国、法国等西方国家刑事和解制度的考察 ,为我国刑事和解制度的构建提供了一个重要的参照。在现行法范围内 ,刑事和解的近期方案的设计可以以刑事自诉与交通肇事案件的调解制度为背景。中期方案的设计可在对微罪不起诉制度完善的基础上全面考虑刑事和解的对象与范围、适用条件、提案与受理、过程调控、法律处置诸方面。刑事契约一体化则构成刑事和解制度构建的远期方案     

论刑事和解的正义冲突及其消解

刑事和解的构建初衷在于强化刑事被害人的保护,但刑事和解的适用却无疑一定程度地弱化了对犯罪人的惩罚。被害人保护与犯罪人惩罚均为社会的正义诉求,却在刑事和解中产生冲突。应当在价值松绑、立法解危、司法开路中消解刑事和解中的正义冲突。     

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。     

Patterns of victim marginalization in victim-offender mediation: some lessons learned

This article discusses issues that restorative justice programs may face during implementation and lessons learned from an exploratory study. We examined various perspectives of multiple participants who experienced a Victim-Offender Mediation (VOM) program in a mid-sized Midwestern city in the U.S. The primary data source comprised 34 interviews with 37 participants including adult crime victims, juvenile offenders and their parents, mediators, and representatives from referring agencies. Observations complemented the interview data. Findings revealed patterns of victim marginalization during the processes used: victims were not prepared appropriately; were at times pressured by mediators to behave in certain ways; and, occasionally felt intimidated by offenders and/or their families. We discuss some factors that may have influenced the emergence of these patterns. This study revealed gaps between the guiding principles of restorative justice theory and field practices, particularly sensitivity toward victims to meet their needs. We suggest that restorative justice programs should consider using a monitoring system to ensure that the processes used remain consistent with the values and principles of restorative justice.     

构建刑事和解制度探讨

刑事和解应适用于刑事诉讼的各个阶段,原则上由人民调解委员会主持,检察机关参与到和解的各个过程,且应与社区矫正相对接,从而实现犯罪人和被害人的共同正义。     

The European Forum for Victim–Offender Mediation and Restorative Justice

The European Forum for Victim–Offender Mediation and Restorative Justice is a non-governmental organisation set up because European victim–offender mediation projects had seldom established contacts beyond national borders. Informal contacts revealed that practitioners, academics and policy makers were looking for a more regular exchange and mutual support in developing victim–offender mediation and other restorative justice practices. This article gives an overview of the background to restorative justice and victim–offender mediation, and pays attention to the development of the Forum, its current aims, objectives and activities, and other (policy) developments at a supranational level.     

社区司法与刑事司法的双系耦合简

社区司法作为社区主导下的新型司法范式，因为其融法律与道德、实体与程序、惩罚与矫正、恢复与救助、协商与调解等复合功能，在完善基层民主治理方式和凝结社区核心价值方面具有独特的优势。由于社区司法与国家刑事司法在处理犯罪问题上具有不同的操作向度，彼此间互有分工又互有联系，因此构成双系耦合。作为调处社会矛盾的自治型司法机制，中国社区司法的模式和运行系统亟待适应当地文化进行创新和发展。社区司法中“社区”在司法活动中应处于基础性地位，且主导基于社区的各种司法形式的运作。     

Crime and punishment in Rwanda

In 1994 Rwanda was devastated by genocide that killed hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed the country’s infrastructure. The credibility of the criminal justice system was questioned following the genocide because it had failed to stop the slaughter and may have contributed to it. In order to address these concerns, Rwanda rebuilt its criminal justice system in light of its history and troubled past. The success of the reestablishment may be debated but there can be no question that Rwanda had a tabula rasa with which to form an effective criminal justice system. Examining the law details the ideals of the criminal justice system as established post-genocide. These ideals exemplify the democratic process. Examining current events allows for a practical assessment of the success of the new system. In both theory and practice the country’s criminal justice system has changed drastically since 1994.     

Mediation and Restorative Justice in Belgium

In this article we present, discuss and try to evaluate initiatives which were recently introduced into the Belgian criminal justice system, aimed at the development of creative answers to crime that avoid the use of traditional prison sentences. We decided to focus this analysis on the practice of mediation as it is actually considered the most innovative approach to the crime problem. Mediation as a problem-solving intervention has to be considered in direct relation to the discussion of the purpose of the criminal justice system. By putting the emphasis on the dialogue between the victim and the offender, a common solution is worked out with the help of a mediator. In this way reparation, redress and sometimes even reconciliation become core values of the penal action.     

Three Faces of Justice and the Management of Change

The apparatus of legal principles we use has, far more than we realise, transformed the way we think about the control of private power in the name of social justice. The actual sort of equity that the legal and political system is searching for is not reflected in our major political theories, nor indeed in the official rhetoric of many such systems themselves. The reason for this mismatch has to do with the need to accomodate change – a space opened by the law and unacknowledged by theory.
This article sets out the current theoretical frameworks within which the regulation of private power is analysed, and it contrasts these with a different approach to the problem of justice at work in employment and corporate law that does not find its way into theory. Once that approach is given a formulation, its place within a larger theory of justice is proposed, and its wider implications for the relationship between state and civil society are investigated.     

重构秩序：《理想国》的政治正义问题研究

《理想国》的正义论是一种分配正义原则,它依据公民的德性获得程度给予其对于正义的知道限度。不同等级的公民依据其德性行使其所应担当的社会责任,即为正义。这种正义论强调正义本身的身份角色,带有一种回归古希腊英雄社会的色彩,即德性是维持一个充当某种角色人的公民品质,并表现在角色所要求的行为之中。《理想国》正义论的贡献在于终结自然正义建构社会正义,至此正义原则成为城邦统治秩序的象征。秩序的原则就是正义的原则,这是《理想国》奠定的人文主义基石。