检警关系可行路径之选择研究

检警关系是检察机关与警察机关之间的职权职责关系,这种职权职责关系主要发生检察机关和警察机关在履行刑事诉讼职能过程中。本质上,检警关系就是法律对刑事诉讼领域内的国家权力如何给检察机关和警察机构予以配置的问题。本文通过比较的方式展示和总结出目前我国检警关系的现状,并从中发现我国检警关系的困境并进行解决方案的探索。     

检警协作模式抑或检警协助模式——一种启示性的探讨

检警协助模式是检警二机关在侦、诉等审前阶段所体现的一种业务上的配合与人权保障方面的制约,进而充分发挥出检察机关在侦查、起诉阶段的引导性与监督性以及公安机关技术优势的一种检警关系模式。检警协作模式与职务犯罪侦查协作机制均能够给检警协助模式提供启示。检警协助模式具有理论上的相对合理性,检警协助机制包括立法、范畴、保障与监督四个方面。     

论检警关系模式与我国检警关系改革

现代国家检警关系模式有大陆法系国家的检警合一模式和英美法系国家的检警分立模式两种类型。它们的共同特征是检察机关作为形式上的侦查权主体,一般不直接进行侦查活动,而作为享有实质侦查权主体的警察机关,其侦查职能只是控诉职能的一部分,仅仅对控诉职能起辅助作用。本文指出检警关系的一般特征对我国检警关系的完善具有借鉴意义。     

检察机关在审查起诉阶段应有拘留权

我国《刑事诉讼法》对拘留的适用范围作了明确的规定,根据《刑事诉讼法》的规定,检察机关在审查起诉阶段没有拘留权。但是根据诉讼理论和司法实践的需要,笔者认为,检察机关在审查起诉阶段应有拘留权。其理由为:一、案件在审查起诉阶段有采取刑拘的必要为了使检察机关更好履行自己的审查起诉职责,根据职权相一致原则,应赋予检察机关行使拘留权的权力,从检警关系及其改革发展看,赋于检察机关在审查起诉阶段的拘留权符合世界发展潮流,符合我国检察制度与世界接轨的发展方向。二、检察机关在审查起诉阶段享有刑拘权符合立法精神和法律规定1、检…     

我国防止起诉权滥用的内在结构

防止起诉权滥用是司法改革的重要问题.两大法系主要采用司法控制权的模式,而我国则采用检察控制权的模式,两者具有不同的内在结构.采检察控制模式与检警关系、检察机关角色定位、警察机关的职能、公诉的证据标准有重大关系.事实上,我国具有独特的公诉权制约机制,并取得了一定的效果.     

侦查活动中检警关系的再认识

侦查活动中检警关系的本质不在于形成检警一体的体制以提高诉讼效率,检察官的发展历史、实行”检警一体“国家的立法变迁和司法实践以及刑事诉讼程序的设计都说明,检警关系的本质在于保证检察机关对警察诉讼行为合法性的控制与制约。     

我国检警关系存在的问题及完善之我见

我国检察机关与公安机关的交往大部分顺利,检警关系总体良好,检察引导侦查通过软化不捕、不诉案件中的检警冲突,有利的维护和推动了部分地区检警关系良好的实践形态,然而,随着我国刑事诉讼制度的改革和社会治安形势的变化,检警关系运作所面临的问题也日益突出,因此本文针对我国的检警关系的改革与完善提出一些建设性的意见和初步的构想。     

警检关系的模式与选择--兼谈中国特色审前程序中的警检关系构想

我国现行警检关系总体上符合我国刑事诉讼实际和国情,不能用"检警一体化"取代现行的警检关系模式。完善警检关系的总体思路是,明确警检机关分工职责,限制与优化检察机关侦查权能,加强检察机关对侦查的监督与控制。     

刑事程序中的检警关系完善构想

一段时期以来,如何构建高效、合理的检警关系,一直是司法实务界和理论界密切关注的话题。10月16日至20日,由北京市海淀区检察院与瑞典罗尔·瓦伦堡人权与人道法研究所共同举办的“人权保障视野下的检警关系国际研讨会”,结合相关国际标准,就刑事程序中的检警关系、非法证据排除与检警关系等问题进行了深入研讨。在此,本刊摘要刊发研讨会有关文章,以飨读者。     

检察机关外部关系比较研究

检察机关的外部关系从本质上而言,受到一个国家的权力体系与诉讼模式的影响。检察机关在一个国家权力体系内地位的不同,导致检察机关与立法机关、行政机关之间在权力定位及相互关系上呈现不同的形态;而诉讼模式的不同,导致了在司法运行过程中检警关系及检法关系的不同。     

流浪乞讨与管制--从贫困救助看中央与地方权限的界定

随着《收容遣送办法》的废止,个人自由权利与社会治安秩序之间的现实冲突比过去更为突显。应转变中央和地方关系的传统思维,在允许地方更多自主权和选择权的同时,更充分地保障公民个人的宪法基本权利。无论是中央和地方关系的法律界定,还是公民权利的宪法保障,都要求建立独立的司法机构以审查地方立法的有效性。     

Implementing and evaluating crime prevention and control programs and policies

The history of crime prevention and control efforts in the United States has demonstrated little progressive improvement in our ability to deter crime. The major obstacles to implementing effective interventions and policies have been a weak scientific knowledge base about how to prevent crime, the research community's inability to effectively disseminate what is known about the causes of crime and to translate this knowledge into operational programs and policies, and a resistance on the part of practitioners and policy makers to evaluate programs and policies and to use this information in the development of new programs and policies. In the last decade, there have been major advances in our understanding about the causes of crime and we have now demonstrated the effectiveness of selected prevention programs. But there is little evidence that this scientific knowledge is informing current practice or policy. Problems in the dissemination of this information and the resistance to utilizing it remain. These problems are discussed and suggestions are made for addressing them. Our knowledge base remains modest, but it is now sufficient to inform policy and practice. The research community must work to do a better job of disseminating this information and overcoming the resistance to utilizing it before we will be successful in implementing effective crime prevention programs and policies. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

International aid,trade and investment and access and allocation

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics - The access to goods and their allocation (who gets what, when, where and how) is one of the analytical problems of the 2009...     

Accommodation and Satisfaction: Women and Men Lawyers and the Balance of Work and Family

This study of graduates of the University of Michigan Law School from the late 1970s reports on the differing ways that women and men have responded to the conflicting claims of work and family. It finds that women with children who have entered the profession have indeed continued to bear the principal responsibilities for the care of children, but it also finds that these women, with all their burdens, are more satisfied with their careers and with the balance of their family and professional lives than other women and than men.     

真相与正义，探究与辩护，科学与法律

在美国法律文化塑造下的对抗制诉讼制度和科学的调查程序之间存在着紧张关系（tension），在法律所关注的裁决终局性（finality）和科学所追求的持续性纠错（oven—minded fallibilism）之间存在着紧张关系。长期以来，法律界都试图通过可采性法律规则归化科学证言，结果导致联邦法官担负起广泛的审查职责；近期，法庭指定专家的制度实践导致对抗制度做出某些修正，这种制度实践已经被批评为“带有纠问色彩”（inquisitorial），甚至“违背了民主的要求”（undemocratic）。在分析这些制度利弊的过程中，我们有必要考察其他法律系统的经验教训。     

油气储运防火安全分析及预防措施

本文主要从设备故障与维护、防静电、动火作业、执行操作规程等几个方面引起的爆炸和火灾进行分析,制定对应的防护措施。提出了以做好设备维护保养、防静电处理、做好防火设计及安全装置、落实动火作业措施及强化安全培训等方面进行综合防控,消除油气储运过程中引起的爆炸和火灾,以实现安全生产。     

Truth and Justice, Inquiry and Advocacy, Science and Law

Abstract. There is tension between the adversarialism of the U.S. legal culture and the investigative procedures of the sciences, and between the law's concern for finality and the open‐ended fallibilism of science. A long history of attempts to domesticate scientific testimony by legal rules of admissibility has left federal judges with broad screening responsibilities; recent adaptations of adversarialism in the form of court‐appointed experts have been criticized as “inquisitorial,” even “undemocratic.” In exploring their benefits and disadvantages, it would make sense to look to the experience of other legal systems.