对主诉检察官办案责任制的几点思考

主诉检察官，是指依一定条件和程序产生的，依法相对独立履行审查起诉、出庭公诉职责，并承担相应责任的检察官。主诉检察官办案责任制是在检察长领导下，以一名检察官为主，按规定依法相对独立地承担审查起诉和出庭支持公诉工作的内部办案制度。主诉检察官办案责任制是检察机关内部办案制     

关于深化主诉检察官办案责任制改革的调研报告——以广东省检察机关的试点为例

主诉检察官办案责任制,是指主诉检察官在检察长的领导下,依照法律规定,相对独立地行使审查起诉、出庭支持公诉职权,履行相关法律监督职责并承担相应责任的办案制度。主诉检察官办案责任制     

论检察官职业道德基本准则——公正

公正是检察官的职责要求,更是检察官职业道德准则的基本要求,是检察官职业崇高的价值追求。由检察工作的性质、工作主题所决定的＂公正＂是检察官履职的最基本要求,是检察官的法律义务。对此,检察官法对检察官的＂秉公执法”．“清正廉明”做出了明确的义务性规定。     

公诉模式转型之设想

我国现行公诉模式实行的是“平行式”的同级公诉模式,公诉案件只能由与审理案件的法院级别相同的检察机关派员出庭支持公诉。有必要对这种模式进行转型,采取“垂直型”的公诉模式,由一审检察官在承担公诉任务之后,继续负责案件在上级法院的公诉或抗诉活动。     

还权还是放权？——略论主诉检察官的权力来源认识分歧及其影响

主诉检察官办案责任制主要是指在检察长领导下,在检察机关审查起诉部门内实施的以主诉检察官为主要责任人,相对独立地承担审查起诉、出庭支持公诉及法律监督等职责的办案责任制。这项制度最早可以追溯到1995年,河南省郑州市人民检察院率先试行主诉检察官办案责任制,两年后南阳市和驻马店市等人民检察院也开始进行了探索。1998年,北京市海淀区人民检察院推出了建立在审控分离机制下的主诉检察官办案责任制,又称“海淀模式”。1999年初,最高人民检察院《检察工作五年发展规划》在全国检察长工作会议上通过,提出了“推行主诉检察官制度”的要求…     

量刑建议权初探

在我国刑事诉讼中，量刑一般被认为是法官的职责，检察官在起诉书和公诉发言中可能就被告的量刑情节做出认定，或者就处罚条款的适用提出建议，习惯的做法是不就量刑提出具体意见。随着公诉改革的推进，强化公诉权的行使已成为公诉改革重要环节，于是作为公诉权应有内涵的量刑建议权开始进入人们的视野。但是，对于检察官量刑建议权存在依据，在我国有无存在的必要以及如何行使均有异议。为此，本文拟就量刑建议做初步探讨，以抛砖引玉。     

再谈公诉与审判意识在侦查中的作用

职务犯罪侦杳一的质量决定了检察机关履行监督职能的质量。作为主办检察官能够正确运用“系统思考”的理论，置身于公诉人、法官的角度去履行自己肩负的职责，是提高自侦办案案件质量的基础。因此，作为检察官，怎样正确认识公诉与审判意识在个案初杳一或侦查中的地位和作用，这对依法治国和促进和谐社会建设具有积极的意义。     

快播案控、辩、审中人人皆大咖

公诉人篇 公诉人是指由国家司法机关直接提起诉讼,由人民检察院的司法人员担任诉讼,担任诉讼的人即公诉人.公诉人是检察机关的形象代言人,“学习型、敬业型、实干型”是优秀公诉人的特点. 胡志强:身经百战的公诉能手 快播案公诉人一共有4位,主诉检察官是北京市海淀区人民检察院公诉一处处长胡志强、知识产权处副处长闫莉、曾经当选“海检之星”的检察官姜楠以及代理检察员肖瑶.其中,胡志强是身经百战的公诉能手.胡志强毕业于中央民族大学,曾任北京市海淀区人民检察院审判监督二处事务检察官,曾荣获“首都五好干警”称号.     

浅析庭审中控辩双方地位的差异

1.双方的身份和职责不同 检察院的公诉人,身兼二职,一是公诉职能;二是法律监督职能。因而,公诉人在出庭时不是一方当事人。检察官以代表国家公诉人的身份出庭履行控诉职责,运用证据揭露、证实犯罪,同时又以法律监督者的身份出现,对审判活动是否合法实行监督。控方在法庭上“居高临下”位高权重,而辩护人受被告人的委托或人民法院的指定而产生,是重要的诉讼当事人之一,职责是维护被告人的合法权益。     

民事行政公诉范围探讨

民事行政公诉是检察机关履行法律监督职责的重要方式之一。检察机关就某些案件向法院提起民事、行政诉讼,是各国比较通行的做法,许多国家的法律对此均有规定。对检察机关民事、行政公诉案件的范围这一基本问题,一些国家或在实体法中直接规定检察官可以提起诉讼的事项,或在程序法中规定检察官提起诉讼的情形,但确定的范围不尽相同。笔者不揣浅陋,试就民事行政公诉的范围同题浅述拙见,以期进一步完善我国民事行政检察监督的方式,充分发挥检察机关的法律监督职能。     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?

The concept of avidyā or ignorance is central to the Advaita Vedāntic position of Śȧnkara. The post-Śaṅkara Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of Śaṅkara with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of Śaṅkara came to be regarded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidyā. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Holenarsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mūlāvidyānirāsaḥ, particularly with regard to the avidyādoctrine. It was his contention that the post-Śaṅkara commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidyā. This was the idea of mūlāvidyā or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mūlāvidyā is not to be found in the bhāṣyas (commentaries) of Śaṅkara and is foisted upon Śaṅkara. This paper attempts to show that although Śaṅkara may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mūlāvidyā, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidyā left enough scope for the post-Śaṅkara commentators to take such a position on avidyā.     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.