No Room

In 2015, Russia's judicial system saw a marked expansion in the repressive activity of the law enforcement bodies. For the first time in many years, there was a significant rise in the frequency of sentences involving imprisonment, while standards of proof in the Russian courts declined. The judiciary tried to compensate for its inability to resist pressure from the law enforcement bodies through the unprecedented application of amnesty in court verdicts. Sporadically declared amnesties have become almost the only thing protecting the Russian penal system from overcrowding.     

Property Rights, Theft, Amnesty, and Efficiency

In this paper we show that costs associated with infractions of property rights, such as theft, can be reduced by imposing lower penalties on individuals who admit to such infractions and make restitution. We find that the socially optimal penalty on a confessed thief may be zero (complete amnesty) or even negative—a person may be given a reward for confessing a theft. This is because a thief's valuation of a good is generally lower that its valuation by its legal owner, and an amnesty permits the trade that such a difference in valuation makes calls for. It is interesting to note that the benefits of amnesties were apparently recognized in ancient times and they constitute part of Biblical Law. Moreover, such amnesties have also been informally incorporated into modern legal systems, wherein leniency (a form of partial amnesty) is generally shown to individuals who confess their infractions.     

入关前满族刑法文化研究

满族这一少数民族在历史上曾经建立起一代统治中国二百多年的大清王朝,对其入关前的刑法文化进行研究,有助于揭示其创造一统中原奇迹的某些原因,并可为入关之后清朝的某些刑法思想及刑法制度追根溯源。入关前的满族刑法处于由习惯法向成文法的过渡时期,其刑法文化的主旨是服务征服、推崇伦理、慎用刑罚、倡导平等。其刑法文化的价值取向为正义、秩序与教化。     

The effect of transfer mechanism from juvenile court on conviction on a target offense in criminal court

The question of whether juvenile offenders should be handled in criminal court has been addressed by a number of studies. However, few have examined the effectiveness of the type of transfer mechanism and how it relates to protecting the public. Whether the mechanism used to transfer juvenile offenders to criminal court has any effect on the likelihood of being convicted of a target offense criminal court is examined here. It was found that the juveniles sampled in this study had a greater chance of being convicted on their target offense in criminal court if they were sent there via judicial waiver than if they were excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction by statute.     

Amnesties in International Law: The Experience of the Special Court for Sierra Leone

The Special Court for Sierra Leone, a hybrid criminal tribunalestablished to try persons accused of serious crimes duringthe conflict in Sierra Leone, has recently commenced its judicialoperations. Several of the preliminary issues raised by variousdefendants have required the Court to examine the validity ofthe amnesty granted to combatants by the Lomé Peace Agreementand the amnesty's impact upon the Court's jurisdiction to trythe defendants. This article examines the decisions of the Courton the amnesty issue and evaluates the jurisprudence of theCourt with reference to the current status of amnesties in internationallaw.     

Tax Amnesties and the Self-Selection of Risk-Averse Taxpayers

In this paper we model taxpayers participation in an unexpected tax amnesty, which can be entered by paying a fixed amount. Taxpayers are characterized by a Constant Relative Risk Aversion (CRRA) utility function and differ in relative risk aversion coefficient and in income. We show that amnesties may fail as a self-selective device to fully separate big from small evaders and to extract resources from the former. Only taxpayers whose relative risk aversion falls within a given interval participate, while those whose evasion is too small or too large do not enter. The model is used to estimate relative risk aversion and tax evasion of participants in 1991 and 1994 Italian income tax amnesties.JEL Classification: H260, D890, K420     

Fugitives in the United States

Little is known, empirically, about fugitives in the U.S. There is no research describing basic facts such as the prevalence of warrants or how features of warrants vary across geography or demographics of fugitives.PurposeTo (A) describe the prevalence of warrants in the U.S., including variation in warrant features across geography as well as demographics of fugitives (age, race, and gender). In addition, the paper (B) models a key feature of warrants (extradition limits) as a function of legal and extra-legal factors.MethodsThis study draws on the Wanted Persons file—the central operational database maintained by the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) for tracking warrants from all jurisdictions in the United States. Warrant factors are described across demographic groups via bivariate comparisons. Extradition is modeled via a multivariate fixed effects logistic regression framework (i.e., within state comparisons)ResultsThe data show approximately 2 million warrants are active on any given day. Warrant features vary significantly across states (per capita), and fugitive demographics. Extradition varies as a function of legal (e.g., crime seriousness) and extra-legal factors (e.g., race of fugitive).ConclusionsWarrants may provide an important new avenue for scholarship on disparity, criminal carreers, and the administration of justice.     

The role of the sociologist as mitigation expert in a sentencing hearing

This paper examines Louisiana’s habitual offender statute and the role of a sociologist as a mitigation expert/criminologist in a specific case. The paper includes a summary of the habitual offender statute; the literature/theories used by the sociologist in his testimony; the trial judge’s decision; and the decision of the three-judge panel of the appellant court, particularly the minority opinion. The case has been returned to the district court for re-sentencing and the trial judge is under no obligation to accept the panel’s decision; but in practice must justify any lenient sentence. The use of sociology as mitigation in criminal cases generally is discussed. The author has worked in over 300 criminal cases since 1988, most of which were capital murder, but also include second-degree murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, rape, and habitual offender hearings.     

Complementarity, Amnesties and Alternative Forms of Justice: Some Interpretative Guidelines for the International Criminal Court

The question to what extent amnesties and pardons may bar criminalinvestigations or prosecutions under the Statute of the InternationalCriminal Court (the Statute) has been left unresolved by theRome process. This essay seeks to develop some general guidelinesthat may help the Court to address this problem, should it arisein a specific case. It suggests four basic principles to dealwith the issue of amnesties and pardons: (i) the Court has interpretativeautonomy to decide whether an amnesty or a pardon is permissibleunder the Statute; (ii) exemptions from criminal responsibilityfor the core crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court byamnesties or pardons should generally be considered incompatiblewith the Statute; (iii) prosecution by states and by the Courtmay be limited to the most serious crimes and the most responsibleperpetrators (targeted prosecution); (iv) amnesties or pardonsshould, if it all, only be permitted in exceptional cases, namelywhere they are conditional and accompanied by alternative formsof justice.     

渗入汉代郡县法秩序的儒术:以官方行为为中心的考察

董仲舒"天人三策"之后,西汉朝廷确立了"独尊儒术"的统治策略。此后,汉朝又不断地推进儒家的德礼之教向郡县法秩序的渗透,皇帝诏令及地方官的政务均为此种努力的表现。在"以法为教,以吏为师"的法律独尊时代,郡县是皇帝对民众之垂直统治的基点,法律则成为民众的唯一行为规范。然而,在重视儒术的汉代,郡县既是皇权统治的施展空间,也是朝廷将儒家的德礼之教付诸实践的空间。正因为此,儒学对郡县法秩序的影响不断扩大,此种影响的扩大则又是中国古代儒教国家得以形成的重要一环。     

清末立宪中的满族因素

学术界关于清末立宪的研究,主要纠缠于其是否为骗局,但是这并没有揭示该问题的实质。对满洲贵族而言,其关心的显然不是君主立宪制与君主制孰优孰劣的问题,而是宪政对其权力构成的根本挑战。令其为难的是:不实行宪政,清政府将被推翻;实行宪政,根据代议制原则,其亦将失去对政权的控制。因此,面临现实的困境,满清政府只能采取拖延策略,直至被推翻。     

Out on a Limb: Appointing a Parenting Coordinator with Decision‐Making Authority in the Absence of a Statute or Rule

This Article addresses the issue of whether a court may appoint a Parenting Coordinator (PC) with decision‐making authority in the absence of a statute or court rule. The Article identifies possible sources of authority for the appointment of a PC with decision‐making authority in a state with no authorizing statute or court rule. It also provides a paradigm for constructing an appointment that allows for the benefits of Parenting Coordination but does not delegate decision‐making authority to an extent that it would constitute an impermissible delegation of judicial authority.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court may find some authority allowing the appointment in (1) its equitable authority over child custody and visitation, (2) its authority to enforce its own orders, or (3) its authority to appoint other extrajudicial assistants such as a special master or mediator.
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court must craft an appointment that delegates enough decision‐making authority to the PC for parenting coordination to be effective yet, at the same time, not so much decision‐making authority as to render the appointment an impermissible delegation of a judicial function, specifically:
  • The PC's role should be limited to assisting the parties in implementing custody and visitation terms already decreed by the trial court.
  • A PC should be appointed only if the parties to the divorce consent to the appointment or if the trial court makes a finding that the case is a high‐conflict case.
  • The parties must have the opportunity for the trial court to meaningfully review any decision of the PC so that the trial court retains ultimate decision‐making authority.

     

International agreements

This article discusses the place of non liquet in the statute and practice of the International Court of Justice. It argues that although there is no prohibition of non liquet in the statute of the court, the completeness of the court of international law in article 38(1) of the statute makes no room for the court to declare non liquet in practice. The author argues that the inclusion of general principles of law and judicial decisions in article 38(1) makes the sources of international law available to the court complete, thereby affording the court the means to avoid non liquet through judicial creativity.     

唐律“格杀勿论”渊流考

"格杀勿论"在《唐律》中有3条:第一,允许主家登时格杀"夜无故入人家";第二,允许将吏可以格杀持杖拒捕者或逃犯;第三,允许"旁人"在捕格贼盗、强奸、和奸案时将拒捕者格杀。唐律"格杀勿论"渊源于秦汉甚至更早的法律,经过宋元时期的发展,明律删除"傍人皆得捕系"条,又增加"杀死奸夫"的法律规定。清代,"杀死奸夫"的律条通过不断地增修条例,使奸案中"格杀勿论"的条款更加纷繁复杂。     

From Oblivion to Memory: A Blueprint for the Amnesty

This Review Essay examines Mark Freeman??s thoughtful book, Necessary Evils: Amnesties and the Search for Justice. One of the book??s core arguments is that amnesties from criminal prosecution, however unpalatable to liberal legalist sensibilities, should not be entirely purged from the toolbox of post-conflict transitions. Although advancing this argument, Freeman also struggles with it, and ultimately builds a very restrained and heavily technocratic defense of the amnesty. This Review Essay weighs this argument, among others, on its own terms and also within the context of recent events that post-date the book??s publication. The result is a vibrant exposition of the limits of law, and the limits of politics, in transcending episodes of massive human rights violations.     

明清律结构及私法在其中的地位

中国传统社会的基本法典以明律和清律为代表。明清律的基本结构反映了中国传统文化的典型的法典编纂观念 ,稀少的民事规范在律典中杂附于刑法条文的存在方式反映了中国法律传统中民事问题刑事化的典型观念。     

从模式化的八旗制度看满族法律程序意识

满族作为中国封建社会最后一个王朝的建立者,其政治制度、法律制度和民族文化一直是东亚各国研究的热门问题。从法文化的研究角度,对满族入关以前的政治制度和法律文化进行研究和分析,以八旗制度为切入点,思考满族共同体的模式化思维方式和法律程序意识之间的内在联系。     

Legislating Dangerously: Bad Samaritans,Good Society,and the Heroism Act 2015

The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 is a troublesome statute. The Act requires that, when considering a claim brought against a defendant in negligence or for breach of statutory duty, the court must assess whether that party was ‘acting for the benefit of society or any of its members’ (section 2), or ‘demonstrated a predominantly responsible approach towards protecting the safety or interests of others’ (section 3), or was ‘acting heroically’ (section 4). However laudable the Coalition Government's attempts to foster a ‘Big Society’ might have been, this enactment was not the proper vehicle to achieve it. Some provisions merely repeat longstanding common law principles. Others may have been intended to amend the common law to encourage ‘good citizenship’, but fall well short of that aim. And some aspects of the Act's drafting have the (perhaps unintended) potential to sit uncomfortably with established common law negligence principles.     

No Confidence: Confidentiality,Ethics and the Law of Academic Privilege

The law recognizes several evidentiary privileges, including a qualified privilege recognized by statute or court precedent in forty-eight states and several federal circuits that allows journalists to protect confidential sources. Meanwhile, ethical practices for social science surveys require pledging confidentiality to respondents, a practice that can conflict with subpoenas and court orders requiring revelation of such information. Only a handful of court decisions have formally recognized a privilege for scholars similar to a reporters’ privilege, and an examination of the court decisions that have either ruled on or discussed the issue reveals that while many courts recognize the interests of scholars in confidentiality, most courts decline to recognize a legal privilege for researchers. Courts do, however, often limit disclosure to accommodate these concerns. The specific circumstances and rationales of these decisions are discussed and analyzed.