浅谈刑事诉讼中的人权司法保护

刑事诉讼中，保障犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的人权与保护被害人的权利从根本上说是一致的。1997年刑事诉讼法的施行，标志着我国刑事诉讼在人权保障方面初步迈出了民主文明的第一步，确立了犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在刑事诉讼中的主体地位，民主化的诉讼结构初步确立，特别是国际通行的无罪推定原则得到较好的体现。严格依照法定原则和程序进行刑事诉讼，加强刑事诉讼中的人权司法保护，是树立现代执法理念的精神实质和有效载体。     

无罪推定与刑事诉讼中的"国家权力哲学"

贝卡里亚在社会契约论基础上第一次提出了无罪推定原则,其主旨在于反对封建刑事诉讼制度中对被告人的刑讯———这一合法暴行。随着人类社会民主、法治进程的发展,无罪推定的内涵在不断拓展。无罪推定原则为我们提供了研究刑事诉讼制度的宝贵路径,即应如何把握刑事诉讼中国家权力与公民权利的结构性关系。现代刑事诉讼中国家权力应遵循的“哲学”是:国家权力的谦抑性、以权力制约权力、以权利制约权力及国家机关对权利主体的诉讼关照。无罪推定的宪法化与国际化趋势,进一步说明了这一原则在现代刑事诉讼中不可动摇的核心地位。     

无罪推定原则的再思考

无罪推定是指刑事诉讼中的被告人在未经法律程序被宣告有罪以前,应当被推定（也有的西方学者使用“假定”一词）为无罪。无罪推定作为贯穿刑事诉讼全过程的一项诉讼原则．对于保障被告人的诉讼地位、诉讼权利,发挥了不可替代的作用,所以有人将其与罪刑法定原则并称为刑事司法的两大基石。无罪推定原则是随着刑事司法的文明进步,由资产阶级启蒙思想家首先提出的,贝卡利亚在（论犯罪与刑罚）一书中,针对封建司法制度的酷刑拷问,提倡刑事司法制度的理性主义和人道主义,他讲：“在没有作出有罪判决以前,任何人都不能被称为罪犯;任何人…     

无罪推定是现代刑事司法程序的精神内核

就关于人权的理论而言，有自然权利、法律权利和实有权利之分。这种对人权的界定和分类，同样适用于刑事诉讼中的人权。即刑事诉讼中的人权，同样可以表现为自然权利、法律权利和实有权利三种形式。而无罪推定作为现代刑事诉讼中的基本法律原则，已经被世界各国的宪法和刑事诉讼法典规定为被追诉人所享有的一项基本的法律权利。作为被迫诉人的这一基本权利，也已被国际立法所确认，并向整个国际社会推广，其趋势越来越盛。无罪推定业已成为国际刑事司法公认的一项基本原则．成为现代国际整个刑事司法程序必须遵守的精神内核。作为刑事诉讼中被追诉人应该享有法律上规定的基本权利，无罪推定的确立与否，反映了一个国家对刑事诉讼中人权保护的态度，说明了犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在刑事诉讼中所处的法律地位，也预示着一个国家对刑事诉讼中对人权保护的范围和程度。如果说刑事诉讼中被追诉人所享有的自然权利是在刑事诉讼中能够被当作人来看待，其人格和尊严能够得到尊重，在刑事诉讼中能被平等、公正地对待，它为刑事诉讼的立法提供了一个人权的道德和理性的参考标准．那么，刑事诉讼中犯罪嫌疑人、被告人所享有的这项法律权利，就是对这种自然的、道德的和理性的权利的法律形式的正式宣布。从这一角度来说，我国刑事诉讼中犯罪嫌疑人、被告人所享有的作为其法律权利的无罪推定的权利，在法律上规定得不够到位，在刑事诉讼实际运行过程中的状况更令人担忧。     

完善了辩护制度

完善了辩护制度熊选国辩护制度，是刑事诉讼中的一项重要的诉讼制度，保障包括犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在内所有诉讼参与人依法享有的诉讼权利，是刑事诉讼法一条重要基本原则。修正后的刑事诉讼法总结我国近年来刑事辩护的司法实践，借鉴国外的通常做法，对辩护制度作了重大修...     

论刑事辩护制度之理论基础(上)

刑事辩护制度是刑事诉讼法中的一项十分重要的制度。无罪推定原则、程序主体性理论和对立统一规律共同构成了这一制度的理论基础。无罪推定原则是各国普遍奉行的刑事诉讼原则，这一原则在现代刑事诉讼中占有极其重要的地位，我国在司法和立法实际及法学理论上，实际上已经确立了这一原则。程序主体性理论强调刑事诉讼中犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在诉讼过程中与控诉机关、审判机关拥有同等的程序主体地位，旨在保护被追诉的人所应享有的诉讼权利，如辩护权，这一理论在我国法律中也得到了体现。对立统一规律是马克思主义唯物辩证法的规律之一，在刑事诉讼中，控诉与辩护是对立的两个方面，处于一个矛盾统一体之中，刑事辩护制度的设置将刑事诉讼中的矛盾制度化，有利于冲突的妥善解决。     

无罪推定原则评论

一、无罪推定原则在刑事审判中的地位自国家,法律和犯罪概念出现后,人类社会便开始了对犯罪行为进行不遗余力的斗争。纵观刑事司法发展的历史,可以说,被告人在刑事诉讼中的地位问题,是检验其司法价值目标的重要尺度。而被告人在刑事诉讼中的地位与有罪推定,无罪推定是息息相关的。无罪推定原则是资产阶级革命初期针对封建专制时代的有罪推定原则提出来的。要全面认识无罪推定,就必须论及有罪推定。     

刑事诉讼法对被告方人权的保障

刑事诉讼中的人权保障指为确保那些与案件结局有利害关系的人的自由、生命、财产等实体权益不受非法损害，而赋予其必要的程序上的诉讼权利及其保护手段。在刑事诉讼中犯罪嫌疑人、被告人是被追诉的诉讼主体，与案件结局有着切身利害关系，因此保障犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的人权使其在诉讼中受到公正的对待极为必要。八届人大修正的刑诉法的一个显著特点，就是加强了对诉讼参与人的权利保障，尤其赋予了犯罪嫌疑人、被告人较广泛的诉讼权利，以保证其处于被追诉的不利地位的情况下尽最大能力与控诉之偏差错误相抗衡，切实有效地保障犯罪嫌疑人、…     

从“应当如实回答”到“不得强迫自证其罪”

我国现行刑事诉讼法规定了犯罪嫌疑人“应当如实回答”的义务，使其在刑事诉讼中陷入极为不利的境地。从承认和尊重犯罪嫌疑人、被告人诉讼主体地位和诉讼权利的角度出发，有必要在刑事诉讼法中确立“不得强迫自证其罪”原则。该原则的确立将促使现有的刑事诉讼结构转向以平等对抗为基础的当事人主义诉讼，并为“口供本位”转向“物证本位”、“由供到证”转向“由证到供”的侦查模式改革提供契机，此外，还有助于进-步完善和发展我国刑事证据制度。     

依法保障犯罪嫌疑人、被告人诉讼权利实现的思考

依法保障犯罪嫌疑人、被告人诉讼权利实现的思考王凤岐通观国际社会的刑事立法，无不以对自然人的无罪推定作为重要原则，从而确立不得对任何人进行任意逮捕、拘禁或放逐，并有权在受到刑事追诉中获得辩护为核心内容，以至表现为保障人权的法律规制。新中国自从宪法原则确...     

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.