论“自然正义”法则──兼评我国刑事诉讼程序的完善

论“自然正义”法则──兼评我国刑事诉讼程序的完善杨连峰，周星佐一＂自然正义＂法则是一个有许多不同理解的法学或哲学范畴。就其本体意义来讲，它意味着：人人都有为自己的案件寻求平等保护的权利和不应由自己来审理涉及自身利益的案件之中立原则。也就是说，只有一个...     

浅议存疑不起诉案件的刑事赔偿

存疑不起诉案件是否予以国家赔偿出现分歧的原因是对《国家赔偿法》归类原则的不同理解和该法规定的滞后，应当以在对嫌疑人逮捕时是否具有违法侵犯人权的行为为前提，区分不同情况，然后确定是否赔偿。     

累犯中时间条件的认定

本文案例启示：对存在疑点、难以确定是否符合累犯的构成要件的案件，需要根据刑法和刑事诉讼法的基本原则与精神进行解释，即罪刑法定原则和存疑有利于被告人原则。罪刑法定原则要求法院判定某一行为是否构成罪，必须严格按照法律规定的条件和标准．不符合法律规定的条件和要求的，不能任意解释、推测而定为有罪；存疑有利于被告人原则要求在一个具体的刑事诉讼中，当出现对法律理解的不一致，或者案件事实的证明过程中出现不确定的因素时，应作出有利于被告人的解释或有利于被告人的事实认定。     

论正确行权与滥用权力的界限

正确行权是我国国家机关管理社会活动的一项基本原则。我国公共权力运行的主要原则：依法行权的原则；权益保护原则；责任效率原则；平等运权原则；清正廉洁原则；遵循程序原则；有错必纠原则；独立行权和接受监督的原则。公共权力运行的实际过程是否合法合理，是划分正确行权与滥用权力的具体标志与界限。行政过程中的界限包括：必须作为与不得作为的界限；适当行权的界限；行权区间的界限；行权时效的界限。实现正确行权，防止滥用权力还必须有法律保障。正确行权是由各种程序和界限保证的权力依法有序运行的过程。当前，必须运用法律手段改变种种滥用权力的现象，使法有尊严，政有权威，民有诚信，保证社会稳定有序地发展     

文化模式与犯罪构成模式赵秉志

中国文化模式属于机体宇宙论，与“天人合一”的自本体观和直觉体悟的认识论相关联；西方文化模式属于机械宇宙论，与“征服自然”的他本体观和逻辑分析的认识论相关联。中国的犯罪构成是机体的犯罪构成，体现的诉讼规则是综合规则；西方的犯罪构成是机器的犯罪构成，体现的诉讼规则是可废除规则。在提高司法效率与实现司法公正方面，机体的犯罪构成与机器的犯罪构成均能实现各自均衡。机体的犯罪构成更利于贯彻无罪推定原则和实现刑法的人权保障机能，但在控制犯罪和实现刑法的社会秩序维护机能方面相对弱化；机器的犯罪构成更利于控制犯罪和实现刑法的社会秩序维护机能，但在贯彻无罪推定原则和刑法的人权保障机能方面相对弱化。     

也论改造本体

改造本体分为两类：以罪犯为主体的改造本体和以监狱机关为主体的改造本体。前者是指罪犯通过学习、实践和反省，逐步达到改造目标；后者是指监狱机关对罪犯施加积极影响，使其改过自新，成为守法公民。     

类比思想在立体几何教学中的应用

所谓类比指的是借助类似的事物的特征刻画突出本体事物特征,更浅显形象地加深本体事物理解.根据类比的思想方法,探讨利用平面几何与立体几何之间的拓展和演变关系,借助类比的方法和技巧进行相关问题的立体几何教学,是本文的基本出发点.通过这种数学思想的灌输,不断强化学生的类比思维能力,不断增长学生的探索精神和创新意识.     

浅谈对合同公证的认识

在公证实践中，不少公证员反映对合同类公证的把握很茫然。一方面，有的公证员认为公证既不是合同的生效要件，又不是合同订立的必须形式，公证无用论、形式论成为办理合同类公证的认识性障碍；另一方面，不少人不清楚合同公证笔录怎么做，对合同类公证的风险防范无所适从，在办理合同公证时出现笔录无话可说，“详见合同”成为套话的现象。笔者试从自己对《合同法》的理解和对公证的作用认识两方面，对上述问题进行探讨，以求证同业。对合同类公证要想做到心中有数，必须解决公证在合同公证中有什么作用的认识问题。也就是说，公证员首先要…     

论推定的逻辑学基础——兼论推定与拟制的关系

尽管推定是法律中的一个重要制度 ,但学界对它的理解却是分歧严重。推定是以概率为基础 ,当两个事物或两组事物之间的联系存在一般与个别、常规与例外两种情形时 ,根据择优原则 ,将其中的一般联系、常规联系确定为他们之间的充分条件逻辑关系的一种行为或结果。推定与拟制的本质区别在于是否以概率作为建立两事物之间关系的基础。     

论动产担保物权的并存及其效力关系

本文对动产担保物权并存的四种情形及其效力关系进行了探讨。同类担保物权并存时，在效力上应实行“设定优先”原则；不同类担保物权并存时，其优先效力应根据不同情况分别对待；转担保物权与原担保物权并存时，应以转担保物权的效力优先；优先权与担保物权并存时，应以优先权的效力为先     

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.