刑案无辜者虚假有罪供述的识别

目前通过诉讼程序对无辜者作出的虚假有罪供述识别乏力,可识别的案件种类较少且具有被动性、偶然性、滞后性特点。为此,应将识别的重心前移至侦查阶段,拓展识别的路径,对无辜者的言语、非言语行为、生理心理及供述内容本身进行识别。     

Don't Mention the War: The Court of Appeal,the Criminal Cases Review Commission and Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland

Despite the vast transitional justice scholarship relating to prisoner release, amnesties and prosecutions when conflicts end, there is a significant gap in practice and academic literature regarding wrongful convictions. Uniquely amongst post‐conflict societies, Northern Ireland has a body for investigating miscarriages of justice, albeit one designed for ‘ordinary’ appeals. In the absence of a formal truth‐recovery process, criminal appeals are becoming a proxy for addressing the role of the state during ‘The Troubles,’ as well as remedying individual injustices. This article examines the approach of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal during the conflict. It charts the developments in its decision‐making following the cease‐fires and the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It concludes that the current system is unsatisfactory as it ignores the effects of the conflict on the appeal process and offers no insights into the role of the Court during the conflict. Alternative models are suggested.     

The Presumption of Innocence and its Role in the Criminal Process

Many international instruments proclaim that those who face criminal prosecution ought to be afforded a ‘presumption of innocence’, and the importance and central role of this presumption is recognized by legal systems throughout the world. There is, however, little agreement about its meaning and extent of application. This article considers the purposes of legal presumptions in general and explores various, sometimes contradictory, conceptions of this most famous one. It is equated by many scholars to the requirement that the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, it is merely a rule of evidence (albeit an important one), with no application pre- or post-trial. The article advocates adoption of a broader, normative approach, namely that the presumption reflects the relationship which ought to exist between citizen and State when a citizen is suspected of breaching the criminal law. As such, it should be promoted as a practical attitude to be adopted by the key protagonists in the justice system, for the duration of the criminal process.     

Criminal and Procedural Fairness: Some Challenges to the Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence (POI) requires all judges, juries, and other officials in a trial, to presume and treat any accused of criminal wrongdoing as innocent, until he or she is proven guilty. Although a POI lacks an authoritative definition, this overarching principle of procedural fairness is so robust and vital for the exercise of legal power in matters of criminal law that one rarely finds anyone questioning its standing. In this article I examine the rationale behind the POI from a different perspective. The basic assumption is that this procedural standard captures the tenor of a broader principle which seeks to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings as well as in criminal law doctrine. I argue that honouring a principle of fairness is not exclusively a matter of criminal procedural law but also something that is deeply rooted in other areas of criminal law doctrine. Hence: not maintaining a principle of fairness in criminal law doctrine could lead to the POI being compromised or even undermined. In the article, I draw attention to three areas in which I believe that criminal law policies threaten a principle of fairness: criminalising remote harm, doctrine of ignorance of law and inversed presumptions of guilt. My conclusion is that some solutions to so called doctrinal problems in criminal law, are questionable and their practical consequences (on a general level) are, at least partially, equal to treating an individual (in a trial) as guilty for something for which he or she ought not to be accountable. Hence: gaining the support of a POI could thus work as principle for keeping the use of criminal law moderate and in accordance with a principle of fairness.     

Straddling Two Worlds: Reflections of a Retired Criminal Cases Review Commissioner

In this paper, I draw upon the 'systems theory' approach to miscarriages of justice (adopted by Nobles and Schiff) to reflect upon my experience as a member of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. I demonstrate how the Commission manages the tensions between the rather different 'legal' and 'lay' worlds which it inhabits. More particularly, I argue that the Commission, while heavily constrained by the law and a legal world view, is more independent of the legal 'system' than some commentators would suggest. I substantiate my arguments through describing some of the debates that took place within the Scottish Commission and analysing in depth the judgements of the Scottish appeal court in some of the cases referred to it by the Commission. Much of what I say is applicable in varying degrees to the English Commission and to the current debate in England as to what constitutes a 'miscarriage of justice'.     

我国刑事诉讼中无罪化机制的过程性失灵及应对

无罪推定原则要求通过刑事诉讼中的无罪化机制维护被追诉者实体利益,避免冤案发生。目前我国刑事司法中的典型案例让我们认识到我国刑事诉讼中无罪化机制过程性失灵的现状。我国现有刑事诉讼制度对有罪证据存疑的案件倾向于持续追诉,而非对案件进行即时无罪化处理。在有罪推定理念之下,持续追诉的程序潜规则盛行,其背后存在着容许部门利益膨胀的体制空间。司法体制产生的现实阻力,是无罪化机制过程性失灵的根本原因。与之相比,公安司法机关内部的工作机制只是附随因素。克服无罪化机制的过程性失灵应着眼于:程序裁量中的即时无罪化策略、无罪化机制的制度完善、司法体制等程序外阻力的消解策略。     

Assuming that the Defendant Is Not Guilty: The Presumption of Innocence in the German System of Criminal Justice

The presumption of innocence is not a presumption but an assumption or legal fiction. It requires agents of the state to treat a suspect or defendant in the criminal process as if he were in fact innocent. The presumption of innocence has a limited field of application. It applies only to agents of the state, and only during the criminal process. The presumption of innocence as such does not determine the amount of evidence necessary to find a defendant guilty. In spite of these limits, the presumption of innocence protects suspects and defendants from specific dangers inherent in the criminal process. German procedure law is used to show these areas.     

论刑事司法和刑事错案的成本

与传统法律思维方法相比,法律经济学方法有其自身的优势,尤其在用于分析刑事司法和刑事错案的成本时.统计推理领域中"第一类错误"和"第二类错误"的分类方法为研究刑事错案提供了参考和借鉴.我国司法机关对刑事错案的认识经历了一个历史过程,在对实体公正与程序公正、惩罚犯罪与保障人权进行权衡,特别是对刑事司法和刑事错案的成本进行评估以后,最终确立了"宁可错放,也不可错判"的司法理念,这一理念体现了法治的进步精神.     

刑事被害人救助社会福利说之提倡

刑事被害人救助制度是指对因为犯罪受到侵害的直接被害人和其一定范围的近亲属,通过法定救济程序,给于相应经济救助与精神抚慰的社会保障制度.对刑事被害人救助的基础理论主要存在国家法律责任说和社会福利说的争议.社会福利说契合了刑事被害人救助的实质,既顺应刑事被害人救助制度的发展潮流,又适应我国刑事被害人救助的实践,应该成为我国刑事被害人救助制度立法的基本思想.     

网络空间中犯罪帮助行为的制裁体系与完善思路

传统犯罪帮助行为在网络空间呈现出全新特性,对于传统刑法制裁体系带来严重冲击。当前,刑事立法、司法为制裁网络犯罪帮助行为建立的单向双轨三核应对模式存在着单向基本思路偏颇、刑事法网不严、责任认定失位的缺陷。树立双向思维模式、扩大罪名体系制裁犯罪以及完善共犯责任、正犯责任、平台责任三类责任的评价体系,是实现网络社会背景下帮助行为刑事制裁体系科学化的必然选择。     

共犯最小从属性说之再提倡——兼论帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪的性质

限制从属性说以正犯行为同时具有构成要件该当性与违法性作为共犯的成立前提,因而面临无法有效应对新型网络共同犯罪的危机.为解决这一危机,该说中有着眼于帮助对象必须是他人的"犯罪",主张帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪只是"帮助犯的量刑规则"的,也有以刑法分则条文的定罪机能为根据,提出"帮助犯正犯化"说的.但是,共犯的违法性不从属于正...     

The Prosecutor and the Presumption of Innocence

In what ways is the conduct of prosecutors constrained by the presumption of innocence? To address this question, I first develop an account of the presumption in the trial context, according to which it is a vital element in a moral assurance procedure for the justified infliction of legal punishment. Jurors must presume the factual innocence of defendants at the outset of trials and then be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by the government’s evidence before they convict defendants. Prosecutors’ responsibilities to promote the integrity of this moral assurance procedure are then divided into pre-trial, during-trial, and post-trial phases. Since most charge adjudication is effected through plea bargaining, the ways in which plea procedures must be modified to conform to this moral assurance procedure, and thus honor the presumption of innocence, are also discussed.     

地方政法委协调处理刑事案件的制度考察及分析

我国的刑事案件事实认定机制不具有对抗"协调"的功能。书面认定案件事实是地方政法委协调处理案件的技术方式。现行制度设置决定了案件事实认定主体具有多元化的特征。要保证我国刑事诉讼程序得以有效运行,就需要地方政法委在一定程度上发挥协调功效;同时,要实现公、检、法三机关之间的利益平衡也需要地方政法委进行协调;此外,地方政法委通过对刑事案件进行协调处理也可以实现自身的政策目标。目前,不宜取消地方政法委对刑事案件的协调制度,但应当合理限制地方政法委协调刑事案件的范围,并禁止地方政法委对刑事案件事实进行"协调"。地方政法委对刑事案件适用程序的协调功效应部分予以保留。地方政法委也不应对办案机关之间因处理刑事案件而出现的利益"纠葛"进行"协调"。此外,地方政法委不能以实现政策目标为由,以协调处理刑事案件的方式,不当干预办案机关正常办案。