“醉驾入刑”的法经济学思考

随着中国进入汽车社会,交通事故频发,由此引起的社会问题令人惊心。由于酒后驾驶、醉酒驾驶所致事故比例高、危害大,引起了广泛关注。酒后驾驶、醉醉驾驶＂入刑＂的呼声越来越高。根据违法成本和收益的比较,＂醉驾入刑＂是大势所趋,人心所向。《刑法修正案（八）》顺应时代的变化增加了对醉驾的刑罚处罚。     

“酒驾入刑”的审视与思考

"酒驾"特别是醉酒后驾车这几年一直是社会上关注度非常高的问题,特别是自2011年5月1日实施的《刑法修正案(八)》设立危险驾驶罪,对醉酒驾驶机动车纳入刑法并设定刑罚后,"醉驾"以及"醉驾入刑"问题一直在争议中前行。本文对此进行了深入思考。     

醉驾：莫因误区陷囹圄

《刑法修正案（八）》和新修改的《道路交通安全法》，将醉酒驾驶从普通交通违法行为提升到犯罪高度，即“醉驾入刑”。并于去年5月1日起正式施行。“醉驾入刑”不仅对遏制酒驾醉驾、保障人民群众的生命财产安全具有里程碑式的意义。也对引导人们形成健康文明的驾车习惯起到了积极的促进作用。     

“醉驾入刑”的实践思考

《刑法修正案(八)》将醉酒驾驶行为纳入刑法规制范畴后,"醉驾第一人"、"官员醉驾"、"名人醉驾"等消息被不断曝于媒体。一年来,"醉驾入刑"这一话题一直不断引起社会各界广泛关注,同时,"醉驾入刑"在司法处理中的问题、困境也逐渐浮出水面。笔者所在的检察机关公诉了北京首例查获醉酒驾驶案和高晓松、刘惠等一批引发关注的醉驾案,现就醉驾处理中部分有争议的实体和程序问题谈一些看法,以求教大方,和同仁     

醉酒驾驶的刑事处理及立法完善

《刑法修正案（八）》实施后，醉酒驾驶行为按不同情形或构成不同罪名，正确把握罪与非罪的界限，辨明此罪与彼罪的区别，是罪刑法定原则的基本要求。醉驾入刑不会一蹴而就，仍有许多问题有待解决。     

“醉驾”案件如何定性与量刑

随着现代交通科技的迅猛发展,当今社会已进入风险社会,醉驾入刑的规定更是与百姓生活息息相关。在《刑法修正案(八)》醉驾入刑规定正式施行一年间,其相关法律适用仍然存在困惑,影响了醉驾入刑的法律效果与社会效果。日前,本刊与重庆市渝中区人民检察院结合醉驾典型案例,共同邀请有关专家,深入探讨醉酒驾驶案件中的司法适用与法律完善问题。     

浅析醉驾入刑的法律适用问题

《刑法修正案(八)》第二十二条将醉酒驾车纳入刑法。该条实施后,引发了社会争论和学者争议,争议大多围绕着对于"醉驾入刑"的合理性和法律适用,本文拟从醉驾的现状入手,分析醉驾入刑的法律适用问题,对我国醉驾入刑的实施提供一些完善措施     

“醉驾入刑”应当考虑情节因素——从刑法规范与刑法精神的视角

《中华人民共和国刑法修正案(八)》(以下简称"修正案(八)")生效至今,围绕"醉驾入刑应否考虑情节因素"等问题进行的讨论至今不止。本文从《刑法》关于犯罪概念、犯罪特征的规范以及宽严相济刑事政策与刑法谦抑性等方面分述之,以期从刑法规范与刑法精神的视角,佐证"醉驾入刑应当考虑情节因素"这一观点,并为司法实践和学术交流提供一种思路。     

醉驾入刑的法理合理性探讨

作为对民声的呼应,《刑法修正案(八)》首次明确了醉酒驾驶机动车的刑事责任,被称为“醉驾入刑”.但落实到司法具体操作层面,公检法三家态度却有了微妙的不同.醉驾是否一律入刑,何种程度的后果可以衡量为严重等都成为本次醉驾入刑的争议焦点.本文将从醉驾入刑是否符合法理上的合理性进行探讨,为该条款的最终完善以资参考.     

“醉驾”入刑后的定罪困扰与省思

《刑法修正案(八)》将醉驾入刑以来,"醉驾"应否一律定罪、"但书"条款是否得为"醉驾"出罪规范依据之争,困扰着我国刑法理论研究与司法实务。正确解读"在道路上醉酒驾驶机动车"的构成要件内涵与规范含义,是正确认定醉驾型危险驾驶罪的关键。"在道路上醉酒驾驶机动车"是包含暗示罪量要素的不法行为定型,其规范保护目的是防范公共交通安全的抽象危险。认定醉驾型危险驾驶罪,必须结合刑法规范保护目的,对包含暗示罪量要素的"裸"的"醉驾"行为事实进行规范限缩。     

Canada opens the door to enforcing foreign non-monetary orders

The Supreme Court of Canada has overturned the common law rulethat prevented the enforcement of foreign judgments other thanjudgment debts and held that, in certain circumstances, Canadiancourts should give effect to non-monetary orders from foreigncourts.     

DO LOWER COURTS ANTICIPATE CHANGES IN SUPREME COURT POLICIES?: A Few Empirical Notes

This paper takes advantage of the change from the Warren Supreme Court to the Burger Supreme Court to investigate a phenomenon not usually examined in judicial impact research—anticipatory reactions. The research question is whether and under what circumstances federal courts of appeals anticipate changes in policy by the Supreme Court. Changes in the citation of Warren Court civil liberties decisions from the Warren Court era to the early Burger Court era are used to evaluate this question. It is hypothesized that moves away from Warren Court decisions would be greatest for decisions which received minimal support on the Warren Court and for important or salient policies. Contrary to these expectations it was found that during the Burger Court era the number of citations of Warren Court decisions actually increased, the percentage of positive citations increased, and the increases were greatest for decisions receiving minimal voting support on the Warren Court and for decisions classified as important.     

State Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Protection of Civil Liberties

Advocates of federalism, both in the United States and elsewhere, often cite the potential for enhanced protection of individual civil liberties as an emerging rationale for a federal system dividing governmental responsibilities between central and regional governments and central and regional judiciaries. Echoing this, some judicial officials and scholars, confronting an increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court, have called for state supreme courts to use the state constitutional grounds to preserve and increase the protections of the Bill of Rights. Using event count analysis, we examine state search-and-seizure cases for 1981 to 1993 to ascertain under what circumstances state courts would use this opportunity to eliminate Supreme Court review. We find that the relative ideological position of the state supreme courts and the U.S. Supreme Court often prevents, or does away with the need for, liberal courts to use the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine to expand the rights of criminal defendants and that state supreme court justices react more predictably in the assertion of constitutional protection law than the general consensus suggests.     

我国行政诉讼原告资格制度发展的社会背景及其得失评价——以最高人民法院2000年有关司法解释为对象

20世纪90年代是我国社会转型的关键十年。这一时期,市场经济体制逐步发展,民主政治体制逐步发展,行政法制建设不断进步,行政法治理论不断成熟。在社会变迁的大背景下出台的新司法解释对我国行政诉讼原告资格进行重新界定,转变了原告资格的价值取向,明确了不可诉行为的范围,赋予更广泛的行政相对人以原告资格。但新司法解释在行政诉讼原告资格的属人因素及属事因素上作出了限制性规定,有些规定甚至是对行政诉讼法规定的倒退。为使我国行政诉讼原告资格继续向逐步放宽的世界性趋势发展,最高人民法院在这类司法解释方面还将承担更为艰巨的重任。     

Attribution and the Illegality Defence

In Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) all seven judges of the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal by holding that the illegality defence could not be raised as a defence against the claim made by the company because the wrongdoing of the directors and shareholder cannot be attributed to the company. Although all the judges unanimously agreed on the outcome of the case, their reasoning concerning the approach to attribution and the different circumstances under which attribution should or should not take place differed. Further, the Supreme Court was divided on the issue of the correct approach to the illegality defence.     

Michael H. v. Gerald D.

The author attempts to apply semiotic analysis to a question of family law. By examining the language used by the Supreme Court in the title case, Michael H. v. Gerald D., along with the case briefs, lower court opinions, other Supreme Court cases and prior legal scholarship, the author attempts to determine the requisite relationships between father–child and father–mother in order for a legal tie to exist between a father and his biological child. The author tries to not only determine the necessary circumstances but also the political ideology that distinguishes these familial ties. The author further attempts to analyze the goals of these underlying political ideologies.     

The Heathrow Case in the Supreme Court: Climate Change Legislation and Administrative Adjudication

In R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd the UK Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision that there had been a series of legal errors in the designation of the Airport National Policy Statement. This case note analyses the case from an ‘internal’ doctrinal perspective and argues that the Supreme Court could have engaged more explicitly with the legal issues that arise from climate change legislation for administrative law adjudication. For courts to adjudicate well in such circumstances they need to be prepared to develop administrative law doctrine, particularly in light of the issues of integrating climate change into public decision-making and of scientific/policy uncertainty which lie in the background of climate change legislation.     

最高人民法院关于无效行政行为的探索

最高人民法院从司法审查引发出对无效行政行为制度的探索,虽没有使用“自始没有任何法律效力”和“无效”等概念,却在民事诉讼领域形成了有关基础行为的构成要件,在对行政行为的司法审查中形成了重大明显瑕疵的类型化和明显性判断标准,并形成了排除具有重大明显瑕疵行政行为公定力、相对人拘束力和司法强制执行力的无效行政行为制度雏形,为我国今后立法积累了丰富的素材。从最高人民法院的探索轨迹及其重大明显瑕疵的类型化,可以发现无效行政行为规则的鲜明中国特色,司法的制度生成意义和生成机制。     

Unfair Contract Terms,Unfair Prices and Bank Charges

This note considers how the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive 1993 draws the line between the review of unfair contract terms and the review of unfair contracts (and, in particular, unfair prices) in the context of two cases concerning bank charges: Abbey Life plc v The Office of Fair Trading (2009) (the Bank Charges case) in the UK Supreme Court and Case 484/08 Caja de Madrid (2010) in the European Court of Justice. The note explains the proper question to be addressed by a court for this purpose under article 4(2) of the Directive and criticises the Supreme Court's approach to the interpretation of article 4(2) and its application of the UK regulation implementing this article to the circumstances in the Bank Charges case.     

To tell what we know or wait for Godot?

The evidence that death-qualified jurors are more likely than excluded jurors to convict is consistent, robust, and directly relevant to the issues of representativeness and conviction proneness that were before the Supreme Court inLockhart v. McCree. There are exactly the circumstances in which anamicus brief from the APA is most appropriate. In science the search for knowledge is never complete; to keep silent until our understanding is perfect is to keep silent forever.