建立保释金制度刍议

按照我国的法律制度规定,保释分为两种:一种是“人保”,另一种为“财物保”。笔者认为在我国刑事诉讼制度中,还应当建立保释金制度。首先,建立保释金制度是我国司法实践的要求。多年来,取保候审制度在我国刑事诉讼实践中起着重要作用。但也出现了各种各样的问题,归纳起来有以下两个方面:一是保证人责任心不强,不能严格履行法定担保义务。往往是碍于情面或出于亲情,保出了之。有的甚     

美国减少审前羁押最新举措——保释制度改革

审前羁押规模庞大是美国刑事司法体系中的一个严重问题。保释制度在美国的刑事司法体系中具有非常重要的意义,美国宪法禁止对被告人科处过多的保释金,各州宪法亦对保释权有不同的规定,但保释金保释实际上造成大规模审前羁押。美国保释制度专门立法经历了三次大的变化,最新的变化是各州针对保释金保释进行改革,目标是大幅减少审前羁押人数,在方法上是采用循证风险评估基础上的司法裁量。     

美国保释金那些事

多年来,美国刑事司法改革倡导者一直在争取终结保释金制度。他们强调,这种做法造成了双重司法体系:富人花钱摆脱羁押束缚"逍遥法外";穷人无力承担保释金"先蹲监狱"据美国媒体2月19日报道,纽约警察于当地时间2月17日与一名嫌疑人玩了一场捉拿游戏,他在一天之内被逮捕了三次,并且都因为纽约州的新保释改革法被释放。     

假释保释金不宜推行

近年来,一些市地中级人民法院规定,在罪犯假释时,须缴纳一定数量的保释金。笔者认为,这种做法,弊端甚多: 一、实行假释保释金,没有法律依据,有损法律尊严。法律规定:假释是指被判处有期徒刑、无期徒刑的罪犯在执行一定时间后,确有悔改表现,不致再危害社会的有条件的提前释放。而假释保释金是附     

略论反担保的法律适用

反担保的概念，无论是古罗马法，还是近现代大陆法系或英美法系的担保立法制度上均未见记载。但在当今国际贸易的实践中却常有将反担保与借款担保、保释金担保、票据担保等并列运作的现象。①我国担保立法考虑到国际外贸的实践，而国内经济立法中担保大多数为无偿担保，担保人只承担风险，而无利益可图，因而出现揽保难的局面，不利于市场经济的资金融通和商品流通。于是为消除担保人的后顾之忧，在立法上首次规定了反担保制度。《担保法》第 4条规定：“第三人为债务人向债权人提供担保时，可以要求债务人提供反担保，反担保适用本法担保的…     

性法律，平等的价值高于自由

在美国，保释是被追诉人的一项宪法性权利。1789年美国宪法第八修正案规定：“在一切案件中，禁止课以过多的保释金、过重的罚金或施加异常的残酷的刑罚”。此外，《司法法1789》进一步明确了可保释的范围，并对法官在可否保释问题上的自由裁量权进行了明确的指引。保释权利所体现的法治精神内涵，即审前羁押有违无罪推定的原则，已经深深地植根于美国刑事司法之中，这不仅意味着被追诉人享有保释的权利，而且意味着禁止过高的保释金以防止变相缩减公民的保释权利。     

辛普森保释金翻番

美国内华达州克拉克县地区法院1月16日就美国前橄榄球明星O·J·辛普森违反保释条款举行听证会。愤怒的法官杰姬·格拉斯在法庭上斥责辛普森的这一行为"傲慢无知"。辛普森缴纳双倍保释金后再度获释。     

FTX事件引发“地震” 加密虚拟币行业陷入“黑洞”

<正>破产大戏、金融欺诈、政治操弄、2.5亿元保释金……近期,知名加密货币交易所FTX前实控人几乎以一己之力,贡献了加密资产圈最引人注目的一系列年末大戏。2022年12月13日,美国众议院金融服务委员会（The House Financial Services Committee）就FTX倒闭事件,对FTX创始人山姆·班克曼-弗里德（Sam Bankman-Fried,下称“SBF”）举行了听证会。此前,美国监管机构在巴哈马群岛逮捕了SBF,     

“中国官员澳洲强奸案”的引渡猜想

2013年11月，中国广州某官员在澳大利亚访问期间强奸当地负责接待的一名工作人员（一名女大学生）案件，在国内外引起广泛关注和强烈反响。根据最新的报道，“强奸”事件发生后，官员本人与家属及其朋友已经第一时间向澳大利亚警方申请保释，并向澳大利亚官方缴纳了374万元人民币作为保释金。但是，截至发稿，澳大利亚方面仍然没有松口说该官员是否可以获得保释。     

洛克希德案与西方的保释制度

一一九八二年十月十二日,日本东京地方法院最后一次审理举世瞩目的洛克希德案件,以违反国家外汇管理法罪和贿赂罪判处日本前首相田中角荣四年有期徒刑,罚金五亿日元(罚金为日本刑罚的一种).当天,田中交了三亿日元(约合人民币二百五十万元)保释金而不被羁押,可在监外进行上诉活动.在此之前,一九七六年八月十七日,东京地方法院依据日本有关法律的规定,批准已被东京地方检察厅逮捕、起诉的被告人     

The percentage deposit bail system: An alternative to the professional bondsman

Bail bondsmen in the United States help defendants gain pretrial release. The preminums paid to bondsmen are not returned to the defendants. A percentage deposit bail project in two Massachusetts courts allowed defendants to gain their release by depositing 5% of the amount of bail with the court. These deposits were returned in full to the defendants upon completion of their cases, saving them large sums of money. Moreover, the rate at which defendants failed to appear in court as scheduled was no higher under this percentage deposit system than under the traditional bail bondsman system.     

英国保释制度及其借鉴意义

在英美法国家刑事诉讼中 ,保释是被逮捕人或者被羁押人的一项重要诉讼权利。其中 ,英国的保释制度历史最为悠久 ,立法最为完善。本文对英国保释制度的历史沿革和基本内容进行了考察 ,提出了借鉴英国保释制度 ,完善我国取保候审制度的若干建议     

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND BAIL DECISIONS

This study examines the relative effects of a number of legal and extralegal factors on (1) the decision to release on recognizance and (2) the decision on amount of money bail. Social science research on these issues has been sparse compared to that on other phases of the criminal justice process. Findings from a regression analysis show that the first step of the bond disposition process, the recognizance decision, is influenced by several factors. The demeanor of defendants in open court is the most important. Net of other influences, good demeanor increases the probability of release on recognizance by 34.8%. In cases where recognizance is denied, only two variables are related significantly to the amount of money bond. Net of other influences, a felony offense (as opposed to a misdemeanor) increases predicted bail by $2300, and poor demeanor increases the predicted bail required by $1600.     

论取保候审制度功能的重构——以被追诉者权利保护的角度

我国将取保候审制度纯粹作为国家权力行使制度对待,而从被追诉者权利保护的角度而言,取保候审制度是被追诉者应当享有的一项权利,我国《刑事诉讼法》的有关规定也体现了这一属性。但是由于我国司法理论和立法规定的缺陷,导致了被追诉者取保候审权利保护的不足。笔者认为,我国应当借鉴国外保释制度的优点,改革《刑事诉讼法》第51条的规定,以第52条为根基,完善取保候审制度;而且,由于违反取保候审规定的成本过低,还应当规定脱保行为的刑事责任。     

Administrative Review in a System of Conflicting Values

An issue of continuing debate in the legal and social science literature is how best to control and validate the exercise of essentially legislative powers by administrative agencies. This study examines one mechanism of control, administrative de novo review of agency decisionmaking. It explores how this device functions in immigration bail administration, a system where there is a broad and vague delegation of detention and bail powers to government oficials in an area of law where there is no set of preferences as to how conflicting policy claims are to be weighed in decisionmaking. The study shows a system in turmoil. The de novo review body–the immigration court-frequently and substantially modifies the Immigration Service's initial bail decisions. Because there is no agreement on the norms to guide decisionmaking, these changes have little effect on ongoing agency activity and policies. Pronounced interagency conflict and extreme decisional disparity persist given limited institutional and political arrangements for dealing with this dissensus. The study explores in detail the institutional cultures and conflicting legal and social values that shape the practice and patterns of de novo review in this field of law and discusses the implications of such conflict for the full functioning of this external review device.     

The Economics of Bail Setting and Social Welfare

In most jurisdictions, there is a statutory preference for releasing on bail an accused in custody that has not yet been convicted unless the accused is charged with very serious offence like homicide. Nonetheless, the courts are vested with the powers to decide on the quantum of bail or to even refuse bail outright. To induce the defendant to surrender for trial [Lim, B.-T., & Quah, E. (1998). Economics of bail setting. Bulletin of Economic Research, 257–264] demonstrate that the bail quantum should be based on the expected cost of punishment and the probability of re-arrest if the defendant jumps bail. However, there are costs to society if the defendant absconds, which include, inter alia, the cost of re-arresting the defendant. In this paper, we derive the optimal bail quantum on the assumption that the probability of re-arrest and the penalty for absconding are chosen by the courts whose objective function is to minimize the sum of the expected harm to society and the net costs to law enforcement if the defendant jumps bail. The cost and benefit of being released on bail are examined. A model is proposed which may be useful to the court officials in bail setting as an effective means to secure the defendant's attendance at trial as well as to achieve social equity.     

How American Commercial Bail Developed Differently from Other Common Law Countries

Outside the United States those countries sharing the common law tradition are pervasively hostile to commercialization of the bail process, whereas in the United States it is the typical approach. In some jurisdictions payment for bail is a crime; in others it is simply obstructed by various civil legal disabilities. How the American branch of the common law heritage came to deviate so strikingly from the rest on the matter of commercial bail is the topic of this article.

Beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century, courts principally in Ireland, England, and India began to act against payment to bail sureties on the concept that any indemnification of them—even partial—undermined their reliability. Irish courts took the approach that indemnified potential sureties were unreliable and should be rejected by courts. Where all potential sureties were indemnified, bail should be denied. In England courts declared agreements to indemnify sureties illegal contracts contrary to public policy, which would not be enforced by courts. While India took up the refinement of this position, England went on to declare agreements to pay bail sureties to be criminal conspiracies.

Meanwhile in the United States a circumscribed version of the position that indemnification contracts were against public policy—and therefore illegal and unenforcible—actually gained acceptance between 1870 and 1912. In 1912, however, Justice Holmes in Leary v. U.S. renounced the common law concept of bail sureties in favor of an “impersonal and wholly pecuniary” view. This terminated the anti-indemnification movement. Courts soon noted the detrimental effects of commercialism on bail.     

保释制度的诉讼价值分析

诉讼价值是诉讼制度的灵魂所在;从程序正义、实体正义以及诉讼效率价值三个角度来看,保释制度既有科学合理的一面,也有其不完善的一面;但保释制度作为一项确认、保障被追诉人人身自由的制度仍然是值得肯定和借鉴的.我国有必要借鉴国外的做法并结合我国实际,在现行取保候审制度的基础上确立科学规范的保释制度.     

Bail decision making and pretrial detention

Bail practices became the target of reform efforts during the 1960's and 1970's not only because of issues concerning economic bias against indigent defendants but also because of criticism of the bail decision itself. Questions were raised about the appropriate uses of bail (e.g., to prevent flight or pretrial crime, or to inflict pretrial punishment), the rationality of the criteria relied on by judges in deciding bail, and the discretionary allocation of pretrial detention through high cash bail. In this article, case law and statutes governing bail practices in the United States are reviewed first to characterize the ambiguous legal framework from within which bail judges must operate. Then bail decisions in a large urban jurisdiction are analyzed as a case study to discover the factors most influential in determining pretrial release options. It is inferred that, even after years of reform, community-ties measures do not play a major role in the bail decision or the determination of pretrial custody; rather, the nature of the charged offense appears most influential. A finding of special significance is that a large proportion of these decisions could not be explained systematically (i.e., a large share of variance remained unexplained). The article concludes by suggesting a guidelines approach to bail that could narrow disparity in bail options and the use of detention, enhance the rationality of the decision process and contribute to more equitable pretrial practices.Revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, August, 1978. This research was supported, in part, by a grant from the Statistics Division of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to the Criminal Justice Research Center. Points of view or opinions stated are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.     

审查逮捕适用宽大刑事司法政策存在的问题及其对策

在审查逮捕工作中,对构成犯罪但可能被判处徒刑以下刑罚,或作微罪不诉处理的犯罪嫌疑人是否有逮捕的必要,一直是困扰办案人员的一道难题。其主要原因在于执法不统一、逮捕必要性难以考察、取保候审和监视居住的诉讼保障功能难以发挥、不批准逮捕引发现实冲突等,由此造成批捕率居高不下的现状。在贯彻执行宽严相济刑事司法政策的形势下,这一难题显得尤为突出和急待解决。建议加强检察队伍能力建设、建立有效工作机制和社会保障机制、完善立法。