制服被告人当庭翻供的立法思考

我国《刑事诉讼法》第一百五十五条第一款规定：公诉人在法庭上宣读起诉书后,被告人有权就起诉书的内容进行供述和辩解。本文从国外当庭翻供现象不突出,归因于其采用了无罪推定原则,而我国当庭翻供多,是因为我国没有采用无罪推定原则,没有赋予被告人沉默权。从而建议立法上应赋予被告以沉默权从根本上制服被告人当庭翻供。     

庭审中公诉人对被告人的“讯问”探析

庭审中公诉人对被告人的“讯问”探析杜玉存修改后的《刑事诉讼法》第１５５条规定，公诉人在法庭上宣读起诉书后，被告人、被害人可以就起诉书指控的犯罪进行陈述，公诉人可以讯问被告人。这一规定，是我国庭审方式改革的重大举措之一，使公诉人、辩护人、合议庭的作用得...     

检察官当庭宣读起诉书程序设定的功能刍议

为使公众特别是非职业法官在案件进入实质性法庭调查和法庭辩论之前知晓控诉事实和依据,我国乃至大陆法系的所有国家和地区都设置了检察官当庭宣读起诉书程序,但这一程序在实践中很难实现立法目的,而且有损于诉讼效率的提高。英美法系的开头陈述程序却能够达到使非职业法官了解指控事实和依据的目的;而且只陈述起诉要旨的做法也有利于提高刑事诉讼效率。     

大家谈

公诉人当庭撤回起诉书对被告人自首的认定不妥起诉书中应使用法定计量单位●茅亿起诉书作为刑事诉讼过程中的重要法律文书，应当语言规范，逻辑严密。但是由于广大人民群众在日常生活中习惯性地使用过去的计量单位，一些检察人员在制作起诉书时也按照惯用计量单位来书写，...     

庭审直击：卖官敛财的统战部长

法庭调查：疑是秋风扫落叶
　　9时36分，法庭调查开始，公诉人仉杰起立宣读起诉书，随着洪亮浑厚的声音在法庭回荡，起诉书的每一个字都直刺人心，案件也逐渐揭开了神秘的面纱，呈现在世人面前。     

庭审举证后对证据的分析

修改后的刑事诉讼法实施已一年多时间，公诉人在依法出庭支持公诉的工作中已逐渐适应了新形式的庭审制度，在法庭上掌握主动，积极出击，揭露犯罪。在庭审过程中，公诉人通过宣读起诉书、提出公诉机关的诉讼主张、并经过讯问被告人、对所要证明的事实进行举证，到最后发表公诉意见、进行法庭辩论等一系列的活动，来证明公诉机关的诉讼主张，保证起诉成功。如何运用好证据来证明自己的诉讼主张，关系到整个公诉案件成功与否的问题，是重中之重。现阶段，由于刑诉法中关于举证方面的规定过于笼统，具体的操作规程都是公诉人在实践中，根据各自…     

辩护人当庭提供新证据之对策

实践中,在出席一审法庭时,辩护人往往出示一些新的物证书证,或提供新的证人证言,或对被告人、被害人进行诱导性发问,来与公诉人分庭抗礼,以达到减轻或免除被告人应负罪责的目的。因此,公诉人为确保公诉质量,完成法律赋予的职责,就有必要对辩护人当庭提供新证据之对策加以探究。 一、辩护人对被告人、被害人、证人进行诱导性发问的 在辩护人向被告人发问时,公诉人应认真倾     

李全海交通肇事案庭审纪实

公诉人简介： 公诉人郝连峰、杨帅、王兆国，均是沈阳市沈北新区检察院公诉科科员。公诉人出席法庭的特点是：庭前准备充分，在讯问和举证阶段配合多媒体，效果直观、清晰，对辩护人当庭提供的证据处理恰当。在法庭辩论阶段，公诉人重在依法说理，以稳定、缜密的证明体系使得辩护方的观点不攻自破。本案的庭审被评为2011年度辽宁公诉部门十佳公诉庭。     

公诉人举证的意义和技巧探析

检察机关的公诉部门承担着审查起诉、提起公诉、不起诉和出席法庭支持公诉等具体工作任务，还发挥着侦查监督、刑事审判监督的职能作用。当前我国当事人主义的刑事审判方式下，审判人员以居中裁判为主，公诉人承担着当庭举证的责任，办案质量和举证效果直接影响能否被告人定罪判刑。由此可见出席法庭支持公诉成为公诉工作的重要环节，而公诉人的举证又成为出席法庭支持公诉工作的核心。因此，笔者认为有必要正确认识和重视公诉人举证活动的重大意义和“胜诉”的技巧。     

投影示证 直观生动──从一起案件的举证方式说起

“辩护人对刚才公诉人宣读的另案被告人李某的供词有无异议？”“有异议。公诉人将讯问笔录中‘再存2万元’念成‘再有2万元’。一字之差，加重了对被告人主观恶性的理解。”1997年12月10日，郑州市管城回族区法院在审理一起敲诈勒索案时，辩护人当庭对公诉人的一次疏忽提出批评，公诉人虚心接受。分明是宣读的内容，辩护人何以能如此洞察秋毫，发现这种细小的差错？原来，宣读的讯问笔录，通过投影被同时显示在法庭内领先设置好的电视屏幕上，公诉人逐字逐句阅读时，辩护人乃至整个法庭人员都能从屏幕上逐字逐句地进行辨析——甚至字迹略带…     

法院解释条约的原理与中国机制的构建

条约是公认的国际法,许多国家在司法实践中都将条约作为法院裁判案件的适用依据。但在我国,宪法并未规定条约在其中的地位,条约主要是立法转化适用而不是吸纳适用,其也不是行政诉讼案件的适用和参照依据。因此,有必要构建法院解释条约的机制,明确法院解释条约发生的条件,同时建立参照条约的个案解释方法,法院在个案审理中可以直接以非人权条约为适用依据来裁判案件,援引人权条约或者参照条约进行论证和说明理由。     

诉讼调解的经济分析——以法院为中心

在新制度经济学的视角下,诉讼调解是一种理性活动,法院在调解程序的选择和适用上不可避免地会追逐自身利益的最大化。法院的自利行为与实现当事人利益最大化的调解制度的根本目标之间常常会发生悖离。因此,我国调解制度必须控制法院的利益驱动,规范法院的调解行为,强化当事人的程序选择权和程序决定权。     

Contempt of Court <Emphasis Type="Italic">In Facie Curiae</Emphasis>; Problems of Justification,Application and Control with Reference to the Situation in Botswana

The existence and exercise of the power to order summary punishment for contempt of court is a much contested terrain. Its antiquity and ubiquity pervade many states across the globe, and in particular in the Anglo-American legal system. This state of affairs has much to do with its very nature and justification. The procedure itself potentially compromises time honoured requirements and practices of due process of law, and also potentially sanctions the fusion of characteristics of an aggrieved person, prosecutor and judge in the same person. Notwithstanding these misgivings, it has continued to be practiced in many parts of the world. Given these exceptions to norms, its scope has been very difficult to delineate, to an extent that although attempts have been made to lay down general principles for its application, the range of conduct necessary for its invocation is so amorphous, malleable and indefinite as to present a difficulty in justification. This has raised many questions both as to its legality and or justification. This article is just but one attempt to answer the questions raised, to the extent possible, and later on to survey its exercise in the context of the jurisdiction of Botswana.     

MANDATED CUSTODY EVALUATIONS AND THE LIMITS OF JUDICIAL POWER

Kelly and Ramsey are clearly correct that a shift from a “how to” approach to custody evaluations to one that asks the more fundamental question “why” is long overdue. However, in addition to assessing the efficacy of custody evaluations (which Kelly and Ramsey propose), the legal system must also clarify the justification for imposing this extensive—and often expensive—intrusion into the privacy of parents. Three possible justifications for these intrusions are examined in this article: privilege, harm, and voluntariness. Is divorce a privilege, rather than a right, and can qualifications (including intrusive and expensive ones) be attached to requesting that privilege? Are custody evaluations instead justified as a means of avoiding harm to children? If a harm justification is asserted, exactly what harm do evaluations prevent, and how do they accomplish this harm avoidance? Finally, given the high value placed on parental cooperation by the family courts, is it simply too perilous for a parent to oppose a custody evaluation if one is suggested, either by the other parent or by the court? If so, are consents to custody evaluations truly voluntary?     

和谐社会与中国民事诉讼制度的未来走势

现代和谐社会是“和而不同”、“和而有讼”的社会，民事诉讼的许多功能都有助于和谐社会的成功建构。中国民事诉讼制度与“和谐社会”的诉求尚有距离，在当代和谐社会建构背景下，中国未来民事诉讼制度应追一步优化、完善，有助于和谐社会功能与制度。     

案例指导制度的域外经验

英美法判例制度主要有两个作用：一是参考作用，一是约束作用。参考作用，是指如果法院认为一个判例的判决原则或法律理念是正确的，法官在审判时可以适用这个案例。而约束作用，是指如果法院认为一个判例是错误的，但按照法律的规定，该判例对法院有约束力，那么，法院即使认为这个判例是错误的，仍要遵从这个案例。     

风俗犯罪的处罚根据初论——以风俗犯罪正当化的考察为视角

立法者在刑法中创制风俗犯罪主要是基于维护社会生活中善良风俗的考量,但是刑法的目的是保护法益,单纯侵害社会生活中善良风俗的行为是否具有法益侵害性和应否发动刑法对其予以规制是需要进一步探讨的问题,这有赖于考察风俗犯罪的正当化。唯有侵害社会生活中善良风俗的行为犯罪化与风俗犯罪正当化的内涵相符,相关风俗犯罪的创制才是合理的,这是阐明风俗犯罪处罚根据的核心所在。风俗犯罪的正当化不仅与自由保障理念和法益保护理论具有重要关联,还与伤害原则、从属性原则以及罪刑均衡原则密不可分。     

Playing God: Mary must die so Jodie may live longer

In 2000, conjoined twins were born in England. What made this case unique was the fact that if the twins remained unseparated, medical opinion held they would die; if they were separated one twin would live, and one twin would die; the parents refused to consent to separation; and the hospital charged with their care brought the matter to court. The trial court and court of appeal approved of the surgery, which was promptly performed, resulting in the immediate death of the weaker twin. The author argues that there is no justification in law or morality for the courts' decisions, and that, in fact, the courts' decisions over-rule prior precedent and effectively divorced law from morality.     

The Politics of Justice and the Paradox of Justification

Pluralism, (normative) uncertainty, and disagreement are all widely held to constitute major obstacles for gaining assent to policy choices, especially when they concern legitimation-sensitive issues and hence are in particular need of a sound justification. Plausible as it appears to be, in the present article I argue that this belief may reflect only half of the truth, because the very forces that are held responsible for the erosion of consent often also seem to serve as justificatory resources, opening the door for a wide range of policy options that it would not be possible to sell if it were always unambiguously clear what ought to be done. Some empirical examples are discussed to illustrate how this paradoxical logic of justification works in practice.     

关于案例指导制度在中国建立的两个困境

我很想对案例指导制度讲一些话,因为前些年在郑州法院搞先例制度的时候,我曾经实地考察过,也和当时的院长比较细致地探讨了这个问题,和他们两位法官也讨论过。两位法官和我有一番论证,他们俩是坚决反对,认为一个区法院怎么可以搞一个先例制度呢？他们认为至少应当在最高人民法院或者是高级人民法院这个层次。