程序正义理念与和谐社会的构建

"程序正义"作为一种以司法的公正平等和公民自由平等权利的维护与尊重为基本价值的理性的法律理念,从法律的维度为我国建设和谐社会目标的实现提供了有力的推动因素。程序正义理念的缺失必然会阻碍法治和谐社会的建构。因此,培育程序正义理念对构建和谐社会具有重要的现实意义。     

接近程序正义

程序正义的观念在我国的理论界和司法界已普遍确立 ,但如何由观念走向实践还未为学者们所关注。综观我国司法改革过程中出现的弊端 ,在合宪性控制、司法资源与诉讼观念问题则尤其值得重视。如何保障程序正义的价值 ,真正地从理念走向实践 ,也是当今世界各国改革的难题。本文通过对西方国家接近程序正义运动的考察 ,力图寻求接近程序正义 ,也即程序如何实效性的为当事人所利用的进路。     

浅析程序正义

程序正义理念蕴含着人类对自身命运的关怀和对正义理想的追求,但长期以来我国法学理论界将法律程序仅仅视为实施实体法的工具。本文主要论述了程序正义的价值,并提出了判断程序公正的标准。     

科学理性与人文关怀并重——现代侦查程序的基本精神（二）：中国侦查程序的缺失与完善

本部分以第一部分论证的西方各主要国家侦查程序所蕴含的科学理性与人文关怀并重的基本精神为参照,对我国现行侦查程序体现出的科学精神与人文精神进行了比较考察,指出我国侦查程序既缺乏科学理性又有失人文关怀;而后就我国侦查程序如何更多地反映科学理性与人文关怀并重的基本精神,从侦查程序的目的设定、侦查措施、手段的完善以及有关制度的设计上提出了大致的设想。     

走向程序正义

程序正义是依法治国的标志,而我国程序正义的理念比较缺乏。本文首先从传统的诉讼文化角度分析,为什么西方注重程序正义而我国却程序正义虚无。接着通过列举个实例说明我国目前由于受传统司法观念的影响,仍然不注重程序正义。最后通过剖析刘涌一案,对如何树立程序正义提出建议。     

浅析程序正义的要求

程序正义理论二十世纪六七十年代产生于英美国家,在我国的司法实践中,对程序正义的重视远远不够,对于程序正义的价值在法律上没有得到广泛的认同。程序正义是司法公正的重要组成方面,司法活动本身应当严格按照一定的法律程序进行,只有通过一定的程序实现的正义才是社会所能接受的正义。因此,程序正义在最低限度内提出了自身的基本要求,即参与、平等、中立、隔离和自治。本文从程序正义的内容入手,结合我国诉讼中的现状,分析了程序正义的价值,以及实现程序正义的基本内在要求。     

论我国民事再审程序的现状及重构

民事再审程序是民事诉讼制度的一项重要制度,它具有补救当事人权利失衡的作用。随着程序正义理念的不断深入人心,程序正义对各项法律制度提出了新的要求,民事再审程序也不例外。为适应程序正义的要求,本文从民事再审程序的价值取向出发,对我国的民事再审程序进行了分析与重构,以求对我国法治的完善产生一定影响。     

论我国侦查程序中法官角色的重塑

侦查程序的正当化系现代法治国家刑事诉讼文明的重要标志,而法官的应然作用对侦查程序的正当化起关键性作用。我国侦查程序中法官应然角色作用缺失,形成种种弊端,严重违背程序正义理念的要求,亟待予以重新塑造,以充分保障人权,促进我国刑事诉讼文明、民主的进程。     

完善我国刑事侦查程序浅析

如何规范与控制侦查权,建立更加合理科学的侦查程序,从而保证那些被追诉地位公民最基本防御权的实现,是当前司法实践中需要解决的重要问题。本文通过对西方国家侦查程序的发展趋势进行归纳解析,反思我国侦查程序中存在的缺陷,并以此为基础提出重构我国侦查程序的建议,进而使我国的侦查权更加正当化、合法化。     

完善我国刑事侦查程序浅析

如何规范与控制侦查权，建立更加合理科学的侦查程序，从而保证那些被追诉地位公民最基本防御权的实现，是当前司法实践中需要解决的重要问题。本文通过对西方国家侦查程序的发展趋势进行归纳解析，反思我国侦查程序中存在的缺陷，并以此为基础提出重构我国侦查程序的建议，进而使我国的侦查权更加正当化、合法化。     

中国特色刑事诉讼制度的重大发展

刑事诉讼法修改在坚持从我国基本国情出发,循序渐进地推进我国刑事诉讼制度的完善;坚持统筹处理好惩罚犯罪与保障人权的关系;坚持着力解决在惩治犯罪与维护司法公正方面存在的突出问题原则下,贯彻了"尊重和保障人权"的宪法原则,对证据制度、辩护制度、强制措施、侦查程序、审判程序、执行程序等方面作了完善,是中国特色刑事诉讼制度的重大发展。但在取得很大成绩的同时,问题与不足也是客观存在的,还需要进一步完善,并通过司法解释的出台和实施细则的制定加以弥补。     

程序正义论——一种法社会学的反思

本文旨在从社会学的视角分析论证程序正义在我国的可适用性问题。通过分析程序正义在我国的价值,及对社会现状的剖析,揭示程序正义的形成障碍,进而对存在的问题探索较为稳妥的解决,建构了程序正义从观念到制度的立体体系。     

Procedural decisions in intergroup conflict situations: The influence of hierarchical group membership

A review of research on procedural and distributive justice shows that whereas distributive justice research has examined people's actual choice of outcomes, procedural justice research has paid little attention to the investigation of people's actual choice of procedures. In the present paper, three experiments are presented, all investigating people's actual choice of procedures. In all three experiments, participants were in a middle-management position where their subordinates demanded an opportunity to voice their opinion, while their superiors demanded that the subordinates should not be allowed voice. In Experiments 1 and 2 it was found that participants who were induced to identify with the low hierarchical group (subordinates) allowed more voice than participants who were induced to identify with the high hierarchical group (superiors), but that the effect of hierarchical group membership was absent when maximizing performance (Experiment 1) or participative values (Experiment 2) were explicitly emphasized. In Experiment 3 it was found that the effect of hierarchical group membership on procedural decision making was also evident in persons who progressed from identifying with both hierarchical groups to identifying with one hierarchical group. In the discussion it is argued that cross-fertilization between the fields of procedural and distributive justice will deepen our understanding of social justice in general.     

The values of administrative procedural law and the meaning of its codification in China

Administrative procedural law has the value of justice, efficiency and order. Codifying administrative procedural law in China means promoting the development of democratic politics, protecting basic civil rights, curbing and eliminating corruption, building a clean and honest government, overcoming bureaucracy and enhancing administrative efficiency. Establishing an administrative procedure code that unifies administrative legislation, enforcement and judicial procedures is a goal that must be realized in the future.     

Procedural fairness and work group responses to performance evaluation systems

In a variety of settings, procedures that permit predecision input by those affected by the decision in question have been found to have positive effects on fairness judgments, independent of the favorability of the decision. Two major models of the psychology of procedural justice make contrary predictions about whether repeated negative outcomes attenuate such input effects. If such attenuation occurs, it would lessen the applicability of procedural justice findings to some real-world settings, such as organizations, where procedures often provide repeated negative outcomes. The present laboratory investigation examined the procedural and distributive fairness justments produced by high- and low-input performance evaluation procedures under conditions of repeated negative outcomes. Thirty-five three-person groups of male undergraduates participated in a three-round competition. Groups either were or were not allowed to specify the relative weights to be given to two criteria used in evaluating their performance. All groups received negative outcomes on each of the three rounds. A second experimental factor varied whether or not the group learned after losing the second round that it could not possibly win the third and final round of the competition. Measures of procedural and distributive fairness showed that the high-input procedure led to judgments of greater procedural and distributive fairness across all three rounds. The input-based enhancement of fairness occurred regardless of whether reward was possible. The implications of these findings for theories of procedural justice and for applications of procedural justice to organizational settings are discussed.     

Disputes in Japan: A cross-cultural test of the procedural justice model

Research on procedural justice has provided ample evidence that people are concerned not only with the outcome of disputes but also with the fairness of the procedures used to resolve disputes. The majority of the studies examining the importance of procedural justice have been conducted in the United States and Western European countries. This study tests the generality of the procedural justice model by examining the importance of fair procedures to people in a non-Western country, Japan. This study also examines the meaning of a fair procedure from a legal perspective. Past studies have drawn the procedural justice criteria considered from social psychology. We examine several additional criteria derived from the legal concept of due process of law. Results indicate that fair procedures are more important to subjects than fair outcomes in both a traffic accident dispute and a breach of contract case. Furthermore, across both types of disputes, fairness concerns are more important than nonfairness concerns. These results are consistent with findings from studies conducted in Western countries. A new finding that emerges from the study is that the clarity with which a procedure is formulated and presented is a strong determinant of procedural justice judgments.     

程序性证明——一个证据法学不可缺失的概念

诉讼证明过程要符合程序正义,蕴涵程序正义理念的司法审查原则与程序性辩护的理论建构及其制度化最终要以程序性问题的证明为依托,现有的证明理论无力回应,证据法学理论也因此面临着困境。程序性证明是指在刑事诉讼过程中,控、辩一方或双方依法针对各自的程序性请求或程序性争议,在中立的裁判者面前展开的论证或说服活动。程序性证明的主体由控、辩、裁三方构成,各方主体中最为重要的分别是指控方中负责案件侦查的侦查人员、辩护方中的犯罪嫌疑人与裁判方中的侦查法官;程序性证明的对象是程序性请求的理由和程序性争议;程序性证明贯穿于刑事诉讼的整个过程;程序性证明的展开具有灵活性。程序性证明的提出,不仅有助于提升证据法学应有的理论品格,还有助于捍卫和发展"法律真实说"。     

论小额诉讼程序基本理念及制度建构

小额诉讼的基本理念除了诉讼效率之外,其更加关注对当事人的程序保障和程序利益的保护,根本的目的在于正义的实现。我国小额诉讼程序的建构应当借鉴各国的立法经验,注重对当事人的程序保护,不应当为了程序之简便而忽视正义之保障。在此基础之上,在机构设置、程序进行、能否上诉等方面做出合理的构建。     

程序正义概念与标准的再认识

程序正义是一种法律理念 ,即任何法律决定必须经过正当的程序 ,而这种程序的正当性体现为特定的主体根据法律规定和法律授权所作出的与程序有关的行为。程序正义的标准最值得注意的是程序规范的严格遵守和主体评价两个方面。既不能以实体的正义作为参照去评判程序的正义 ,也不能以程序的正义作为基准去决定实体的正义 ,实质正义才是唯一的选择。     

浅析我国仲裁司法监督的范围

目前,我国对内外仲裁的司法监督实行＂双轨制＂,其涉外仲裁裁决仅涉及审查和监督程序运作,国内仲裁裁决则涉及实体和程序两方面的审查。针对仲裁监督的范围,学界在＂程序监督论＂和＂全面监督论＂的问题上一直存有分歧。本文对比分析了这两大观点,并借鉴了英美法系和大陆法系国家的立法规定,提出了完善我国仲裁司法监督范围的几点建议。