论刑事诉讼中实体公正与程序公正的并重

如何处理刑事诉讼中实体公正与程序公正的关系,理论界有实体公正优先论、程序公正优先论和实体公正与程序公正并重论三种不同的学说。我们既要反对"重实体轻程序",又要警惕"重程序轻实体";坚持实体公正与程序公正并重,既是诉讼规律的客观要求,也符合我国当前的国情。在刑事诉讼中,坚持实体公正与程序公正并重,应尽力追求两者同时实现的理想状态,极力杜绝引发两者同时不公的情形发生,在两者发生冲突时须根据利益最大化原则作出科学权衡。     

司法公正是程序公正与实体公正辩证统一

程序公正与实体公正是理解司法公正的一对非常重要的概念,是司法公正的两个维度.程序公正优先和实体公正优先都有各自的不足和缺陷,程序公正与实体公正的辩证统一才是我们应当追求的司法理念和我国司法改革的方向.     

司法公正是程序公正与实体公正的辩证统一

程序公正与实体公正是理解司法公正的一对非常重要的概念,是司法公正的两个维度。程序公正优先和实体公正优先都有各自的不足和缺陷,程序公正与实体公正的辩证统一才是我们应当追求的司法理念和我国司法改革的方向。     

程序优先：实体公正与程序公正冲突选择

在现代刑事诉讼价值理论中,程序公正与实体公正被奉为刑事诉讼的两大价值目标,对此已成共识。但是,二者发生冲突时,如何在两个价值目标之间进行选择,尚存争议。我们认为,实现在绝对真实观中引入相对真实观、在认识论中引入价值论、理性解读刑事诉讼的利益观等刑事诉讼理论观念上深刻变革之前提下,程序优先才是实体公正与程序公正的冲突选择的价值追求。在现代刑事诉讼价值理论中,程序公正与实体公正被奉为刑事诉讼的两大价值目标。努力实现两者的并重或者平衡,无疑是刑事诉讼的理想或终极追求。然而,当二者发生冲突之时,如何在两个价值目标中进行取舍选择,却是见仁见智。笔者认为,程序优先是实体公正与程序公正冲突选择的价值追求。理解这一问题,必须彻底走出一些观念上的误区,实现刑事诉讼理论观念上的深刻转变,必须理性解读刑事诉讼的利益观,在绝对真实观中引入相对真实观,在认识论中引入价值论。     

程序公正简论

程序公正并不仅仅是追求实体公正的工具和手段 ,它和实体公正都是司法活动所追求的目标 ,并且现代法治社会应以程序公正为本。程序公正的理念渊源于西方自然正义论 ,被认为具有独立和优先于实体公正的法律价值 ,它与我国法文化传统和现实存在着差异和冲突。     

略论刑事诉讼中的公正与效率——以不起诉制度为范本

现代法治国家,公正与效率无疑是刑事诉讼法追求的两种价值,刑事诉讼的基本制度无不体现着此两种价值的冲突与融合.中德两国的刑事诉讼法均将公正摆在优先于效率的位置,但我国刑事诉讼法却更加突出了实体公正的重要性,忽视了诉讼效率的因素.文章以中德两国的不起诉制度为比较范本,进一步分析刑事诉讼中公正与效率的关系,从而在刑事诉讼的制度构建与实践中实现两者关系的合理定位.     

程序公正对民事诉讼公正的价值

程序对民事诉讼公正的实现具有重大价值,要想实现诉讼的公正,必须要从程序着手.能够实现诉讼公正的程序,必须是公正的程序.由于民事诉讼程序的公正只能是不完善的程序公正,这样程序未必一定能带来正当的结果,必须通过一定的法律拟制方法,来实现程序公正的正当化.     

民事诉讼程序de公正与法官角色重塑

民事诉讼程序的公正是保障当事人的合法民事权利的前提,也是司法公正的有效组成部分。重实体、轻程度是多年来法院队伍中的一种传统观念。随着当前审判方式改革的推行,必然使这一伎观念受到冲击,转变传统观念势在必行。诉讼程序公正是实体公正的前提,也是实体公正的保障,而实体公正则是裁判公正的结果。为使程序公正落到实处,树立新的诉讼观念,本文拟从民事诉讼程序公正的基础条件及掌握程序指挥权的法官两方面进行一些探索,以求解决在审判方式改革中,法官角色换位带来的相关问题,从理解和全面把握立法精神入手,再造重塑法官形象。     

价值定位与路径选择:我国举证时限制度适用再反思——兼析新《民事诉讼法》第65条

中国传统诉讼文化与"以程序正义为核心的诉讼模式有相当的距离"。〔1〕因传统使然,普通民众对牺牲实体公正的纯粹程序公正认同度较低,对符合程序公正理念但实体不公之裁判的接受度也较低。证据规则不可能完全脱离国情而追求纯粹的程序公正。故而,符合国情的选择应该是在程序公正与实体公正发生冲突时,优先考量实体公正,并对程序公正予以相应的保障。对程序瑕疵行为,应科以程序性制裁而尽量避免实体恶性失权制     

马克思、恩格斯关于诉讼程序公正的思想

诉讼程序公正是马克思、恩格斯法律思想体系的一个重要方面。在马克思、恩格斯看来，诉讼程序公正应当体现为：审判权由依法设立的法院独立行使；法官不能与自己处理的案件有利害关系；诉讼严格依照法定程序进行；尊重和保障诉讼当事人的人权。处于特殊的历史环境，马克思、恩格斯重视诉讼法程序公正，但首先关注实体公正。     

反内幕交易法的公平性基础——从内幕交易“无损害”假说谈起

内幕交易是否违反法律的公平 ,多有争议。内幕交易“无损害”是反对以法律方式禁止内幕交易的逻辑起点。本文在介绍无损害性假说并对之提出针对性的批判之后 ,循着“以人为中心的公平”的论证体系 ,对内幕交易的不公平性作了分析 ,为反内幕交易法的公平性基础提供了新的理论构架。     

Procedural Fairness,Blame Attributions,and Presidential Leadership

The removal of the President of the United States from office is a rare and significant event. This study investigated the influence of procedural fairness and blame attributions on punishment and support attitudes during the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton. This study assessed the influence of the procedural fairness of Clinton's behavior, procedural fairness of the Kenneth Starr/Congress investigation, satisfaction with Clinton policies, and blame attributions on punishment attitudes (i.e., whether Clinton should be removed from office) and support attitudes (i.e., whether individuals would vote for Clinton if an election were held today). Both the procedural fairness of Starr/Congress and procedural fairness of Clinton' behavior significantly influenced punishment and support attitudes. Procedural fairness of Clinton had indirect effects on punishment attitudes (through perceived blame of Clinton) and direct effects on support attitudes. Procedural fairness of Starr/Congress had direct effects on both punishment and support attitudes.     

Does Fairness Matter More to Some than to Others? The Moderating Role of Workplace Status on The Relationship Between Procedural Fairness Perceptions and Job Satisfaction

Three field studies explored the relations among status, procedural fairness, and job satisfaction in the workplace. Study 1 revealed that status differences moderated the relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction such that there was a stronger relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction for individuals with higher perceived status than for those with lower perceived status. Study 2 examined a possible underlying psychological mechanism for the moderating effect of perceived status—the importance of procedural fairness deservingness—and found that higher levels of perceived status were associated with a greater sense of deservingness for procedural fairness. Extending the results of the first two studies, Study 3 found that procedural fairness deservingness mediated the moderating effect of status on the relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction. This research contributes to theories of fairness by further illuminating the role of status in affecting reactions to procedural fairness. This research also contributes to our understanding of status in organizations and shows that perceived status can lead to an increased sense of deservingness.     

The Influence of Self-Threats on Fairness Judgments and Affective Measures

This paper focuses on the question of why fairness matters to people. Extending on terror and uncertainty management theories and the literature on the self, it is proposed here that fairness can be a means of self-defense. Thinking of a situation that is threatening to the self therefore should make fairness a more important issue to people. The findings of two experiments support this line of reasoning: Asking participants to think about things that are threatening to themselves led to stronger reactions to manipulations of both procedural and distributive fairness. In the discussion it is argued that these findings suggest that fairness especially matters to people when they are trying to deal with threats to their selves.     

Are Outcome Fairness and Outcome Favorability Distinguishable Psychological Constructs? A Meta-Analytic Review

Manipulations of outcome favorability and outcome fairness are frequently treated as interchangeable, and assumed to have redundant effects. Perceptions of outcome fairness and outcome favorability are similarly presumed to have common antecedents and consequences. This research tested the empirical foundation of these assumptions by conducting a meta-analytic review of the justice literature (N = 89 studies). This review revealed that outcome fairness is empirically distinguishable from outcome favorability. Specifically: (a) there is weaker evidence of the fair process effect when the criterion is outcome fairness than when it is outcome favorability, (b) outcome fairness has stronger effects than outcome favorability, and equally strong or stronger effects as procedural fairness on a host of variables, such as job turnover and organizational commitment, and (c) manipulations of outcome fairness and favorability have stronger effects on perceptions of procedural fairness than the converse.     

论反垄断法上的公平价值

芝加哥学派的经济分析方法给反垄断执法带来了革命性的变革,但其"唯效率论"的主张不仅在理论上难以自圆其说,在实践中也面临很多挑战。本文通过对实质公平在反托拉斯法价值体系中地位的历史变迁的考察,提出在现代反垄断法中,实质公平可以填补配置效率价值功能的不足,配置效率辅之以实质公平,可以保证在两价值目标的互动与适当张力中实现市场机制和政府规制、经济目标和社会目标的平衡与和谐发展。     

Social Motives in Integrative Negotiation: The Mediating Influence of Procedural Fairness

Although a large body of research has examined the influence of social motives on integrative negotiation, little is known about how social motives affect procedural fairness judgments in negotiation. In two experiments concerned with small group negotiation, we manipulated group members' social motives (pro-social vs. egoistic), and measured joint negotiation outcomes and procedural fairness. Experiment 1 showed that, compared to group members with an egoistic motivation, those with a pro-social motive experienced more procedural fairness, which was partly responsible for the higher joint outcomes they obtained. In Experiment 2, we manipulated social motives and decision rule. Results showed that pro-social groups experienced more procedural fairness than egoistic groups when a majority rule was applied, but not when a unanimity rule was applied.     

Uncertainty,Fairness Perceptions,and Job Satisfaction: A Field Study

Following uncertainty management theory, we argue that when people face increased uncertainty, fairness becomes more important to them and judgments of fairness affect their reactions more strongly. The organizational field study reported here examines the effects of uncertainty about performance standards and appropriate behaviors on the relationship between fairness and job satisfaction. Results reveal that uncertainty moderates the positive relationship between fairness perceptions and job satisfaction such that the more uncertain people are about performance standards and appropriate behaviors, the stronger the relationship between fairness and job satisfaction. Further results reveal a significant moderating effect of uncertainty specifically for procedural fairness and interactional fairness. We discuss the implications of our findings for the uncertainty management model.     

迈向方法论时代的价值法学——以实现社会公平正义为视角的分析

以社会公平正义等为研究核心的价值法学在我国取得了令人瞩目的成绩,俨然成为法学主流学术流派。但是,我国学者在研究价值法学的过程中,缺乏对实现价值的方法的探索。这样就出现了价值法学研究兴旺,但是个案公正却很难得到维护的矛盾现象。当代中国法治建设,不仅要关注以价值为基础的宏大叙事,更需要关注实现价值的方法。追寻实现法律价值的方法是开启价值之门的智慧之钥,也是实践价值意义的基本路径,更是反思价值之路的实用之道。要从政治的、经济的和法律的层面上寻找诸如社会公平正义之类价值实现的方法。     

Drug Testing and Procedural Fairness: The Influence of Situational Variables

This study examines the effect of four variables (i.e., interpersonal treatment, organizational reputation, testing context, and consequence of testing) on perceptions of the procedural fairness of a drug-testing program. Main effects for each of these variables on perceptions of procedural fairness were expected. In addition, interactions were predicted between interpersonal treatment and organizational reputation, testing context and consequence, and testing context and interpersonal treatment. Results generally supported the hypotheses, revealing main effects for the four variables and two significant interactions. The implications of these findings for justice research and the design and implementation of drug-testing programs are discussed.