《监察法》实施中的证据衔接问题

从证据与程序的关系看,证据不仅需要与待证事实有关联,还是一种法律程序产品,是一系列法律行为后产生的某种结果。不同法律程序在程序目的、程序性质、程序保障、程序严格性等方面存在不同,上述差异影响和塑造了不同性质的证据,进而产生了证据衔接的问题。《监察法》构建了一个独立的法律程序,对公职人员职务违法、职务犯罪行为的调查适用《监察法》及相关规定,监察证据与刑事证据也面临着衔接的问题。监察调查程序与刑事侦查程序相比,在规范密度、权力行使、程序保障等方面存在一定差异。在当前的立法框架下,要求监察机关在收集、固定证据时参照刑事诉讼法的相关规定,有助于优化监察调查的程序环境,为监察证据与刑事证据有效衔接提供正当性。     

英美证据法支柱的内在分离——兼论达马斯卡比较法方法对英美证据法的贡献及局限性

<漂移的证据法>虽然只有薄薄的152页,却是达马斯卡毕6年之功完成的;此书一出,即在美国证据法学界引起了巨大反响.[1]<漂移的证据法>一书是达马斯卡运用比较法的方法对英美的证据制度进行深入研究的一部代表作,文章的结构基本上是一个三段论式的演绎过程:英美法系的证据制度主要是由三根程序性支柱(法庭的二分式结构、集中型审判和对抗式诉讼构造)予以支撑的,而这三根支柱都已经或正在遭受到不同程度的侵蚀,因此英美的证据制度也将经历一次痛苦的蜕变.     

被告人品格证据在性侵未成年人案件中的运用及对我国的启示——以U.S. v. Castillo案为例

性侵未成年人案件具有性侵犯罪隐秘性和被害人低龄化的双重特性，这导致该类案件在办理过程中面临着证据收集难、证明难度大的困境。U.S. v. Castillo案在审理过程中上诉法院对《美国联邦证据规则》第414条的正当性和合宪性进行了分析与论证，明确了被告人品格证据在性侵未成年人案件中的可采性。我国在司法实践中办理此类案件，在被告人品格证据运用上，可以在满足“必要性”“关联性”“程序合法性”的情况下予以借鉴。     

庭前会议中非法证据排除处理方法研究

2013年1月施行的《刑事诉讼法》中增加了庭前会议程序,其中对于非法证据排除的相关内容引起了法学理论界和司法实务部门的广泛关注,对庭前会议司法实践的实证研究表明庭前会议程序本身还存在法规模糊、制度欠缺等问题,其中对于非法证据的处理更是争议的焦点.在系统分析我国现行法律法规体系中有关庭前会议中非法证据排除的相关条款的基础之上,通过对司法实践以及法学理论界的不同观点的考察,本文从我国当前刑事司法体系发展阶段及特点出发,提出除控辩双方争议较大的情况以外,非法证据排除问题原则上应当在庭前会议中解决,同时法律法规应明确庭前会议中非法证据排除决定的效力.     

刑事法官诉讼角色的再考察——以审辩冲突为中心

审辩关系作为对抗式刑事诉讼中的非典型性概念,现于当下我国亚职权主义诉讼模式中主要表现为一种冲突性的非对称关系。表面上,其肇因于辩方诉讼内的程序性与证据性辩护以及诉讼外的舆论性辩护三种辩护形式。本质上,其源始于裁判者在诉讼目的与庭审功能上的事实中心域立场。结果上,其导致了程序规范的惯习失灵与裁判权威的最终失却。在新《刑事诉讼法》背景下,刑事法官亟需在日渐朝向对抗式的改革话语中承担起全新的制度角色:立足于以裁判者为中心的审辩关系重构,刑事法官不仅需要完成整体上从权力集约型向权力分享型法官的职权转换,还需在相应的诉讼禁止与诉讼许可、程序控制与程序引导以及程序制裁与程序救济的单向性转换中实现其真正的个体认同与价值肯受。     

试论证据的层递性与证据交换——对证据规定的修改意见

《人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》（以下简称＂证据规定＂）出台以来,人民法院审理民事案件时,程序的规范大有进步。但在审判实践中,还需进一步完善。本文试就证据的层递性及在民事诉讼程序中因证据的层递性,当事人必须在开庭前进行证据交换,提出相关见解。     

论伴生性证据

刑事证明中,刑事证据根据其证明作用可分为证明案件事实的证据和证明取证程序的证据.前者主要证明案件事实是否成立,后者则主要证明证据的来源是否清楚、收集程序是否合法,以及从证据形式上判断与其他证据、与案件事实之间有无关联.证明取证程序的证据,是伴随着其他相关证据而产生的,可称为“伴生性证据”.     

交错性:心理学研究的新范式

近年来,交错性理论成为心理学新的研究范式。交错性研究关注多元边缘化群体,认为个体是多元社会认同的整合,强调权力的关系性与社会认同的建构性,主张非累加的、多元建构的交错效应与多元方法的使用。将交错性引入心理学研究,具有重要的方法论意义:它有利于纠正传统心理学研究的社会认同同质化的本质主义倾向,揭示群体生活的复杂性以权力与社会不平等的生产机制,厘清知识与权力的关系,为更好地理解与研究社会现象的复杂情境、促进心理学方法论的变革、推动社会变革提供了新的视角。     

美国性品格证据适用规则之借鉴

现阶段,我国强奸案中尚未形成被害人性品格证据的适用规则。这导致了理论界和实务界对能否适用以及如何适用该证据形成了激烈的争论。反观美国,在"强奸盾牌条款"出台40年后,司法实践逐步形成了适用被害人性品格证据的特定规则。该规则在平衡保障被害人隐私和被告人权利的理念之下,实现了对不同类型性品格证据可采性的区分。以美国较为成熟的经验为参考,我国被害人性品格证据的适用规则应遵循平衡保障的基本理念,以"合意"和"可信度"为证明对象,根据相关性对性品格证据的证据能力进行分类,并通过合理的程序对证据的证明力做出全面而准确的评价。     

论国际商事仲裁中证据的可采性

在国际商事仲裁中,仲裁庭具有认定证据可采性的自由裁量权,不必严格适用各国民事诉讼中的证据可采性规则。不过就一些具体的证据可采性问题,国际上形成了一般实践。仲裁庭在认定证据的可采性时,除了考虑相关性,还可能考虑效率、仲裁费用等因素。另外,仲裁庭认定证据可采性的权力并非没有限制。我国相关仲裁实践存在一些问题,与国际一般实践相脱离,应予以纠正。     

Reviews

Park: The Duty of Disclosure in Insurance Contract Law
Brazier: Ministers of the Crown
Penner:, The Idea of Property in Law
Davies: Delimiting the Law: 'Postmodernism' and the Politics of Law
Damaška: Evidence Law Adrift     

论民事证据法的目的--与李浩教授商榷

民事证据法的目的分为根本目的(或最终目的)和直接目的(或第二层次的目的)两个层次.民事证据法的根本目的是保护当事人合法的民事权益;直接目的是"公正证明程序".民事证据法的任务是发现真实,民事证据法根本目的的实现依赖于发现真实任务的完成.发现真实必须遵从一定的程序,而这一程序必须是在民事证据法目的的指引下所确立的程序.这一程序内含实体公正、程序公正和效率三个要求.     

Method, Morality and the Impossibility of Legal Positivism

Abstract. The dispute between Legal Positivists (eg, Hart) and Natural Lawyers (e.g., Finnis) concerns the existence or otherwise of a necessary (conceptual) connection between law and morality. Legal Positivists such as Hart deny this connection and assert the merely contingent relationship of law and morals. However, it can be demonstrated that implicit in the valid sociological method of concept formation of post-Austinian Positivists are interpretative or ideal-typical models of the practical rationality of the legal enterprise which are not, and cannot possibly be, value-neutral. With particular attention to the work of John Finnis and his incorporation of Weberian and Aristotelian methodological principles, this paper exposes, if not the truth of Natural Law Theory, the impossibility of Legal Positivism.     

Progress Is Our Only Product: Legal Reform and the Codification of Evidence

Twentieth-century reform of the American law of evidence was initially premised on the ideals of legal progressivism, ideals splintered by American legal realism. In preparing the American Law Institute's Model Code of Evidence from 1939 to 1942, Harvard Law School professor Edmund M. Morgan attempted to reconstitute the framework of reform in light of the challenge of legal realism. The Model Code was based on granting greater discretion to the trial judge and changing the goals of the trial from a search for truth to a "rational" resolution of disputes. In large part due to these apparently radical and "corrosive" changes, the Model Code failed to win professional support and was not adopted by any state. The structure of the Model Code was used for the two subsequent evidence codification efforts, the Uniform Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Evidence. These codification efforts found greater academic favor in part because they fit within the post-World War II jurisprudence of reasoned elaboration. The Federal Rules also enjoyed extraordinary professional favor because the drafters explicitly affirmed truth as the goal of the rules. The irony is that the framework of the Federal Rules, since they are based on the Model Code, contradicts this message.     

Aroma Philosophorum: The Case of CAsanova

Law and Critique - The degree of truth of Casanova’s History of My Life is a matter of heated debate. Doubt has been cast particularly on whether his stories of incest with his daughters...     

教学课件著作权法律问题探讨

课件在一定程度上体现了制作者智力投入,因其具有独创性而构成著作权法意义上的作品。依据创作方式和表现形式的不同,课件可分为软件作品和综合作品两种形式。在课件著作权归属问题上,除教师根据学校专门安排的课件创作任务而完成的课件或工作合同对课件归属另有约定的以外,课件作品的性质应为教师的个人非职务作品。课件中对他人作品的使用应当严格限制为课堂教学使用和教学人员使用,校外培训使用、远程教育使用以及学生使用,均不构成著作权法上的合理使用。抄袭他人课件后在教学中使用的行为因不具有＂已经发表的作品＂的条件而构成侵权。     

Eliciting Cues to False Intent: A New Application of Strategic Interviewing

This article examined how to elicit cues to deception when a suspect is asked both about his/her intentions and his/her corresponding past planning, and when the investigator holds evidence on the suspect’s planning activities. In a new experimental set-up accommodating the main characteristics of intent, participants (N = 120) either planned a criminal or a non-criminal act. They were intercepted before completing the planned act. Each participant was interviewed in accordance with one of three interview techniques: Early Evidence disclosure or one of two versions of the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique. All the interviews were transcribed and scored for consistency. As predicted, the liars were perceived as having a higher degree of inconsistency for two of the three relevant comparisons (Statement on Planning–Evidence on Planning; Statement on Intent–Evidence on Planning). Furthermore, using the evidence strategically resulted in differences between liars and truth tellers being magnified, as predicted. This article advances previous findings in showing that by interviewing strategically with respect to the evidence, it is possible to elicit reliable cues to deception when a suspect is asked about intentions and corresponding planning activities.     

证据立法问题笔谈--理想、现实与需要——刑事证据立法之我见

近十年以来,证据立法问题就一直是法学研究的热点。从最高人民法院颁布的关于民事、行政证据规定的两个司法解释开始,学者和司法部门就对证据立法投入了空前的热情。《统一证据法》草案、《刑事证据法》草案、《民事证据法》草案以及《人民法院统一证据规定》草案陆续面世,各地司法机关的证据性规定也如雨后春笋般出现。针对实践的需要和学界的呼吁,最高立法机关、司法机关也在酝酿如何从立法或司法解释层面改革我国现行的证据制度。基于此,我们约请在证据法学领域颇有造诣的几位中青年学者,就此问题发表观点．以期提供有益的参考。     

Law and economics of the European multilingualism

The economics of language applied to multilingualism in the European Union (EU) has only recently come to the fore. Languages economics and Law and Economics disciplines both emerged in the 1960s. However, no study has, hitherto, linked these disciplines. This paper intends to fill that void. Language barriers are the last major remaining barriers for the EU??s ??single?? market. The lack of coordination of multilingualism in the EU stems from a taboo crystallized by a dilemma between economic efficiency and linguistic diversity??i.e., the maximization of wealth versus the maximization of utility. The EU Member States (MSs) do not hasten to coordinate their language policies at the EU level inasmuch as they overestimate the benefits of the current EU multilingualism while drastically underestimating its costs. Coordination shall occur when MSs evaluate the costs and benefits of the current EU multilingualism. This will uncover the aforementioned dilemma, that will only be resolved when both Law and Economics are applied. In pursuing this objective a ??Linguistic Coase Theorem?? adapted from the work of Parisi and the Nobel Prize winner, Ronald Coase is elaborated. Having outlined the basic notions deriving from the EU Law of Languages and the Economics of Languages (Introduction), the paper scrutinizes the costs and benefits incurred by the current non-coordinated EU multilingualism (Part I). Subsequently, a ??Linguistic Coase Theorem?? is elaborated in order to reach a Pareto-optimal outcome, thereby solving the dilemma??both economic efficiency and the linguistic diversity being enhanced (Part II).     

Worldview and Methodology of Advancing the Construction of the Rule of Law in China

This work discusses a worldview and a methodology concerning ideological approaches by which Marxists can understand and transform the world, based on well-defined value truth, theory and philosophy. The work builds on the Report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), which highlights the following priorities to which XI Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era must adhere: putting the people first, maintaining self-confidence and self-reliance, upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground, adopting a problem-oriented approach, applying system thinking, and maintaining a global vision. Furthermore, this work argues that these priorities should be applied to promote the rule of law in China’s new journey. As the starting points of analysis and understanding, the meta-theory and “six must-dos” follow the general principles of Marxism in interpreting and promoting socialist concepts, theory, law-based path and legal system in the New Era with Chinese characteristics. The metatheory and the “six must-dos” provide the logical foundations and fundamental compliance with XI Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law. Only by applying these “six must-dos” well can we understand and implement XI Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, enhance the rationality, initiative, foresight and creativity of our work in comprehensively promoting the rule of law in China.