完善我国个人信用征信体系的法学思考

个人信用征信是解决我国目前信用缺位的有力手段。为了使征信体系得到较全面的法律支撑,需以立法的形式确认个人信用征信体系中各方当事人的权利义务。本文就美国和欧盟对个人信用征信的法律规定进行了比较分析,结合我国有关立法现状,从保护消费者个人信息隐私权和促进个人信用征信业发展两个目标出发,对完善我国个人信用征信体系提出了立法制度构想。     

检察官当事人化与客观公正义务——对我国检察制度改革的一点反思

基于控辩平等对抗的要求,检察官在诉讼中的地位应当当事人化。但是,控辩平等对抗也应当有其底限,检察官的当事人化不能违背客观公正义务。检察官在诉讼中的角色应当区别于民事诉讼中的原告,而具有当事人和准司法官的双重属性。     

诉前司法鉴定操作程序设想

诉前司法鉴定是法院在立案审查阶段,依据当事人申请,将鉴定事项委托鉴定机构进行鉴定的行为。诉前司法鉴定机制的确立的目的是在诉前通过法院委托鉴定机构进行专业性鉴定,并明确该鉴定意见对各方都有约束力。诉前司法鉴定意见对当事人双方预判即将到来的诉讼争议走向有指导作用,对诉讼结果会有一个客观的认识。     

试析民事审判中的法官释明权

恰当行使释明权是体现法官司法能力的重要指标之一。本文对释明权的性质、范围、方式等问题作了初步探讨,指出在民事审判中,法官行使释明权应该在坚持中立原则的基础上,以公开、公正的方式去探知双方当事人的真实意思表示,对当事人双方的专业技能、法律知识、诉讼经验、经济能力等方面进行深入的体察,以实现诉讼为目的,平等地保护当事人的诉讼权利。     

仲裁员行为规范考察:仲裁实务的视角

仲裁员是法律职业共同体的一员,除了法律人的共性行为规范,还应遵守仲裁员特殊行为规范。这些规范既是道德规范,也是法律规范,基本要求是公正廉洁、勤勉高效,而中立、不偏私是自然公正和正当程序的前提。仲裁员应遵守诚实信用、公正、勤勉高效、保密等义务,公正又包含廉洁、独立、披露、公允对待当事人、谨慎与当事人接触、律师仲裁员的特殊限制等具体内容。     

诉权保障与民事诉讼管辖制度关系论

从权利的角度考察诉权与管辖制度的内在联系,可以看出由于我国管辖制度与诉权割裂,从而极易侵害当事人的诉权。而将当事人于管辖制度享有的权利归属于诉权,以此将诉权保障与管辖制度的建构有机衔接起来,以诉权论指导管辖制度的建构,这对于加强当事人的诉权保障与完善民事诉讼管辖制度甚至于法院体制的完善具有重大价值。     

程序法经济分析

理性的最大化实现是经济学的最终目标,将这种最大化的追求融入程序法的实现中则表现为诉讼成本的最大化降低及其当事人自身利益的最大化。本文对程序法的公正予以经济角度的分析,提出建立新的部门为当事人的诉前成本进行分析,使得当事人在选择诉讼还是和解的问题上达到最大效益的统一。     

论司法精神病鉴定听证制度构建

饱受争议的司法精神病鉴定相比其他类鉴定项目较为特殊,鉴定意见决定了当事人的责任能力、受审能力、证人的作证能力、妇女的性自卫能力、罪犯的服刑能力等,直接涉及当事人的切身利益,对案件的影响较大。然而鉴定本身缺乏实验数据支持的学科特点,以及依靠文证材料的鉴定方法,很容易导致当事人对鉴定的怀疑和争议。为解决以上问题,尝试将具有形式公开、当事人参与等特点的听证制度引入该领域,从静态和动态两个方面构建全新的听证制度和程序,以保证在鉴定意见出具之前双方当事人能够充分陈述、举证、质证、阐述争点、行使辩论,对个人主张负举证、说服责任,在参与、监督鉴定的过程中消除疑惑、争议,更能理解鉴定意见的得出。     

程序公正与刑事诉讼中的鉴定启动权

鉴定启动权本质上是举证权,而不是准司法权。在我国刑事诉讼中,鉴定启动权的配置具有单向的控方主导型的特点,有违程序公正理念,削弱了当事人的举证权,与大陆法的"鉴定权主义"和英美法的"鉴定人主义"制度均存在差距,不利于查明案件的事实和保障当事人的诉讼权利。《刑事诉讼法》可以通过赋予辩方有条件的鉴定启动权和救济权的方法对鉴定制度予以完善。     

论我国法官释明权制度

由于我国国民法律意识普遍较低,大多数当事人缺乏必要的法律知识、诉讼经验和诉讼技巧,且在诉讼中居于相对被动的地位,因此构建我国法官释明权以救济当事人诉讼能力的欠缺显得极为必要和重要.本文从法官释明权的定义、特点、不同法律阶段中释明权运用中的不同等方面阐述了法官释明权制度.     

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。     

The relationship of the outcome and procedural fairness: How does knowing the outcome influence judgments about the procedure?

Justice theories distinguish between fair procedures and fair or favorable outcomes. However, it is not clear whether people can clearly separate judgments about procedures from knowledge of the outcomes of those procedures. Two experiments are reported which address that question. In both studies respondents evaluate the fairness of decision-making procedures. In one case those evaluations occur prior to knowing the outcome of the procedure (behind the veil), while in the other the outcome is known before the procedural evaluation (in front of the veil). Two hypotheses about outcome influence are tested: that knowing the outcome changes themeaning of procedural fairness and that knowing the outcome changes theweight given to procedural fairness. Findings of both studies suggest that prior knowledge about the outcome does not change the way people define the meaning of the fairness of a procedure. However, people place less weight on their judments about procedural fairness when evaluating the decision maker if they make those judgments already knowing the outcome of the procedure.     

Is outcome fairness used to make procedural fairness judgments when procedural information is inaccessible?

In a study of relocation decisions at seven different sites, procedural fairness was shown to be more sensitive to outcome fairness when respondents had less time to gather information about decision procedures. We interpret this finding to show that inaccessibility of information about decision procedures moderates the influence of outcome fairness judgments on procedural fairness judgments, such that outcome recipients rely more heavily on outcome fairness as a basis for forming procedural fairness judgments when information about decision procedures is not available. A second, laboratory study is reported that confirms the information inaccessibility explanation in the first study. When procedural information is available, procedural characteristics may be the primary bases for procedural fairness judgments, but when such information is unavailable, procedural fairness will likely be more sensitive to self-interest concerns. Future research should therefore take contextual factors such as accessibility to procedural information into account, given that there are likely to be differences on that dimension between organizational settings on the one hand and legal, political, and dispute resolution settings on the other. Information about decision procedures, generally accessible in legal, political, and dispute resolution settings, is often much less accessible in organizations.     

Understanding gender differences in distributive and procedural justice

Gender differences in treatment and in judgments of distributive and procedural justice were examined. Three hundred nine litigants who had been involved in arbitrated auto negligence lawsuits responded to exit surveys. Two mechanisms by which gender might influence justice perceptions were explored. First, we examined whether a “chivalry bias” might be operating, in which the procedures systematically favor women over men. If such biases occur, women might feel they had been treated more fairly because of egocentric biases. Results provided only modest support for the chivalry bias. While women received slightly better awards and perceived somewhat more control than men, these differences had no effect on perceptions of distributive or procedural justice. Second, we examined whether men and women differ systematically in the factors they use as indicators of distributive and procedural justice. On the basis of group-value theory we predicted that women might place more emphasis on standing or on outcome favorability. The study revealed that men and women did differ in how they defined distributive justice, with women placing more emphasis on their perceived standing and on their perceptions of the favorability of their outcomes. There were no substantial gender differences in how procedural justice was defined. Results are interpreted in terms of how women might be responding to insecurity about facing a justice system historically dominated by men. An erratum to this article is available at .     

Procedural Justice for Victims and Offenders?: Exploring Restorative Justice Processes in Australia and the US

Sociolegal research indicates that when citizens perceive that legal processes and procedures are fair, both positive and negative legal outcomes will be viewed as acceptable. However, little is known about perceptions of fairness in informal contexts such as in restorative justice (RJ) practices and with victims (and offenders) who participate in these programs. Drawing on interviews with key actors engaged in post-conviction RJ programs for serious crimes in Australia and the USA, this paper asks, do post-conviction therapeutic RJ programs for violent crimes enhance procedural justice for victims and offenders? The data reveal that RJ is compatible with procedural justice for both victims and offenders. Specifically, RJ aids in correcting the harms created by the formal criminal justice system and, thus, satisfies and even greatly enhances procedural justice goals for both victims and offenders.     

The Role of Societal Benefits and Fairness Concerns Among Decision Makers and Decision Recipients

Four experiments examined the role of costs and benefits versus procedural and distributive justice for procedural fairness and procedural evaluations among decision makers and decision recipients. Experiments 1 and 2 examined the responses of actual judges in a 2 (high versus low benefit) x 2 (search procedure conducted respectfully versus disrespectfully) randomized factorial. In both studies judges evaluated procedures differently than is typical among samples of decision recipients: outcome concerns strongly influenced both procedural evaluations and procedural fairness while procedural concerns such as voice and respect were minimally influential. Whereas fairness concerns continued to be important among these decision makers, outcome fairness was more influential than procedural fairness. Studies 3 and 4 varied role (authority versus subordinate), procedural respect, and societal benefits. Both experiments supported our predictions that procedural criteria would dominate the procedural evaluations of subordinates whereas outcome concerns such as societal benefits would dominate the procedural evaluations of authorities.     

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.     

Justice in Health Care Decision-Making: Patients’ Appraisals of Health Care Providers and Health Plan Representatives

This study describes the development of two versions of a Health Care Justice Inventory (HCJI). One version focuses on patients interactions with their providers (HCJI-P) and the other focuses on patients interactions with the representatives of their health plans (HCJI-HP). Each version of the HCJI assesses patients appraisals of their interactions (with either their Provider or representatives of their Health Plan) along three common dimensions of procedural justice: Trust, Impartiality, and Participation. Both the Provider and Health Plan scales assess indices that are relatively independent of patients demographic characteristics. In addition, patients appraisals of their interactions with their provider were only moderately related to their appraisals of their interactions with representatives of their health plan, indicating that the Provider and Health Plan scales tap distinct aspects of patients overall experience with the health care system. Overall, procedural justice dimensions were significantly related to patient satisfaction in both the Provider and the Health Plan contexts. As predicted, procedural justice factors were more strongly tied to patient satisfaction in the Provider than in the Health Plan context, and health care decisions based on distributive justice principles of Need (rather than Equity or Equality) were most closely tied to patient satisfaction in both contexts.     

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。     

程序正义视阈中的我国侦查程序

正当法律程序所包含的程序公正性与合理性的标准,实际上构成了人们所公认的程序正义理念的最基本内容。具有现代性的中国侦查程序理念并非都是本土资源自然生长的结果,但如果对西方现代侦查程序理念进行＂照搬式＂的移植,会使我国侦查程序成为诉讼诸多＂病灶＂的集中地之一。因此,应从侦查程序正义理念的基本价值为起点,在剖析我国侦查程序现状与缺陷的基础上,对未来侦查程序的构建提出一些有益的思考和建议。