我国赦免制度的激活与完善——基于限制死刑的思考

限制、废除死刑已成为国际社会刑法制度改革的趋势,在我国目前废除死刑的时机不成熟的情况下,严格限制死刑应是理性的选择。赦免以其特有的刑事政策功能对于限制死刑的适用具有不可忽视的价值;激活并完善我国赦免制度对于我国死刑的限制有着重要意义。我们应当依据国际人权公约完善赦免制度,其内容包括完善立法体例、赦免程序、赦免对象、赦免条件等方面。     

论死刑的立法限制--基于国际标准的分析

限制直至废除死刑的国际标准,已在世界范围内得到普遍认同和推广.限于我国实情,当前不能废除死刑.但应立足国际人权公约标准,严格限制我国死刑立法.死刑实体立法限制表现为科学削减死刑罪名,限缩死刑适用对象.死刑程序立法限制表现为完善面临死刑者的诉讼权利、死刑执行方式与死刑减刑制度,并增设死刑赦免制度.     

死刑限制之司法对策

死刑限制应包括死刑观念、死刑政策、死刑立法和死刑司法在内的全方位限制,而死刑司法限制在其中占有非常重要的地位、具其独到的作用,死刑司法限制是限制死刑适用最直接、最便宜,也是最具活力的方法。死刑司法限制应遵循严格司法解释、疑罪从无和严格核准等原则。死刑司法限制之具体措施包括确立死缓制度作为死刑替代的过渡性措施,严格解释死刑的适用标准,在程序上保障死刑被告人的基本权利以及死刑执行过程中的限制,如彻底禁止游街示众等公开处决的死刑执行方式、公开死刑判决数量和执行数量以及死刑宣判与执行应有一个较长的间隔时间等。     

死刑赦免制度构建的必要性和可行性分析

死刑赦免制度是限制死刑适用的重要途径。我国古代死刑赦免适用范围较为宽泛。我国宪法规定了赦免制度,刑法和刑事诉讼法提及了赦免。从1959年至1975年我国总共进行过7次特赦,之后没再实施过。在我国经济发展、社会进步、人权保障、政治昌明的今天,构建死刑赦免制度不仅必要而且切实可行。     

我国死刑执行救济制度探索

死刑作为刑事诉讼中最严厉的处罚,它的正确适用关系到人的生命权以及司法的公正性。死刑救济制度是规范死刑执行以及保护死刑犯权利的重要途径。长期以来我国学术界对死刑执行救济制度方面的研究很少,我国现行立法对于死刑救济制度上的规定也还不够全面,无法有效地实现对于死刑犯最大程度上的权利救济。为了完善我国的死刑救济制度、更好地贯彻"少杀、慎杀"的刑事政策,通过对死刑救济制度的价值以及我国死刑执行救济制度现状的分析,并借鉴我国历史上在这方面的相关立法以及国外的先进经验,探讨如何具体完善我国的死刑救济制度;通过重点设立死刑复核结果强制申诉制度、修改《刑事诉讼法》第211条之相关救济规定、改变死刑执行以及监督的主体、建立死刑犯赦免制度等赋予死刑犯更多救济途径,从而保证死刑执行的公正性,保护死刑犯的人权。     

死刑赦免制度探析

本文通过对西方国家以及中国古代死刑赦免制度的比较,对死刑的赦免作了系统的论述,提出在我国当前健全死刑赦免制度的必要性,并尝试对我国的死刑赦免制度做出初步构架。     

美国司法型死刑控制模式与中国借鉴

美国司法型死刑控制模式形成于美国特有的政治法律制度与文化传统中,是立法废止死刑难达统一目标情况下做出的一种积极选择。美国司法型死刑控制模式集程序上的"双阶程序"与实体上的严格死刑标准、削减死刑范围以及引入法定加重情节限制死刑适用与一体,由联邦最高法院借助违宪审查制度解释宪法,并通过判例制度创建而成。司法型死刑控制模式对中国死刑改革具有积极的借鉴价值。     

论死刑缓期执行

死缓是我国刑法独有的死刑执行制度。其设立的初衷,就在于限制死刑立即执行的适用,是我国严格限制死刑政策的立法体现。实践证明,死缓制度实际上对于限制死刑的实际执行发挥了重大作用,因为被判处死缓的犯罪分子,在缓期执行二年期满后,绝大多数都因表现良好而未执行死刑。     

美国死刑制度概览

美国自1976年恢复死刑以来，直至2005年年底，全国实际执行死刑的人数才达到1000人，死刑人数从0到1000，美国整整用了29年的时间，其死刑人数之所以比较少，主要得益于其在死刑适用对象、适用程序、救济程序、执行制度等方面比较完善的慎用、少用、限制死刑的法律制度以及比较丰富的理论和实践经验。美国的死刑制度，对于精密构建我国的死刑制度无疑将具有十分重要的理论和现实意义。     

死刑犯申诉权保障研究——从董伟、邱兴华、贾敬龙三案切入

在"少杀、慎杀"的死刑政策指引下,我国死刑案件的一审、二审和复核程序均取得了重大进步。相比之下,以保障死刑犯申诉权为核心的死刑案件再审程序和执行程序却进展不大。司法实践表明,我国对死刑犯申诉权的程序保障存在重大缺陷,致使一些事实仍然存在疑点或者事实虽无疑义但在是否适用死刑上依然存在争议的案件以执行死刑收场,在一定程度上影响了死刑适用的公正性。为此,需要借鉴域外做法,从完善死刑再审程序、改革死刑执行主体和构建死刑赦免制度等方面,充分保障死刑犯的申诉权。     

Memorializing Miscarriages of Justice: Clemency Petitions in the Killing State

Clemency in capital cases today has become quite rare. Capital clemency has been a victim of the rejection of rehabilitation as the guiding philosophy of criminal sentencing and of the increasing politicization of issues of crime and punishment since the 1960s. Yet despite the reluctance of governors to grant clemency, despite the difficulty of rectifying miscarriages of justice through the clemency process, petitions seeking commutation or pardon in death cases still are regularly presented to chief executives. With so little chance of success, filing them may seem to be nothing more than an empty ritual. In this article, I examine clemency petitions from Texas and Virginia, and I argue that those petitions may serve another function, and take on meaning in another way. This function I label "memorialization." These pleas provide an archive of stories of law's failures, of alleged breakdowns in the legal process, of a legal process in disrepair, as well as of racial prejudice, of lives shattered by violence and neglect, of remorse, rehabilitation, and redemption. They are cultural artifacts, documents that address both governors and an indeterminate audience beyond them and that memorialize miscarriages of justice. While they reveal the importance of religion, family, and good works in American thinking about remorse, redemption, and mercy, they also should be seen as histories of the present, documenting the breakdowns and inequities in the death penalty system as well as the tragic circumstances of lives shaped and shattered by poverty, abuse, and neglect.     

An empirical examination of commutations and executions in post-Furman capital cases

A review of the literature on capital punishment reveals evidence that the death penalty was imposed capriciously in the past. Previous research on executive clemency in capital cases revealed similar forces in operation. In the voluminous literature surrounding capital punishment, however, relatively little contemporary empirical work focuses directly on the characteristics of the final clemency decision to commute or execute, especially post-Furman. In this paper I explore some of these elements and find that several extralegal factors, possibly including political motivation, still may play a role in this highly discretionary decision-making process.     

The Power to be Lenient: Examining New York Governors’ Capital Case Clemency Decisions

This article examines the factors explaining New York governors’ clemency decisions in capital cases between 1900 and 1963. It relies on a statistical analysis of 130 cases in which death sentences were commuted and a comparison sample of 146 cases resulting in execution. The analysis suggests that governors were more inclined to grant clemency to offenders younger than 21, when appellate court decisions included dissenting opinions, when mitigating factors outnumbered aggravating factors, and when death sentences were imposed pursuant to mandatory capital punishment provisions. The study failed to produce evidence that racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic variables were related to clemency decisions. The statistical analysis is complemented by discussion of the results of a qualitative study of New York capital clemency decisions. The article concludes by urging that a similar combined approach involving quantitative and qualitative techniques be employed to gain further insights into the exercise of clemency discretion in contemporary capital cases.     

略论中国刑法中的死刑替代措施

死刑替代措施,是指基于限制死刑适用的目的,对于立法上特定性质的犯罪,司法中特殊情况下的罪犯,不适用死刑立即执行,而代之以其他刑罚处罚方法。死刑替代措施是限制死刑中不可或缺并被证明行之有效的方法。从完善既有方式、探索新的途径入手,死刑替代措施包括死刑缓期执行;严格的无期徒刑;附赔偿的长期自由刑三种。当前,有必要在立法上对刑罚体系作进一步调整、修改、完善,以全面体现死刑替代措施;在司法中,注意发挥死刑替代措施在限制死刑中的作用。     

不同寻常的英国司法

在三种国家权力中,司法权是最不起眼的一种,其功能和作用一般说来都不如立法权和行政权那样成效显著和引人注目。但在英国,司法权却发挥了不同寻常的巨大作用,特别是在推进法治进程方面,堪称厥功甚伟。司法不但是引领英国法治文明的火车头,而且是支撑现代英国法治大厦的顶梁柱。英国司法之所以能够独树一帜,盖因其自身具有功能强大、结构优良、发展优先三大优势。     

Executive orders: Symbolic politics, criminal justice policy, and the American presidency

The theory of symbolic politics is used to examine presidential executive orders related to criminal justice policy. It is hypothesized that presidents use executive orders to make more of a symbolic, rather than a substantive, statement. Data were collected from the National Archives and Records Administration on all presidential executive orders from the first Eisenhower administration (1953) through the last Clinton administration (2001). A content analysis of presidential executive orders related to crime and justice offers partial support for the claim that presidents use these executive orders primarily for evoking symbols. The author would like to thank Dr. Matthew J, Franck for his review of an earlier draft of this paper and the anonymous reviewers for sharing their helpful comments.     

Executive Branch Socialization and Deference on the U.S. Supreme Court

Are Supreme Court justices with prior experience in the executive branch more likely to defer to the president in separation of powers cases? While previous research has suggested that such background may signal judicial policy preferences but does not shape them, I argue here that institutional socialization may indeed increase future judicial deference to the president. Using an original data set of executive power cases decided between 1942 and 2007, I model justice‐votes to test this hypothesis. I uncover three noteworthy findings: (1) a clear correlation between prior executive branch experience and support for the executive branch, (2) the degree of this support intensifies as executive branch tenure increases, a finding congruent with a socialization hypothesis, and (3) contrary to received wisdom, executive powers cases possess a clear ideological dimension, in line with the expectations of the attitudinal model.     

程序正义及其局限性

程序正义是现代法的程序结构派生出的一种伦理形态 ,其本质为程序之中的伦理、非人格化的伦理、相对化和形式化的伦理、程序化的制度伦理。现实当中的程序正义是选举、司法以及立法、行政管理正当化的观念基础 ,宪政民主体制的伦理内涵。然而 ,程序正义之不幸在于其代表的乃是强者的正义 ,因而对弱者的权利保障是宪政民主体制不可缺少的组成部分。     

Unnatural death investigation in India. A plea for the introduction of a medical examiner system of inquest

The inquest upon a dead body is the basis of the scientific crime investigation and administration of criminal justice. The pivotal issue in any inquest is the initial visualization of the body and its surroundings at the scene of incident by a team of investigators and experts. This must be carried out meticulously, since the subsequent course of the case, and its success or failure in the court of justice, essentially depends upon its proper execution. Unfortunately, such an important step as the inquest is generally the most neglected part of any crime investigation process as it exists in India today. It is quite often left entirely to the inspired guesswork and seasoned experience of the lowest ranking police officers and more often than not to a Head Constable of a police station or substation. Nevertheless, while the coroner's system has proved to be utterly unsuitable for Indian conditions, we have failed to find an alternative solution to the growing challenge of scientific crime investigation in India, by involving the forensic pathologist in inquests held upon dead bodies, by including him in the first crime investigation. A strong case is made for adoption of the medical examiner's system of inquest, wherein the forensic pathologist plays the pivotal role and leads the "unnatural death investigation team."     

死刑替代位阶上无期徒刑的改良

死刑替代措施就是在不适用死刑的情况下应该采取的、用来代替死刑的刑罚方法。死刑替代措施应以现行刑罚体系为基础,以废除或限制死刑实际适用为前提进行考察,选择能够直接担当"最严厉"法定刑角色,保持足够的威慑力的刑种。死缓不是刑罚种类意义上的死刑替代措施;不得假释的终身监禁不符合"人总是可以改造的"的基本理念;无期徒刑是中国刑罚体系中仅次于死刑的刑种,蕴含有较强的威慑力,通过适当改良,能够产生足够的类似于死刑的威慑力。作为替代死刑的方法,设置无期徒刑先予关押期是上乘选择。考察无期徒刑在有期徒刑与死刑中的衔接地位,借鉴国外实际执行无期徒刑的经验,确定10年的先予关押期较为适宜。