论前科与死刑的限制适用

前科对量刑（死刑适用）的影响，无论是趋重调节还是趋轻调节，既要考虑行为的社会危害性大小，也要考虑行为人的人身危险性程度。“谴责性理论”“危害性理论”和“同情克减理论”共同为前科影响量刑（死刑适用）提供完整诠释框架。前科在域外死刑裁量实践中发挥着独特且重要的作用，我国实践中的惯性思维是将前科作为强化死刑适用的依据，而其限制、弱化死刑适用的积极功效却未被发掘。“无前科”属于前科情节的范畴，应高度重视其限制死刑适用的价值。在有前科的情况下，需综合衡量当下犯罪以及前科的实际情况，进行双重规范判断，根据是同种前科还是异种前科、故意前科还是过失前科、重罪前科还轻罪前科、前科是否经过一定期限、前科是否消灭等实际情况区别对待。     

我国前科消灭制度新论

作为衡量罪犯再次犯罪时人身危险性与社会危害性的标准之一,前科的存在不仅体现了罪责刑相适应的刑罚理念,也实现了预防犯罪的目的。但前科长时间乃至终生存续无疑给有前科的人永久地贴上了罪犯的标签,在导致其相关法律权利和资格丧失的同时,也招致了社会的歧视和不公平待遇。前科消灭制度在社会预防与罪犯人权保护之间找到了平衡点。研究前科消灭制度不仅富有理论价值,也具有深刻的现实意义。本文拟对我国前科消灭予以全面而深刻的探索,结合我国现有立法和理论研究现状,就我国建立完备的前科消灭制度提出初步构想。     

罪犯入监甄别之我见

从心理、身份、体貌特征、主观恶习、人身危险性等方面，对新收罪犯开展入监甄别，通过甄别，为新犯分流、分管分押、定岗定位，切实做好教育控制工作，以及科学管理教育罪犯提供依据。     

关于重刑罪犯反社会人格特征的调查分析

反社会人格与犯罪行为的关系十分密切。通过明尼苏达多项人格调查表（MMPI）分别对服刑中期和新入监的重刑罪犯进行测量，明确重刑罪犯反社会人格存在现状，重刑罪犯组与正常组合在Pd临床量表上比较存在显著意义（P〈0．001）；Pd量表T均分高于常模一个标准差；Pd量表T分大于常模的人数和比例较高；Pd量表与其他量表两点编码比例明显，且呈显著相关（P〈0．001），影响因素比较有显著意义。鉴于重刑罪犯反社会人格特征突出，且存在不同的严重程度，需加强对他们反社会人格障碍的矫治研究。     

中国式现代化背景下轻微犯罪前科消灭制度的展开

中国式现代化要求全面推进法治现代化，彰显人权保障理念。当前我国的前科规定较为混乱，前科制度出现了明显的僵化问题。在我国，轻罪时代正在来临，犯罪治理明显不同于以往，此前主张建立前科消灭制度不具有可行性，这一来临急速催生了数量庞大的轻微犯罪群体，实践中的现有解决方案无法有效降低该群体的数量，人身危险性和主观恶性相对较低的他们对自我犯罪人身份的认同度极低，僵硬的前科持续带来的种种不利后果实质性地阻碍了其复归社会，“惩罚过剩”问题突出，若不及时处理或处理不当，该群体有走向社会对立面进而引发社会治理隐患的巨大风险。扩张犯罪记录封存制度的适用范围是治标之策，增设轻罪时代轻微犯罪前科消灭制度才是治本之道。迄今为止不同的构建方案基本定型化了我国前科消灭制度的实体内容，如果不能一步到位地完成立法，也应分步骤地循序推进。     

假释罪犯人身危险性评估机制研究

假释是世界各国通行的一项行刑制度,其高适用率已成为世界法律潮流.刑法视野中的人身危险性是指犯罪人再次实施犯罪的可能性.也就是说,人身危险性的主体是符合犯罪论的构成要件的犯罪人,人身危险性的大小对该犯罪人具体量刑有影响.假释罪犯即为犯罪者,对其人身危险性的评估即是对其再犯可能性的评估.建立一套行之有效的假释罪犯人身危险性评估机制可以综合的对假释罪犯进行科学的估测,从而使那些符合假释条件,不会对社会产生威胁的犯罪分子能够尽早获得的重新投入社会的机会.该机制包括罪前人生、人身危险性评估、罪后表现等方面.     

罪犯改造质量评估：一个初步的方案

犯罪与重新犯罪是由包括心理素质在内的多种因素综合决定的，罪犯改造质量是指罪犯综合素质的高低，罪犯改造质量评估是对罪犯综合素质的评定；提高罪犯改造质量就是提高罪犯的综合素质；以有效地减少重新犯罪。与罪犯改造质量密切相关的维度有。法制观念、文化素质、科学素养、技能水平、心理素质、行为表现、人身危险性等。通过对罪犯以上维度进行标准化评定，可以鉴定罪犯目前的改造质量。鉴定的结果用于指导罪犯的改造活动，也可以预测罪犯的改造进程，以及刑释后的状况。     

刑事司法裁量中的人身危险性评价——和谐社会语境下的宽严相济刑事政策新解读

宽严相济刑事政策视域中的轻罪和重罪定位，不仅仅取决于行为造成的社会危害性大小．而且尤其应当反映犯罪主体主观上对行为所造成的危害的内在态度为最基本要素的行为主体人身危险性大小。只有对那些造成了严重社会危害而且行为人人身危险性较大的行为才有必要处以较为严厉的刑罚，而对那些即使行为在客观上造成了较大危害，但是行为人的主观恶性不深，反社会意识不强烈的行为应当在法律许可的范围内予以各种较为轻缓的刑罚处遇。     

关于完善我国监狱罪犯分类制度的思考

新中国成立以来，我国监狱主要是按性别、年龄、刑期、犯罪类型对罪犯进行分类。实践中的某些做法不符合我国刑事诉讼法、监狱法和联合国《囚犯待遇最低限度标准规则》的要求。我国监狱罪犯分类制度的总体设想是：罪犯以按性别、年龄、国籍分类为基础分类，以按罪犯危险性、难改性、犯罪类型分类为主要分类；监狱以按押犯性别、年龄、管辖关系分类为基础分类，以按警戒度、功能分类为主要分类；同时，实行动态的分配关押与分级处遇。     

略论人身危险性与犯罪定量的关系

社会危害性是指行为对特定社会所保护的社会关系造成的现实的或可能的危害的属性,是事实评价与价值评价的统一,是主观与客观的统一,是现实性和可能性、已然性和未然性的统一。人身危险性是初犯可能与再犯可能的统一,是特定人格与非特定人格的统一。因此,两者的关系就表现为人身危险性是社会危害性的重要内容,人身危险性是表征社会危害性的主观范畴。人身危险性的大小是衡量社会危害性程度的一个重要因素。从犯罪定量的角度看,如果犯罪数额、犯罪结果等因素是衡量犯罪的社会危害性程度的客观因素,那么,人身危险性则可以与主观恶性、罪过心理等主观因素一起被视为犯罪定量的主观因素。     

论不能犯与不能犯未遂问题

大陆法系国家刑法理论中关于不能犯的学说异常复杂,存在主观说和客观说的基本对立。进而基于对危险的判断基准的理解不同,又有"纯粹主观说"、"抽象危险说"、"具体危险说"、"客观危险说"等的论争。承认能犯未遂与不能犯未遂的分类具有合理性,区分二者对于刑事司法实践中正确量刑具有一定的意义。对于不能犯未遂的种类及其称谓,宜采纳"工具不能犯"与"对象不能犯"的观点。不能犯未遂的成立范围应当按照具体危险说的标准来确定。不能犯未遂负刑事责任的根据,在于其具备了主观罪过和客观犯罪行为这两个犯罪构成中最基本的要素,并且进而决定了其具有相当严重程度的社会危害性。迷信犯与不能犯之不同,在于其缺乏犯罪行为。     

低警戒度监狱功能定位与行刑特点研究

低警戒度监狱主要关押人身危险性较低的罪犯,根据有关法律规定和别国实践证明,应当具有区别于其他警戒度监狱的功能定位：矫正重于惩罚、培训重于劳动、互动重于监督、回归重于防逃.相应地,低警戒度监狱的行刑系统应当是循环开放的,安全防范措施可以明显减少,要使低警戒度监狱成为罪犯在其他监狱接受改造的动因和结束其刑事犯罪生涯的乐土.     

Imprisoned knowledge: Criminals' beliefs about deception

Purpose. This paper is a survey examining beliefs about cues to deception held by prison inmates, prison personnel and students. In line with the ideas about more beneficial learning structures in the environment of criminals and findings from previous studies, we predicted that the beliefs held by prison inmates would be most consistent with the general pattern found in studies examining objective cues to deception. Method. A total of 326 participants filled out a questionnaire containing questions about cues to deception. The sample consisted of 107 prison inmates from high‐security prisons, 103 prison personnel and 116 students. Both between‐group and within‐group analyses were conducted. Results. In line with previous surveys, students and prison personnel held stereotypical and wrongful beliefs about cues to deception. Prison inmates' beliefs about deception were less stereotypical than the beliefs of prison personnel and students. Conclusions. The results indicate that prison inmates have relatively more insight into the psychology of deception. A reasonable explanation for these findings is that the environment of criminals is beneficial in the sense that they receive more adequate outcome feedback than the other two groups. The results indicate that studying this group may generate useful knowledge about the dynamics of deception.     

Exploring turnover intent correlated to jail and prison officials: A Taiwanese perspective

Although a review of literature related to turnover intent in the correctional workplace has focused primarily on prison officers, jailers have frequently been overlooked. Specifically, a comparison between jail and prison officers’ perceptions in Taiwan is limited. In order to fill the gap, our study was based on three objectives: (1) surveying Taiwanese correctional officers who experienced the “get-tough-on-crime” policy during the early 2000s, (2) testing for differences in turnover intent between jail and prison officers, and (3) examining personal and workplace environmental factors in order to determine whether distinct turnover intent exists among prison and jail officers. A self-report survey administered to 799 Taiwanese correctional officers (with an adjusted response rate of 89%) demonstrated that jail and prison officers had moderately high levels of turnover intent with no significant difference. When turnover intent correlates were further examined, job dangerousness, organizational harmony, and commitment were significant predictors for both prison and jail officers, thus suggesting that environmental factors have the most robust impact. In terms of personal characteristics, tenure and position were significantly related to prison officers’ turnover intent. Conversely, age represented the significant factor among jail respondents.     

Prison life: Television,sports, work,stress and insomnia in a remand prison

ObjectiveTo compare how prisoners complaining of insomnia and prisoners without sleep problems describe their daily activities, stress factors and the perceived reasons for their sleep quality in prison.Method102 randomly chosen remanded prisoners complaining of insomnia and 61 randomly chosen prisoners who did not complain of insomnia.ResultsPrisoners complaining of insomnia and those reporting good sleep differed significantly in their lifestyle in prison. A significantly higher percentage of the former than of the latter reported writing letters, diaries or a book in prison, as well as doing “arts-related” activities such as painting and listening to music. A significantly higher percentage of non insomniac prisoners than of prisoners complaining of insomnia practiced sports in prison, watched television, and spent their day discussing and meeting other detainees. PSQI and GHQ scores were significantly different between insomniac and non insomniac prisoners. Insomniac prisoners complained significantly more often than non-insomniac prisoners about sleep disturbances, in the first place by roommates, but also by guards. Activities in prison and stressful events were significant factors associated with the variable “insomnia versus no insomnia” Worries about medical problems (odds ratio: 12.9), being separated or divorced (odds ratio: 8.8), having experienced stressful events during the past week (odds ratio: 8.7), “art” activity (odds ratio: 8.6), and having a GHQ score > 10 (odds ratio: 7.7) had the highest odds ratios among the tested covariates. No sports in prison and some activities were also predictors of insomnia when entered separately or conditionally.ConclusionOur study provides arguments on how to alleviate insomnia in prison: changing conditions of imprisonment is of public health benefit. Increased opportunities to practice sports in prison as well as adequate care for medical problems and psychological support to reduce context related stress should be routinely offered to insomniac prisoners.     

论劳动教养在中国的法律归宿——以社会危害性与人身危险性为基础的法律分析

社会危害性与人身危险性是对行为人予以处置的法律基础,社会危害性属于行为的范畴,而人身危险性属于行为人的范畴。社会危害性是行为人承担刑事责任的决定因素,而人身危险性是影响法官裁决结果的一个或然因素,与社会危害性相比,其只对量刑发生次要作用。劳动教养以行为人的人身危险性作为对其长时间剥夺人身自由的原因,其法理依据薄弱,法律地位不明。将劳动教养化解到我国现行法律制度中,以非刑罚处罚和保安处分措施予以代替,符合法律发展的逻辑。     

未成年人的人身危险性及其征表

在构建和谐社会时代主题的现实背景下,通过＂行为人中心＂的刑法理论来研究未成年人犯罪具有鲜明的现实意义。未成年人的人身危险性包括初犯可能与再犯可能,未成年人的＂可塑性＂特点并不是否定其人身危险性的正当根据,与之相反,正是＂可塑性＂内在的二面性特征决定了未成年人人身危险性的客观实在性。未成年人的人身危险性包括广度上的征表和量度上的征表两个层面,必须结合具体案件的现实情形审慎考察并予以把握。     

试论信息技术和人性化管理在防止罪犯脱逃中的运用

罪犯脱逃是一种严重破坏监狱正常的监管改造秩序的犯罪行为,它不仅影响监狱正常的监管活动,破坏监内改造、生产、生活秩序,还会因追捕造成巨大的直接损失和间接损失;更为不利的是,罪犯的脱逃还很容易在其他罪犯中产生不良的示范作用,而且罪犯脱逃后不少人在社会上又进行各种严重的犯罪活动,危害社会治安,殃及人民生命财产安全。近年来,我国发生的多起罪犯脱逃案再次凸显了脱逃形势的严峻,不能不让人警醒和反思。针对罪犯逃脱成因的主客观情况,一方面,要运用信息技术来解决罪犯＂跑不了＂的问题;另一方面,要采用＂人性化管理＂来解决罪犯＂不想跑＂的问题。     

THE IMPACT OF OUT-OF-STATE PRISON POPULATION ON STATE HOMICIDE RATES: DISPLACEMENT AND FREE-RIDER EFFECTS*

Past studies of the impact of prison population on homicide rates have produced widely divergent results. Those using state-level data find small impacts, but those using national data find very large ones. We use displacement/free-rider theory to explore the difference between these results. Displacement, in the current context, refers to a criminal's movement away from states with higher imprisonment rates. Free riding occurs when a state benefits from criminals being incarcerated in other states. If the displacement effect holds, a state's prison population has a stronger impact on crime within the state than would be accomplished by deterrence and incapacitation alone. If the free-rider effect holds, higher prison populations outside the state reduce homicide in the state because criminals are incapacitated elsewhere. Using vital statistics data for 1929 to 1992, we conduct separate homicide regressions for each state using both in-state and out-of-state prison population as independent variables. We find that the out-of-state variable has a much larger (negative) association with homicide, indicating substantial free riding. We also find evidence of a small displacement impact.