禁止自证其罪与刑事证明妨碍的冲突与衡平

新刑事诉讼法确立了禁止自证其罪原则,赋予犯罪嫌疑人、被告人证据提出上的自由裁量权,证明妨碍规制制度则限制特定的证据处分行为。划定两者之界限须考量证据处分行为的类型,有些为禁止自证原则覆盖,有些则属证明妨碍行为。对于刑事证明妨碍并非绝对不能适用证明妨碍推定之方法。同时根据追诉事实与证明妨碍事实二元化、差异化之设想,可同时采其他制裁方法。     

多元化适用:证明妨碍法律效果的选择路径

法律效果是构建证明妨碍制度的关键环节。诉讼实务操作的多样化和诉讼理论见解的不统一导致关于证明妨碍法律效果的讨论由一元化走向多元化。根据多元化观点,不宜采取划一性的方式制裁妨碍者,法院应当本着诚实信用原则,仔细斟酌妨碍者的主观心态、实施方式、可归责程度及被妨碍证据的重要性等因素,在结合其他证据的基础上采取自由心证的方式对事实作出认定。法院可以选择推定举证人的主张为真实、或者直接认定妨碍者拟制自认,或者针对该等事实降低证明标准,甚至在必要时转换证明责任,或者采取罚款、拘留或直接强制等强制措施。     

论证据调查与证明责任的关系

证明责任包括主观证明责任和客观证明责任,前者的适用条件是辩论主义和法官阐明义务的行使,后者的适用条件是主要事实真伪不明。证据调查是指法院对证据的取得和审查。从证据调查和主观证明责任的关系方面来说,第一,法院依申请进行的证据调查增强了当事人收集证据的能力,为当事人履行主观证明责任提供了保障。第二,法院对证据的审查减轻了部分当事人的主观证明责任。第三,法院依职权对证据的调取和对证据的审查免除了部分当事人的主观证明责任。从证据调查和客观证明责任的关系来说,第一,法院通过依申请的证据调查和依职权的证据调查,积极帮助当事人完成举证活动,以发现案件真实。第二,在对证据的审查过程中,综合运用多种证据调查方式,如推定、证明妨碍规则、司法知悉等等方式,减少事实真伪不明的情况发生。     

民事证明妨碍推定的法理及适用条件

证明妨碍推定作为证明妨碍的制裁措施之一是恢复被证明妨碍行为破坏了的当事人之间的平衡，理解证明妨碍推定的法理基础必须有证明妨碍行为构成与证明妨碍法效果选择之阶段化视野，并结合证明妨碍制度的制度目标。同时应当以阶段化视野以及多元化制裁措施观理解证明妨碍推定的适用条件：证明妨碍推定的适用条件包括一般证明妨碍行为的构成条件和适用证明妨碍推定的特殊的措施条件。     

专利侵权纠纷诉讼中证明妨碍制度探讨（下）

英美法系国家对于证明妨碍之立法与大陆法系国家与地区之态度有所不同。关于证明妨碍的立法见于其立法和判例汇编中。如美国《联邦民事诉讼规则》第37条规定，当事人未提出他方当事人所请求出示证据，任何当事人均可以申请强制出示和适当的制裁。美国证明妨碍制度建立的理论基础主要是，由于证明妨碍破坏了当事人双方在诉讼中公平对抗、接近胜诉机会之平等，故法官得在此情况下对证明妨碍者施以一定之不利益，使双方当事人重新回到未被妨碍的公平状态，     

实体与程序之调和：证明妨碍的客观要件探究

证明妨碍是指当事人因可归责于对方当事人或第三人诉讼中或诉讼外、故意或过失的作为或不作为,致使自己的证明行为陷入困难或不能。构成证明妨碍的客观要件相对较为复杂,而且在实体法和程序法中均有规定。不论是诉讼前或诉讼中的作为或不作为,均可以构成证明妨碍行为。证明妨碍行为的结果,应当达到当事人证明不能或证明困难而使案件事实无法查明的状态。而且,证明妨碍行为与待证事实证明不能或证明困难的状态之间应当具有因果联系。     

房地产诉讼之证明妨碍研究——以《民事证据规定》第75条为中心

证明妨碍与证明责任分配牵连重大。在证明责任分配制度下,当事人对于己方所主张的诉讼请求承担着证据提供义务,否则会产生诉讼不利益的可能。但是,若"事实不清、证据不足"非因证明责任负担方自身的原因,而是由于他人伪造、变造、毁弃、藏匿证据等妨碍行为所致,如依旧由证明责任负担方承担诉讼上的不利益则有违公平正义。而引入证明妨碍规则,明确适用条件,则可抑制法官在证明责任分配规则适用的恣意,清晰自由裁量的限度,进而衡平当事人利益,避免产生新的不公平。     

书证提出命令的理论革新与路径优化——以商业秘密侵权诉讼为切入点

书证作为"证据之王",贯穿民事诉讼事实认定与法律适用程序始终。以商业秘密侵权诉讼为典型的现代型诉讼中,当事人经济实力与诉讼能力的非对称性导致证据分布非均衡性,使得书证结构性偏在现象愈发严重,证明妨碍行为呈现普遍化特征。为制裁证明妨碍行为、实现"平等武装"、保障裁判的实体公正,最高人民法院近年来通过司法解释逐步构建起相对完整的书证提出命令程序基本框架。但现行书证提出命令程序存在着诸多理论困惑与制度空白,导致实践中书证提出命令存在适用率低、准许率低、救济缺失、尺度不一等诸多制度失灵问题和司法适用困境。应从理论上将以"规范说"为核心的证明责任论和事案解明义务论加以革新整合,对我国书证提出命令程序的实践路径加以优化完善,最终实现预期制度价值。     

法律真实 客观真实 谁是公证真实性原则的最佳选择

一、公证真实性原则的现有含义及其局限性 公证真实性原则的现有含义是指公证的对象,即公证文书所证明的法律行为、有法律意义的文书和事实的内容必须是客观存在并是真实的,或者有充分证据证明其是客观存在并真实的,而不是虚假或伪造的事实.这一原则要求公证员在办证过程中既要审查当事人的意思表示是否真实,又要在必要时对当事人提供的各种材料进行调查研究,以确认公证事实的真实性;与此同时,还要求公证当事人必须向公证机构提供真实的证据材料.总而言之,公证真实性原则对公证真实的现有要求是指认定的公证事实必须与客观上曾经发生过或正在发生的事实完全一致,即对事实的认定要达到客观真实的程度.     

从公证实务的角度谈当事人举证责任与公证机构核实权

一、当事人举证责任的内涵 关于举证责任的含义和表述。在学术上主要有以下三种不同的观点：第一种观点认为。举证责任就是当事人对自己提出的主张所负有的提供证据的责任。例如在民事诉讼中，当事人对自己提出的主张提供证据加以证明的责任。称之为举证责任。这类表述方式采用的是一种行为意义上的举证责任。第二种观点认为。举证责任既包括由谁提供证据为证明案件事实的责任的内容，也包括由谁承担不能提供证明案件事实的法律后果的内容。     

Truth-Bonding and Other Truth-Revealing Mechanisms for Courts

In trials witnesses often gain by slanting their testimony. The law tries to elicit the truth from witnesses by cross-examination under threat of criminal prosecution for perjury. As a truth-revealing mechanism, perjury law is crude and ineffective. We develop a perfect truth-revealing mechanism, which exactly offsets the gain from slanted testimony by the risk of a possible sanction. Witnesses testify voluntarily under the mechanism. Implementing an effective truth-revealing mechanism requires a witness to certify accuracy by posting bond. If events subsequently prove that the testimony was inaccurate, the witness forfeits the bond. By providing superior incentives for telling the truth, truth-bonding could combat some distortions by factual witnesses and interested experts, including junk science.     

论民事证人拒不出庭作证的法律制裁

对民事证人拒不出庭作证予以法律制裁,是证人出庭作证制度的重要内容之一。由于我国《民事诉讼法》对此没有规定,最新司法解释亦未补充,司法实践中便无法操作,这成为我国证人出庭率偏低的重要原因。文章结合国外立法例,对目前学界提出的几种对拒不出庭证人的制裁措施逐一分析:排除证据使用,符合我国目前审判方式改革潮流及证人证言证据的特点;承担诉讼费用亦符合民事诉讼的本质;罚款是国内外普遍接受的方式;拘传与拘留在我国目前有其存在的必要性;刑罚制裁则不符合我国的实际情况,不宜采用。     

伊朗制裁相关法律对航运业的影响及对策

伊朗是中东地区主要的贸易国之一,也是中国在中东重要贸易伙伴之一.然而由于伊朗违反联合国有关不扩散核武器的有关公约之规定,联合国、中国两岸四地、欧盟、美国都在不同程度上通过立法对伊朗实施制裁.在研究伊朗制裁相关法律的基础上,从法律分析和实务的角度,对一些与伊朗贸易有关的实际问题加以探讨.     

Further notes on information,corruption, and optimal law enforcement

We consider two important notes on optimal law enforcement with corruption. First, we analyze the role of asymmetric information on the emergence of collusion between criminals and enforcers. Second, our paper proposes that the optimal criminal sanction for the underlying offense is not necessarily maximal. We achieve this result by coupling the criminal sanction for the underlying offense with a criminal sanction for corruption, both imposed on offenders. A higher criminal sanction for the underlying offense implies that the government must spend more resources to detect and punish corruption (since the likelihood of collusion increases). Thus, the government could reduce this sanction, save on detection, and increase the criminal sanction for corruption (in order to offset the negative effect on deterrence). We are grateful to Mitch Polinsky and two anonymous referees for helpful suggestions. The usual disclaimers apply.     

Expert psychological testimony

Experimental psychologists increasingly are asked to give expert testimony in court, especially with regard to issues of eyewitness reliability. Whether or not experimental psychologists should give expert testimony on these matters is a controversial issue. The empirical literature suggests that potential jurors do not have a good understanding of the variables influencing eyewitness accuracy and that they cannot discriminate adequately between accurate and false eyewitness identification testimony. Experiments using expert testimony as a treatment variable, however, have not made a definitive case that expert testimony can benefit trial outcomes. The question of whether or not to give expert testimony must be broadened to consider not only the effects on verdicts but also the effects of expert testimony on the process by which verdicts are reached, the practices of police in subsequent investigations, the public's view of psychology, the practices of judges in subsequent cases, and the interaction between expert testimony and research activities.     

Deterrence Theory and Peers: Do Close Friends Perceive Sanction Certainty in a Similar Manner?

Although deterrence theory and social learning theory have been linked on many occasions and are compatible theoretical constructs, criminologists know very little about how the elements of deterrence operate among and between friends. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if similarities in the certainty of sanction, a main element of deterrence, are held between close friends in emerging adulthood. Using data from 1,077 friendship pairs, several confirmatory factor analyses are estimated that attempt to define a friendship-level certainty of sanction construct. Results indicate that friends do not share in common any tendency to perceive similar certainties of sanction. Not only does the certainty between friends fail to load unidimensionally, the two friends’ individual certainty constructs are nearly completely unrelated to each other. In terms of policy implications, peer-based programs targeting increases in sanction certainty tentatively appear to be unnecessary.     

刑事诉讼的程序性制裁

在我国刑事诉讼实务中 ,刑讯逼供、超期羁押、侵犯被追诉方辩护权等违反程序的现象屡禁不止 ,一个重要原因在于我国缺乏严密的程序性制裁机制。制裁是法律的内在构成要素 ,是保障法律实施的必要机制 ,对于实现法的公平与正义具有极其重要的意义。程序性制裁无论是在适用范围、实施机制 ,还是在基本功能方面都是刑事制裁、民事制裁、纪律制裁和国家赔偿所无法替代的。程序性制裁有终止诉讼、撤销原判、排除非法证据、诉讼行为绝对无效、诉讼行为相对无效、从轻量刑等主要方式。完善我国程序性制裁机制需要进行全面的制度改革与程序建构     

The impact of general versus specific expert testimonyand eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment

Subjects (n=128) initially viewed an eyewitness of high or low confidence. Subsequently, participants viewed a psychologist who gave either espert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification, specific expert testimony, or no expert (control) testimony. Subjects viewing expert testimony believed the eyewitness identified the gunman significantly less often, gave the defendant lower guilt ratings, estimated a lower general percentage of correct identifications under similar circumstances, estimated a lower percentage of general accurate eyewitness testimony, and gave significantly lower ratings to the belief that one can generally tell from eyewitness confidence whether an eyewitness is accurate than subjects in control conditions. Significant differences were also obtained between general and specific expert testimony. Participants viewing specific expert testimony estimated lower general percentages of correct identifications under the circumstances of the crime and reported relying more upon the psychologist's testimony than subjects viewing general expert testimony. Additionally, subjects viewing general expert testimony had significantly less confidence in their gunman vs. innocent person decision than subjects in specific testimony or control conditions. Subjects who viewed the high confidence eyewitness decided that the eyewitness correctly identified the gunman more often, gave the defendant higher guilt ratings, and estimated the general percentage of accurate eyewitness testimony to be significantly higher than jurors in low eyewitness confidence groups. The finding that jurors may continue to rely on eyewitness confidence to gauge the accuracy of the witness even after viewing expert testimony is discussed.     

Do perceptions of punishment vary between white-collar and street crimes?

Much has been learned about the relationship between sanction threat perceptions and criminal activity, yet little remains known about the factors that are associated with sanction threat perceptions. Moreover, because most researchers had studied deterrence within the context of street crime, even less is known about the factors that relate to sanction threat perceptions for white-collar crime. This study used data from a national probability sample to examine whether the determinants of perceived sanction certainty and severity for street crime were different from white-collar crime. Using robbery and fraud as two exemplars, the findings indicated that while public perceptions of sanction certainty and severity suggested that street criminals were more likely to be caught and be sentenced to more severe sanctions than white-collar criminals, respondent's perceptions of which type of crime should be more severely punished indicated that both robbery and fraud were equally likely to be perceived ‘on par.’ Additional results indicated that the correlates of certainty and severity were more similar than different, but that the results differed according to whether respondents were asked about the punishment that white-collar offenders were likely to receive as opposed to what they should receive.     

Adverse Neighborhood Conditions and Sanction Risk Perceptions: Using SEM to Examine Direct and Indirect Effects

Objectives

The present study examines how individuals’ sanction risk perceptions are shaped by neighborhood context.

Methods

Using structural equation modeling on data from waves 6 and 7 of the National Youth Survey, we assess the direct and indirect relationships between adverse neighborhood conditions and two dimensions of sanction risk perceptions: the certainty of punishment and perceived shame. In addition, the role of shame as a mediator between neighborhood context and certainty of punishment is also investigated.

Results

The results indicate that adverse neighborhood conditions indirectly affect both forms of sanction risk perceptions, and additional results show that perceived shame fully mediates the effect of neighborhood conditions on perceptions of the certainty of punishment.

Conclusions

The perceptual deterrence/rational choice perspective will need to be revised to accommodate more explicitly the role of neighborhood context in shaping sanction risk perceptions.