"理性"抑或"怀疑":英美证据思想的"世纪之争"

对"是否能够运用证据证明事实"的回答不同,将英美证据法学划分为两大基本派别:理性主义与怀疑主义.理性主义认为,可以而且应当运用证据证明事实,这是人类理性的直接表现.而怀疑主义认为,不可能或很难运用证据证明事实.由此,积极建设性的理性主义与消极解构性的怀疑主义萦绕纠缠,形成了证据法学发展的世纪争论,这些争论使证据法学领城...     

徜徉于哲学与法学之间-“事实与证据：哲学与法学的对话”国际研讨会综述

近年来,中国证据法学的研究取得了长足的发展。但随着讨论主题范围的日渐扩展以及程度的不断加深,证据法学研究中的许多问题越来越难以通过法学这一单一学科予以解决,急需与其他学科的学者进行对话,在这一背景之下,“事实与证据：哲学与法学的对话”国际研讨会在华东师范大学顺利召开。围绕“如何运用证据认定事实”这一问题,本次研讨会从“证据”和“事实”的基本含义及其相互关系、“司法认识论”、“事实认定的规则与方法”、“司法证明的标准”、“概率与证明”等五个方面进行了精彩的观点交换与交锋,在讨论中各位学者既达成了一些基本共识,也引出了许多有待深入研讨的话题。     

量刑事实证明初论

量刑活动与定罪活动的相对独立性,决定了量刑事实的构成、量刑证据、量刑事实的证明要求以及量刑事实的运用等不同于定罪事实。量刑事实的证明一般奉行"谁主张,谁举证"原则,罪重事实的证明应达到排除合理怀疑标准,罪轻事实的证明达到优势证据标准即可。     

量刑事实证明初论

量刑活动与定罪活动的相对独立性,决定了量刑事实的构成、量刑证据、量刑事实的证明要求以及量刑事实的运用等不同于定罪事实。量刑事实的证明一般奉行“谁主张,谁举证”原则,罪重事实的证明应达到排除合理怀疑标准,罪轻事实的证明达到优势证据标准即可。     

"大证据学"的证明原理研究

证据学研究证据与证明问题.理论争议中的"大证据学"不仅适用于法证据学,而且适用于其他任何使用证据判定事实的学科领域.它的提出背景和理论基础主要包括证据法学的"跨学科"性质;社科法学的"入侵";国内证据理论研究的"贫困化"以及相对合理主义的"一以贯之"."大证据学"的证明原理可以通过证明方法的结构主义原理进行阐释,最终在整体主义的证明路径和证明锁链中得到实现.这种"大证据学"的结构主义证明观是由证据的结构主义意蕴和事实认定的多元向度所决定的;表现为证明标准的结构主义认识和证据思维的结构主义表达."大证据学"的整体主义证明观,根植于我国的大陆法系刑事司法传统;重点在于对刑事司法体系中的证据材料和证明技术的微观适用,强调的是对犯罪嫌疑人的定罪—量刑—程序的"三维一体"之立体观;价值在于构建了证据与证明关系的活力论.     

证据法学的理论基础——以裁判事实的可接受性为中心

裁判事实的可接受性是诉讼证明的核心问题 ,也是证据理论和证据规则所要解决的首要问题。在当事人主义模式下 ,裁判结果的可接受性主要来源于程序的正当性 ;在职权主义模式下 ,裁判事实的可接受性则更多地来源于裁判事实的“客观性”。辩证唯物主义认识论无法为证明模式的建构提供指导 ,也难以为证据规则的设立提供合理的解释。适当借鉴实用主义哲学的合理因素 ,是重构我国证据法学理论基础的可行途径。     

“零口供”受贿案中案件事实的认定——邢某受贿案

核心提示：在办案实践中,运用谋略获取口供固然重要。然而,在面对直接证据并不十分充分甚至是＂零口供＂的情况下,如何利用间接证据与直接证据相互印证,相互补充,形成完整、严密的证明体系,从而达到有力地证明案件事实的目的,这才是我们急需面对研究的重要课题。在邢某受贿案中,面对缺少被告人口供这一重要证据的情况下,运用合理的推定判断行贿人、介绍贿赂人及受贿人供述的真实性,再结合间接证据相佐证,最后从证明标准的角度论证本案已达到＂排除合理怀疑＂的证明标准。     

视频录像资料作为法庭证据探讨

视频录像资料因为易于删改、编辑,其真实性一直受到怀疑,其证据适用问题也不断受到争论。作为法庭科学中一种强有力的技术手段,视频录像资料满足证据的三个基本属性,具有证据资格,它主要是以视频录像信息来反映事实并证明案件真实情况,在证据类属上应当归为视听资料类证据。1视频录像资料作为法庭证据的法律依据《刑事诉讼法》第四十八条明确规定可以用于证明案件事实的材料,都是证据。     

也论刑事证明标准的确立

刑事证明标准的不明确 ,使刑事诉讼的证明过程显得杂乱无序。实现刑事诉讼的目的要在程序公正与诉讼效益之间寻求平衡点。这直接影响到证明标准的确立。西方的“必然的确实心证”或“排除合理怀疑”更注重证明的程序性。作者认为 ,在确认诉讼事实是一种证据事实的前提下 ,刑事证明标准应更多地体现程序的价值 ,注重证据规则的运用。     

论理性主义传统中的威格莫尔证据法思想及其启示

威格莫尔被尊称为“英美证据法学的集大成者”,其证据法思想至今仍然影响着整个英美证据法学.威格莫尔的证据法思想继承了英美证据法学的理性主义传统,其经由《普通法审判中的英美证据制度专论》向《司法证明科学》的学术转向正在促进着美国证据法学研究的整体知识转型.这对于中国证据学科的建构有着极大启示:我们应该建立“规则”加“规律”的学科研究范式,从而迈向独立的“证据法学”与整合的“证据科学”.     

Accountability in the Regulatory State

Accountability has long been both a key theme and a key problem in constitutional scholarship. The centrality of the accountability debates in contemporary political and legal discourse is a product of the difficulty of balancing the autonomy given to those exercising public power with appropriate control. The traditional mechanisms of accountability to Parliament and to the courts are problematic because in a complex administrative state, characterized by widespread delegation of discretion to actors located far from the centre of government, the conception of centralized responsibility upon which traditional accountability mechanisms are based is often fictional. The problems of accountability have been made manifest by the transformations wrought on public administration by the new public management (NPM) revolution which have further fragmented the public sector. In this article it is argued that if public lawyers are to be reconciled to these changes then it will be through recognizing the potential for additional or extended mechanisms of accountability in supplementing or displacing traditional accountability functions. The article identifies and develops two such extended accountability models: interdependence and redundancy     

“Bending” Evidence for a Cause: Scholar‐Advocacy Bias in Family Law

There are a number of salient public policy issues in the family law field that have invoked impassioned policy debates on a recurrent basis. In the absence of a body of research to address these critical concerns, advocates under the guise of social science scholarship have exacerbated the confusion and controversy by construing the scant available research evidence to justify their own ends, without regard to the relevance, quality, utility, and limitations of the studies. This is one of two articles on this problem that we have named “scholar‐advocacy bias.” In this article, we discuss the difference between truth in social science and truth in law. We identify common ways in which social science researchers and reviewers of research—wittingly or unwittingly—can become advocates for ideological positions and social policies at the expense of being balanced reporters of research evidence as illustrated by recent debates about overnight parenting of infants and toddlers. We also consider how adherence to established scientific principles and methods prevents the misuse of research in this way.     

Private property and social costs

This article discusses the widely cherished theme of property rights and externalities, surveying the legal and economic literature that developed around Coase's 1960 article, The Problem of Social Cost. It identifies and appraises the most notable attacks to the Coase theorem and offers an insightful examination of the state of legal and economic scholarship in the wake of Coase's postulate. In revisiting familiar passages, this article shows the pervasive methodological implications of the Coasian approach to property rights and examines the normative and practical significance of the Coasian analysis in various situations of alleged market failure.     

Electoral Institutions and Legislative Particularism

How do electoral institutions affect legislative behavior? Though a large body of theoretical scholarship posits a negative relationship between multimember districting and the provision of particularistic goods, empirical scholarship has found little evidence in support of this expectation. Using data on the provision of US post offices from 1876 to 1896, a period during which many states elected congressional representatives from at‐large districts, and a differences‐in‐differences approach, I find that counties represented by at‐large representatives received approximately 8% fewer post offices. The results have important implications for studying how electoral institutions affect incentives for legislative behavior.     

Marriage,Cohabitation, and Crime: Differentiating Associations by Partnership Stage

A wealth of scholarship generally finds that marriage protects against crime, but there is less consistent evidence for cohabitation. In this article, we contribute to scholarship on marriage and put forward new evidence about cohabitation by examining marital and cohabiting partnerships as transitions with distinct stages of entry, stability, and dissolution. We use within-person change models with contemporary data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 to analyze these stages for the full sample and separately for men and women. The findings show differential protective associations of marriage and cohabitation depending on the stage of the partnership. Both recently formed cohabiting partnerships and stable cohabiting partnerships are associated with reductions in the level of offending, although to a lesser degree than marital relationships. Cohabiting partnerships that are stable, in that they have lasted at least a year, are associated with larger decreases in offending, particularly among women.     

Public criminologies

Research Summary Public scholarship aspires to bring social science home to the individuals, communities, and institutions that are its focus of study. In particular, it seeks to narrow the yawning gap between public perceptions and the best available scientific evidence on issues of public concern. Yet nowhere is the gap between perceptions and evidence greater than in the study of crime. Here, we outline the prospects for a public criminology, conducting and disseminating research on crime, law, and deviance in dialogue with affected communities. We present historical data on the media discussion of criminology and sociology, and we outline the distinctive features of criminology—interdisciplinary, a subject matter that incites moral panics, and a practitioner base actively engaged in knowledge production—that push the boundaries of public scholarship. Policy Implications Discussions of public sociology have drawn a bright line separating policy work from professional, critical, and public scholarship. As the research and policy essays published in Criminology & Public Policy make clear, however, the best criminology often is conducted at the intersection of these domains. A vibrant public criminology will help to bring new voices to policy discussions while addressing common myths and misconceptions about crime.     

Evaluation and presentation of forensic DNA evidence in European laboratories.

The first part of this article describes Bayes' theorem and its practical application to scientific evidence. Secondly, statements proposed by European DNA laboratories are presented, analysed and commented upon. Finally, the authors reiterate their proposal of adopting a likelihood ratio framework justified by the usefulness of the approach in practical context of DNA cases. Note that this framework underlines the main questions the experts have to answer at trial: to what degree does the evidence support the prosecutor's hypothesis? and to what degree does the evidence support the defence's hypothesis?     

刑事证人出庭作证难问题研究

随着刑事审判方式改革的不断深入,证人出庭作证、接受质证在刑事诉讼中的作用越来越重要,但由于立法和司法上的原因,刑事案件证人出庭作证难也已成为不容忽视的问题。完善我国证人权利及其保障制度、完善立法、加强对公民的法制定位和教育是解决这一问题的对策。     

What is “prison culture”? Developing a theoretical and methodological foundation for understanding cultural schema in prison

What does it mean to say that a prison has a “culture?” Scholars have long emphasized the presence of a “prison code” and, more recently, a “racial code” as salient cultural domains in men's prisons. Yet, even though most people intuitively understand what is meant by “prison culture,” little progress has been made regarding the conceptualization and operationalization of culture as an analytical construct in prison scholarship. The current study makes two primary contributions to this literature. First, drawing on advances in anthropology, cultural sociology, and cognitive science, we incorporate the concept of cultural schema to provide a concrete analytical construct. Second, we test varying conceptualizations of cultural schema as either characterized by consensus or as overlapping relational structures. Using cultural consensus and correlational class analyses among a sample of 266 incarcerated men, we find little evidence of a culture of consensus for either the prison code or the racial code. Furthermore, we show evidence of heterogenous schema among these cultural domains. Our study is relevant to wider disciplinary work on culture as the problem of analytical precision we address is characteristic of much of the work in criminology and criminal justice that evokes culture as an explanatory device.     

表见证明理论批判

作为证据法学领域最含混也是最难回答的问题之一的表见证明其内涵与性质尚需准确界定。作为一种缓解证明困境的证明方式的特殊性在于其是一种简捷的、类似的、无需证据的证明。其法律效果既不导致证明责任转换,也不降低证明标准,而是作为法官临时证明评价导致当事人具体举证责任的转换。表见证明就是在特定事项上根据较高盖然性经验规则进行的事实推定,不可能作为解决证明难题的灵丹妙药。我国无需引进这一概念,但比较法上的这一论题启示我们应直面事实推定背后的经验规则的盖然性等级而加以分类研究。