Why Do the Finns Trust the Police?

Ideological trends in the criminal policy of the Nordic countries since the 1960s are analysed. Although criminal policy in these countries is not unified, one can argue for the existence of a 'Scandinavian criminal policy' characterized by several common features concerning historical tradition, intensive cooperation and a similar approach to crime prevention and control. The following trends and characteristics are examined in some detail: the cycle from criticism of the treatment ideology to a reappraisal of the role of the criminal justice system and the function of penal sanctions; the differentiation of criminal policy strategies (e.g. social and situational crime prevention, cost-benefit thinking, criminal law policy, sanctions policy). Discernible tendencies towards more unified or, at least, more harmonized criminal policies on the international and European level are also examined. Active participation in this developmental process is encouraged to ensure that the fundamental principles of Scandinavian criminal policy are properly utilized.     

以目的为主的综合刑法

迄今为止刑法经历了三种历史形态 ,即农业社会的具体刑法或实质刑法 ,工业社会的抽象刑法或形式刑法 ,知识社会的以目的为主的综合刑法。近代刑法并不是一种独立的历史形态 ,它是对工业社会抽象刑法的修正。由于知识社会以综合性、目的性为基本特征 ,相应地 ,知识社会的刑法也显现为一种以目的为主的综合刑法。以目的为主意味着刑法理念的深刻变化 ,突出表现为正义的目的化与效率的目的化。综合刑法主要体现为刑法内部不同理念、制度的综合和刑法外部刑法与其他法律、制度的综合。     

刑事政策的理性架构——以法治为背景的思考

法治的原则和精神要求刑事政策在防控犯罪时寻求与法律的和谐发展,不能超越法律的界限。我国目前的刑事政策因理性架构的缺失,阻碍着法治建设的进程,很有必要对之从宏观和微观上进行重构。就微观层面而言,须重视刑事政策要素内涵调整、机制与原则确立、渊与流的合理协调;就宏观层面而言,刑事政策理性架构的核心在于刑事政策要自觉地沿着法治化的道路运行,刑事政策的制定和运行要纳入法治的框架,在法治的大视野中予以把握。     

What is the Criminal Law for?

The traditional distinction between retributive and distributive justice misconstrues the place of the criminal law in modern regulatory states. In the context of the regulatory state, the criminal law is a coercive rule-enforcing institution – regardless of whether it also serves the ends of retributive justice. As a rule-enforcing institution, the criminal law is deeply implicated in stabilizing the institutions and legal rules by means of which a state creates and allocates social advantage. As a coercive institution, the criminal law requires justification as an instance of legitimate state authority. The operation of criminal justice institutions should therefore not be evaluated by reference to a distinct set of criteria, but should be evaluated by the same criteria that apply to coercive public institutions generally.     

The German Constitutional Court and the European Arrest Warrant: 'Cryptic Signals' from Karlsruhe

In an important 2005 judgment, the German Federal ConstitutionalCourt declared void the German Act that was meant to implementthe European Union Framework Decision on the European ArrestWarrant. However, according to the Constitutional Court, theFramework Decision itself did not necessarily provoke a breachof the German Constitution. If the German legislator had madeadequate use of the tolerance provided by the Framework Decision,he could have avoided any conflict with the Constitution. While,at first sight, the Court's criticism solely seems to referto German national law, a closer look at some statements thatdeal with European law reveals a high potential for future disagreementbetween the German Constitutional Court and European institutions:they do not share the same view as to the development of Europeancooperation in criminal matters.     

刑法典修订以来若干重要理论问题新探索(上)──《刑法教科书》(2000年版)的新发展

刑法法典化和刑法法典成熟化是刑事立法现代化的一种趋势;对犯罪概念应坚持形式定义与实质定义的结合与统一;刑法上主要有两种犯罪分类方法,一是根据犯罪的性质,一是根据犯罪的严重程度;犯罪构成可以分为法定的犯罪构成与现实的犯罪构成;事业单位、机关、团体、民办非企业单位作为法人犯罪主体时,应当对其内涵予以正确界定;犯罪客体是犯罪主体的犯罪行为所侵害的、为我国刑法所保护的社会利益,它既是犯罪的组成部分,又是犯罪构成的组成部分;应在刑法上规定罪过的概念并坚持“无罪过不为罪,也不受刑罚”的罪过原则,罪过不仅指故意与过失,而且还包括其他因素,罪过不仅有存在与否的区别,还有程度的差别;“持有”作为犯罪行为的形式,通常表现为作为,但有时也表现为不作为,甚至表现为两者的交叉,因此把它视为犯罪行为的第三种形式亦未尝不可;国家对犯罪人及其犯罪行为的评价和判断,属于刑事责任的内容;犯罪和犯罪构成的质变,由组成要素的性质、数量、结合方式三个因素决定,研究犯罪和犯罪构成的质变与部分质变,可以以此来构建刑法分则理论新体系。     

从危害国家安全罪看俄罗斯的刑事政策

俄罗斯联邦刑事政策指导刑事立法,反映国家的犯罪态势和预防犯罪的对策。随着经济全球化,刑事立法也被置于国际大背景中。侵害宪法制度基本原则和国家安全的犯罪较为典型地诠释了俄罗斯当前人道主义导向的刑事政策和刑法保护价值观的调整,突出了俄联邦刑事立法上法网严密、刑罚宽缓的特点,符合国际上预防犯罪和改造罪犯的目的。刑事政策是社会历史发展的产物,是社会政策的一部分,其新旧更迭变化和发展也必然符合历史规律和社会进步的需要。     

刑法的机能和我国刑法的任务

刑法的机能是关系到刑法理论体系以及刑法解释的重要问题。国外有关刑法机能的见解,是他们所主张的法律理念的结果。我国由于法律价值观和刑法规定内容和国外不同,因此,我国刑法的机能也与国外的情况不同。在我国,刑法的首要机能是维持社会秩序,其次是保障人权。     

中世纪刑法对现代西方刑法思想的人文指归

提起中世纪西方刑法学,"刑法文明史中的漫漫长夜","蒙昧、残酷、专制"等负面评价遮掩了其应有的光辉。其实,在陷于四分五裂的战争时期的欧洲,强调抑制原欲、注重心灵赎罪、提倡群体理性的教会刑法思想具有特殊意义的人文性与进步性。它以强大的宗教力量使得欧洲刑法观念呈现出空前整齐、划一的状态;这种历经千年积淀而成的刑法文化,维持并传承了欧洲统一的价值观念与信仰体系,对近、现代西方刑法思想的发展起着重要的提挈与引导作用。     

荷兰刑事诉讼权利保障的法律基石

荷兰刑事司法受到了现代人权法律的深刻影响。在荷兰刑事诉讼过程中,诉讼权利保障主要依据国际性和地区性的人权条约以及相关国内法。荷兰刑事诉讼程序运作体现了对人权的真切关怀：荷兰签署加入了多部国际公约和欧洲区域公约,国际条约、欧洲人权法院的判例法都对荷兰刑事诉讼中的人权保障起到了重要作用。在国内法体系中,荷兰的《宪法》、《刑事诉讼法》以及其他法律也规定了刑事诉讼程序权利保障。荷兰的法院、检察机关组织运作体制和诉讼制度设计较为完备,保障了诉讼参与者在刑事诉讼程序中的权利。在刑事审前程序中,检察机关发挥了主导作用,但参与其问的侦查法官则对检察官和警察的侦查权形成了有效制衡。从刑事诉讼权利保障法律体系的整体而言,荷兰审前程序权利保障的体制属于适度的职权主义诉讼模式,而审判程序中的权利保障体制则兼采当事人主义和职权主义的混合式诉讼模式。     

Criminal Law beyond the State: The European Model

This article will analyse two models of criminal law beyond the State, which are here termed ‘eunomic’ and ‘dialogic’. It will then focus on one case study, European criminal law, which was inherently ‘dialogic’ until the last decade of the past century but has now quite unique features. In accordance with classic liberal views, criminal law has always been conceptualised as one of the most salient attributes of the sovereign State. The monopoly on the use of violence was to be legitimised by the State's concern for the sphere of autonomy of the individual. It is submitted in this article that it is precisely this condition that is lacking in the current European model, which promotes security‐oriented paradigms of self‐fulfilment and effectiveness. However, criminal law, if properly conceived, could in theory function as a powerful vehicle of integration.     

试论市场规制法与行政法的关系

市场规制法是实体法和具体行政程序法的结合 ,市场规制法以公法为主 ,兼有公私法融合的特点 ,其私权救济部分通过民事诉讼实施 ,其刑事制裁部分除独立性的散在立法外已归入刑法典 ,均通过刑事诉讼实施 ,而其基本的实施方法则是行政和行政诉讼。     

刑法解释立场的历史考察——主观解释论之提倡

刑法解释经历了从主观解释论到客观解释论的演进过程,现阶段,从世界范围来看,客观解释论正成为一种有力的学说。在不同的历史时期,主观解释论与客观解释论所处的地位并不相同,在经历了罪刑擅断、人治统治的历史之后,人们对立法者充满了无限的期待,体现在刑法解释上就是要求坚持主观解释论。而当法治的进程进一步推进,人们已经不满足于法律的安定性,还要求法律实质上的公平、公正。联系社会发展以揭示法律内涵,遵守成文法不囿于文字本身的刑法解释客观论,遂成为刑法解释论上的特色。从历史的角度看,法治理念、法官素质、刑法实施的时间与刑法解释立场的选择具有密切的关系。我国是经历了几千年的人治统治的国家,法治建设才刚刚起步,法官素质还有待于进一步提高,刑法实施仅十余年,这要求我国在刑法解释上应采主观解释论。     

罪责的客观化与期待可能性理论的命运

当代刑法对风险控制与危害预防的强调,使得罪责概念的内容经历了重大的变化。随着对行为人的控制能力的强调,以选择自由为基础的传统规范责任论被废弃。期待可能性被从责任论中剥离出来,其重要性也日益呈下降的趋势。期待可能性理论在当代所遭遇的命运,折射出刑法任务观的重新定位对刑法体系中具体制度与理论的重大影响。     

刑法的修改：轨迹、应然与实然兼及对刑法修正案(八)的评价

以往刑法的修改，显示出增设新罪、加重法定刑与限制有利于犯罪人的制度的适用三大轨迹，标示着严刑始终是指引刑法修改的主旨。然而，立足于刑法的效益、公正与人道三大基本价值的要求，以严刑为主旨的刑法修改，在很大程度上是非理性的。业已通过的刑法修正案(八)，虽因表面看来已开始摆脱严刑思想的支配而备受热捧，但是，实际上严刑仍是其主宰，因而承续了以往刑法修改的诸多非理性因素。相应地，修正案(八)只不过是刑法的再一次忧多于喜的修改。     

大陆法系各国（地区）亲告罪立法之比较

告诉乃论制度对充分保障被害人权利、实现刑罚谦抑、促进刑事和解具有重要意义。大陆法系各国均规定了数量庞大的亲告罪,我国的亲告罪名却很少,类型也很单一。制约亲告罪范围扩大的真正原因在于我国亲告罪告诉机制的缺陷。我国刑法与刑事诉讼法对亲告罪告诉权的救济性规则缺乏,亲告罪与自诉罪混淆,告诉权与证明责任混淆,告诉制度不完善。通过归纳、比较各国刑事立法例中的优劣,认为我国可采被害人可自由选择自诉的混合起诉制,以弥补亲告罪告诉机制的缺陷。     

European remedial coherence in the regulation of non-consensual disclosures of sexual images

The non-consensual dissemination of sexually explicit images or videos for no legitimate purpose represents a serious sexual violation by means of breaching an individual's ability to control their own sexual identity. This article argues that the only adequate legal response to this behaviour is targeted criminal regulation, and that action on a regional level is within the European Union's competence by virtue of Article 83(1) TFEU. The approaches of EU Member States to the phenomenon through targeted criminal law are examined in order to extract positive and negative elements of the respective regulatory systems. Drawing on the experiences of these States, as well as on existing EU criminal directives, a draft directive is included to illustrate what form a European regional system of criminal regulation may take.     

劳动刑法若干问题研究

劳动刑法是西方国家刑法学的一个重要分支学科.无论是从劳动刑法存在的现实基础,还是从劳动刑法的研究对象、内容、目标以及基本结构上分析,均可认为劳动刑法具有独立的刑法学分支学科地位.人类社会发展表明,劳动权是人权的重要组成部分,是公民生存权与发展权的基本内容.因此,保护以基本人权为外壳的劳动法益,应当是劳动刑法存在的起点与终点.基于有效、有力保护劳动法益的需要,我国亦应从"大刑法"中分解出劳动刑法,专门对之进行系统化、理性化的研究.     

Mutual Recognition in European Judicial Cooperation: A Step Too Far Too Soon? Case Study—the European Arrest Warrant

Abstract: The European arrest warrant (EAW) is the first and most striking example of the extensive judicial cooperation in criminal matters that is beginning to take place in the European Union. Replacing traditional extradition between EU member states, including the ten accession countries after May 2004, it will operate on the basis of mutual recognition of judicial decisions, thus taking extradition decisions out of the hands of politicians. It rests on the presumption that criminal justice systems are equivalent throughout the EU and that the rights of the defence, in particular, are safeguarded adequately and in a comparable way EU‐wide. However, before the EAW has even been implemented, a number of practical problems are beginning to emerge, in particular in relation to the protection of individual rights and legal certainty in the European judicial space. The way in which these problems are tackled will be a litmus test of the respect for fundamental rights across the EU in the field of justice and home affairs. This article highlights the problems inherent in the rapid development of the principle of mutual recognition and suggests ways in which these problems can be addressed allowing for full protection of fundamental rights within a fully functioning European area of freedom, security, and justice. The EAW will be used to illustrate the prominent features of the emerging landscape of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, providing as it does the most radical example of developments in this field so far and their implications for fundamental rights.     

European Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters

Abstract: European judicial cooperation in criminal matters has its origins under Title VI as part of the Third Pillar (JHA) of the Treaty on European Union, signed on 7 February 1992 in Maastricht. Nevertheless, there have been important amendments to this Treaty and to the contents of the Justice and Home Affairs policy through the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Treaty of Nice (the latter in force since last February), such as, for example, the introduction of the European Prosecutors Cooperation Unit (‘Eurojust’). This brief study is concerned with these innovations as well as some legal instruments in the field of criminal judicial cooperation, in particular extradition, mutual recognition of judicial decisions, mutual assistance in criminal matters and the European arrest warrant which are considered as the most relevant.