新农民阶层与乡村司法理论的反证

作为当前学界主流的乡村司法理论,基于对乡村社会结构内向、封闭的理解,具有明显的地方化特征。然而,新农民阶层的出现及其推动的乡村社会变迁,导致乡村司法理论产生一些悖论性事实。这种变迁和悖论能够从"地位获得理论"与乡村司法运作存在的关联中加以解释。据此,现有的乡村司法理论应当有所修正,使得带有"治理"味道的地方化特征不再那么显著,转而复归到追求普适化的乡村法治化轨道。     

人民法院参与转型期乡村社会治理的思考——以偏远地区基层法院为视角

在我国转型时期的乡村社会治理中,案件纠纷在主、客体上存在的特殊性既是基层法院必须面对的微观环境,也我国法治化进程中应当直面的宏观问题.在明晰转型期乡村司法职能的基础上,人民法院有必要以加强诉调联动、司法释明和审判公开为主要的司法策略,探索参与当前时期社会治理的实践路径.     

乡村社会的司法运作

在中国推行法治化进程道路上,乡村社会的司法状况因其自身的多方面原因,显现出与城市社会不同的影像.司法在化解乡村社会的矛盾时常显的较为软弱,司法运作的结果较难为村民所接受和认同.本文通过对司法权在乡村社会中的运作现状,分析当前乡村社会的司法国情,并对如何在乡村社会推进法治化建设提出应对措施.     

论行政犯的处罚原则及其实践

随着刑事立法的演进，我国的犯罪结构发生显著变化，行政犯成为我国刑事治理的主要对象。在二元制裁结构不变的框架下，围绕行政犯双重违法性的本质，应当按照刑事追诉宽严相济、行政处罚从严追究原则，在立法层面妥善处理犯罪化与去犯罪化的关系，优先完善作为前置法的行政法；同时，尽可能在规范层面明确行政违法与刑事犯罪的界限，按照比例原则合理配置行政处罚与刑罚的量。在司法层面应当摒弃必罚主义，确立治理导向的司法观，坚持实质犯罪论，对行政犯充分适用宽严相济刑事政策，在司法体系中更多综合运用刑罚手段和非刑罚手段处理犯罪，尤其要破解好二元制裁结构下程序出罪后的行政处罚等非刑罚处理措施衔接难题，实现更好犯罪治理。     

论国家治理体系下的检察公益诉讼

检察公益诉讼是富含治理内涵的司法体制创新。该制度体现了我国国家治理体系和治理能力现代化所具有的在执政党领导下、改革与建构并重、注重社会主义公益保护、兼具国家主导与半开放性等特征。检察公益诉讼制度形成了关联深广、多层嵌套的复杂网状治理结构。文章从历时性和共时性两个角度,剖析了检察权与行政权、审判权、立法权和公民权的关系演变,描述了网状结构中各主体不同的权能定位,以实现提升检察公益诉讼的治理效能。检察公益诉讼的治理效果明显,表现为治理领域广泛覆盖、治理力度全程深入、治理主体全面带动、治理规范充分法治化、治理方式刚柔并济。为了实现检察公益诉讼的治理目标,还需增强协同治理效应、完善治理机制与规范建设,并逐步提高检察机关司法治理能力。     

管辖权竞争与当代中国乡村司法的合法性建构

通过对乡村司法现状的田野考察发现,乡村社会依然存在着司法形态多元化特点。然而,多元化并不必然带来乡村司法的有序化。究其原因,不同的司法形态在管辖权问题上存在着隐性的竞争关系。因为这种竞争关系的存在,乡村司法资源供给错综复杂,乡村司法结构混乱,这些情况都不利于乡村司法的合法性建构和乡村秩序的重建。研究表明:乡村司法的合法性建构不仅仅只是国家权力和符号权力的建构,更应该是一种具体实践意义上的合法性建构。这种合法性建构要求以多元司法知识为基础,以行动者需求为导向,通过非正式司法的伦理重建和正式司法的权限界定来实现乡村司法资源供给的合理配置,并使民众能够更好地"接近司法"。     

舒兰法院 积极探索乡村司法治理新模式

吉林省舒兰市人民法院为主动参与乡村振兴战略实施,充分发挥人民法庭司法为民的职能作用,找准司法服务助力乡村振兴的结合点和落脚点,积极探索乡村治理新模式,通过努力融合各种资源解决纠纷,深入推进乡村治理体系和治理能力现代化,为实施乡村振兴战略保驾护航。     

司法现代化是法治现代化的重要保障

＂司法现代化＂是＂推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化＂的一项重要内容,＂司法现代化＂作为＂法治现代化＂的组成部分,共同推进国家治理体系法治化,而国家治理体系法治化,必须要以具有现代化特征、追求公平正义价值的司法现代化为前提。     

论法院的非司法化社会治理

我国法院系统参与社会治理的方式具有鲜明的非司法化特征,在实践中主要表现为退隐式治理、错位治理与跨界治理三种类型。对于这一现象的成因,可以从治理技术、治理主体以及治理的历史进程三个方面展开。当前各类型非司法化治理方式在很大程度上是对司法化治理负功能的回应与矫正,此外尚有法院系统主动提升司法权地位、提高司法效率的用心。但是,法院参与非司法化的社会治理存在较大风险,在信息、工具以及绩效等方面呈现出利弊互现的二律背反,亟须研究相关的优化方案。     

人民法院司法救助法治化的实证研究

司法救助是保障基本人权、促进社会和谐、贯彻司法为民、维护司法公信的迫切需要,是进一步深化司法体制改革的重要举措司法救助法治化是健全司法救助体系的基本方向。以国家责任为内涵和覆盖面逐步拓展的外延,是司法救助概念法治化的体现。司法救助功能法治化要求必须坚持其“救急救困”的基本功能,并区别于社会救助,同时做好与其他制度的衔接。司法救助的协调、受理、决定、公开和监督机制法治化决定了司法救助程序的法治化。     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?

The concept of avidyā or ignorance is central to the Advaita Vedāntic position of Śȧnkara. The post-Śaṅkara Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of Śaṅkara with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of Śaṅkara came to be regarded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidyā. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Holenarsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mūlāvidyānirāsaḥ, particularly with regard to the avidyādoctrine. It was his contention that the post-Śaṅkara commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidyā. This was the idea of mūlāvidyā or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mūlāvidyā is not to be found in the bhāṣyas (commentaries) of Śaṅkara and is foisted upon Śaṅkara. This paper attempts to show that although Śaṅkara may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mūlāvidyā, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidyā left enough scope for the post-Śaṅkara commentators to take such a position on avidyā.     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.