死刑案件实行三审终审制改造的构想

死刑复核程序有一定价值,但存在诸多弊端。即便最高法院收回死刑核准权,但死刑复核程序自身的弊端依然存在。应废除死刑复核程序,实行死刑案件二审强制上诉制度,增加三审并原则上设定为法律审。实行合议庭法官一致(或绝对多数)同意时才能对被告人判处死刑的原则,并应对死刑案件合议庭的组成方式进行改革。死刑案件还应充分发挥辩护律师的作用,实现被告人辩护权的最大化。     

论我国死刑案件三审终审制的建构

死刑的适用有利于控制、预防犯罪,但随着保障人权的呼声日益高涨,死刑逐步被废除,没有废除死刑的国家也采取各种救济措施,以防错杀。我国采取的死刑复核程序在保证死刑案件质量方面发挥了一定作用,但其自身也存在着很多弊端,因此建议取消死刑复核程序,实行三审终审制改造。     

The Powell Hypothesis: Race and non-capital sentences for murder in Kentucky, 1976–1991

The 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision McCleskey v. Kemp ruled, in part, that the findings of the Baldus study, offered by the petitioner to support a claim of racial bias in death penalty cases, were insufficient to demonstrate unconstitutional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Lewis Powell offered additional justification for the ruling when he wrote, “If we accepted McCleskey’s claim that racial bias has impermissibly tainted the capital sentencing decision, we could soon be faced with similar claims as to other types of penalty. ” This statement has become labeled as the “Powell Hypothesis. ” This paper tests the “Powell Hypothesis” to determine whether race has an impact on sentences levied in noncapital murder cases in Kentucky between 1976 and 1991. The results indicate racial factors influenced sentence length in these cases.     

死刑程序的正当化

死刑程序正当化的要求应高于非死刑案件,主要表现在对死刑的适用应有更严格的程序,对于面对死刑的人应赋予更多的诉讼权利。《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》以及《关于保护死刑犯权利的保障措施》从审判程序、诉讼权利、证明标准等方面确立了死刑案件程序正当化的最低标准。参照这一标准,并针对我国有关死刑程序的立法与司法现状,应采取相应的改革措施,即死刑案件的审理程序可分为定罪程序和量刑程序,应完善死刑复核程序和执行程序,应区分死刑案件和非死刑案件的证明标准,还要加强面对死刑的人强制辩护权的保护。     

孕妇不适用死刑的国际人权法与国内法比较研究

孕妇不得适用死刑历来是从对象上严格限制死刑适用的一个重要举措.从国际人权法规定来看,对孕妇不得适用死刑重在对孕妇"不得判处"和"不得执行"死刑,我国有关法律规定和司法解释虽然是两者兼顾,但并不能排除对孕妇判决和执行死刑的可能性,由此有必要在保护孕妇、新生儿及新生儿的母亲包括流产后内妇女权益的立法精神指导下尽快完善有关规定.     

慎用死刑的程序保障——对我国现行死刑复核制度的检讨及完善建言

死刑复核制度具有限制死刑的功能,也是“慎用死刑”的程序保障。现行死刑复核体制存在诸多弊端,应当将死刑复核权全部收归最高人民法院行使,如此可以有利于在全国范围内统一死刑的适用标准,有利于对被判决死刑(立即执行)的人的权利进行救济,也有利于最大限度地贯彻“少杀,慎杀”的死刑刑事政政策。为解决处理死刑复核案件的效率问题,可在全国设立若干最高人民法院分院负责这类案件的审理工作;同时还应当大力完善这一制度的具体规范,以保障其功能的充分发挥。     

Capital Jury Deliberation: Effects on Death Sentencing,Comprehension, and Discrimination

This study focused on whether and how deliberations affected the comprehension of capital penalty phase jury instructions and patterns of racially discriminatory death sentencing. Jury-eligible subjects were randomly assigned to view one of four versions of a simulated capital penalty trial in which the race of defendant (Black or White) and the race of victim (Black or White) were varied orthogonally. The participants provided their initial “straw” sentencing verdicts individually and then deliberated in simulated 4–7 person “juries.” Results indicated that deliberation created a punitive rather than lenient shift in the jurors’ death sentencing behavior, failed to improve characteristically poor instructional comprehension, did not reduce the tendency for jurors to misuse penalty phase evidence (especially, mitigation), and exacerbated the tendency among White mock jurors to sentence Black defendants to death more often than White defendants.     

收回死刑复核权面临的难题及其破解

最高人民法院收回死刑复核权意义重大,但可能存在政治风险、职能难题、整体性问题和程序性障碍。应对难题的原则与对策:一是系统思维、综合治理。尤其强调观念的转变、审判独立性的保障以及死刑替代措施的跟进;二是逐步推进、有利有节;三是技术处理、区别对待;四是分级负责、责任下沉、责任明确。为此,必须完善死刑复核程序。包括准确界定最高法院复核责任,确定适当的复核审审理方式,限定复核时间,允许辩护律师与检察官参加复核程序等。必须完善死刑案件二审程序,包括实行开庭审理及有重点的全面审理方式,同时应当适当调整二审审理期限。还必须改革、完善直接影响死刑案件质量的相关制度,包括从多方面完善证据规则,改革审判委员会制度以及禁止再审改判死刑等。     

我国死刑复核程序之完善刍议

死刑复核程序是为了保障死刑案件质量而设置的特别审判程序,具有鲜明的中国特色。为最大化发挥死刑复核程序的公正司法、防错纠错、保障人权的功能,贯彻落实"保留死刑,严格控制和慎用死刑"的死刑政策,死刑复核程序应当着力加以完善:第一,厘定死刑复核程序的审判性质,选择在现有框架内实现死刑复核程序诉讼化改革的路径,而不必进行三审制转变;第二,加快将法律援助辩护全覆盖至死刑复核程序,充分保障死刑被告人的辩护权;第三,坚持死刑案件在基本事实的证明上达到"唯一性"结论;第四,扩大最高人民法院对死刑复核案件的改判范围,实现公正与效率价值的合理平衡。     

想象竞合犯处断原则的困境与重构

目前关于想象竞合犯的三大处断原则均存在不足。对此,必须以全面评价原则与禁止重复评价原则为指导,以行为无价值、结果无价值、主观罪过三要素为核心,构建新的想象竞合犯处断规则,即想象竞合犯的处刑应当是数罪中最重之宣告刑加上余罪之宣告刑的2/3。该处断规则必须在《刑法》第69条之下运行,即遵守限制加重原则,且如果数罪中有死刑或无期徒刑的,采取吸收原则,执行死刑或无期徒刑;如果数罪中有判处有期徒刑和拘役的,同样采吸收原则,执行有期徒刑;数罪中有判处有期徒刑和管制,或者拘役和管制的,采逐次执行原则,有期徒刑、拘役执行完毕后,管制仍须执行。     

检察机关对死刑复核程序法律监督的实务设计

现行死刑复核程序,具有不完整性和"封闭"性特征,丧失了司法权的特性,且缺乏外部监督与制约,极大地减少了法官发现冤案、错案的可能性,不利于保证死刑案件的实体公正。检察机关作为国家的法律监督机关,对死刑复核程序进行法律监督,具有法律依据、政策依据和法律文化传统依据,也是保障人权和保证司法公正的客观要求,是满足广大人民群众对死刑复核工作的新期待和维护我国国际形象的需要。可以针对高级人民法院适用的死刑复核程序和最高人民法院适用的死刑复核程序,设置相应的实务运作程序,实现检察机关对死刑复核的过程和结果的法律监督,及时发现和纠正违法的复核行为和错误的复核裁判,保障死刑的准确适用。     

The Executive as Executioner and the Informed Governance Principle

An executive ought to be as informed as possible about the needs and preferences of her constituency and about the most important policy issues that her constituency confronts. This ethical duty, referred to as the “informed governance principle,” requires that an executive who is not opposed to the death penalty personally carry out at least one execution of a death row inmate. Having an executive act as executioner, even if just once, could also help citizens reflect upon their personal ethical commitments, spur them to monitor the government’s power, and prompt them to contemplate how best to distribute power so that the chance of injustice is minimized.     

中国古代司法的观念和制度略论

本文从观念与制度两方面对中国古代司法进行了探讨。中国古代司法的观念包括严格执法、经义决狱、屈法伸情、良吏司法等方面;中国古代的司法制度涉及审判机构、审判官吏、审判管辖、证据制度、普通审判程序、复审与死刑复核制度、判决的执行等。中国古代司法的观念和制度具有伦理指导、皇帝专权、实体优先、多元依据、"无讼"以求的特点,表现出在法与情、常与权、名与实等方面统一、协调的努力。中国古代社会的司法、审判的观念和制度的许多内容值得我们借鉴和吸纳。     

Not everyone strongly supports the death penalty: Assessing weakly-held attitudes about capital punishment

Polls exploring attitudes toward the death penalty typically impose a simple, dichotomous response structure: respondents are asked whether or not they support or oppose capital punishment. This polling strategy deprives respondents of expressing an indication of the strength of their opinions. When asked whether they support (or oppose) the death penalty “strongly” or “not strongly,” significant proportions of respondents select the latter category. This suggests that many proponents and opponents of the death penalty have weakly-held views regarding the issue. These respondents are of great interest because they are the individuals most likely to change their views. This article analyzes responses to two national surveys in order to explore the variables that differentiate respondents with strongly-held and weakly-held views. A theoretical account is offered to explain why some people have weakly-held views on this critical social issue.     

“终身监禁”刑事立法的刑罚精准性研究

对本可以判处死刑立即执行的贪污受贿犯罪分子实际判处死刑缓期两年执行的,同时决定死缓期满减为无期徒刑后的终身监禁,既不是执行"死刑"之"重",又不是减为可进一步通过减刑、假释使实际服刑期变得相对比较短的一般"无期徒刑"之"轻",既实现了罪责刑均衡,又实现了震慑其他潜在的贪污受贿犯罪分子的一般预防目的,还能够遏制司法腐败实现司法公正,对贪污受贿犯罪行为进行精准的打击。终身监禁单独设在贪污受贿罪里,正是考虑到贪污受贿罪的特点和国家的刑事政策而作出的,不仅具有很强的针对性,而且在刑罚轻重的"度"上把握到位,体现出刑罚制定和适用的精准性。从刑罚精准性的视角分析,终身监禁不违背罪刑法定原则、罪责刑相适应原则和刑罚效益原则,具备刑罚正当化根据。     

死刑复核程序改革与检察机关的介入权

我国死刑复核程序应当进行司法化、诉讼化改革。检察机关作为国家的法律监督机关,在死刑案件的刑事诉讼中,既承担着公诉的职责,也承担着审判监督的职责,应当有权介入作为死刑案件最后一道关口的复核程序。     

死刑控制与最高人民法院的功能定位

死刑控制与最高人民法院的关系是社会各界关注的热点问题。分析表明,2007年以来最高人民法院全面收回死刑复核权,对其自身造成了一系列影响;最高人民法院的内部结构与实际功能,由此发生了深刻变化。这些变化并不完全符合现代法治理念下最高人民法院的功能定位。未来应该在考虑政治与社会条件的基础上,有步骤地改造最高人民法院在死刑控制方面的工作职能与方式,以减轻最高人民法院不必要的工作负担与资源消耗,促进最高人民法院将更多的资源用于应对更加宏观、复杂的问题。     

Transcending the dilemma of “public interest”

This paper discusses the evolution and recent trends in the development of the constitutional concept of “public use” in the case-law history of the United States starting from the source of US government’s taking powers and the original meaning of the Taking Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Since the concepts of “public use” and “public interest” are extremely difficult to be defined, it is very hard for the US courts to develop a relevant operative criterion. In the United States, the safeguard of “public interest” in taking mainly lies legislative rather than judicial control. In a democratic society, legislative judgment is highly respected by the courts and the entire takeovers that conform to public use as determined by the Congress are usually deemed constitutional. In this sense, the Congress is a “public interest machine”, which automatically generates laws and decisions on behalf of public interests through the democratic representative process. The paper eventually suggests that China should divert its attention from the theoretical definition of “public interest” to institutional construction, and should make the National and Local People’s Congresses and their standing committees to play major roles in deciding taking and compensation schemes. __________ Translated from Zhongguo Faxue 中国法学 (China Law), 2005, (5): 36–45     

罪刑法定视域中的刑法适用解释

The judicial interpretation of criminal law should be an application interpretation to individual cases that is guided by judges and participated by the prosecutor and the accused, for which the judicial judgment should be combined with the application of criminal law of specific cases, and the criminal precedents should be as a carrier. The Supreme People’s Court should change from the previous practices of issuing normative and abstract interpretation to the dual approaches of the interpretation of criminal law application through direct creation and indirect acknowledgement. Liang Genlin, Professor and Vice Dean of Law School of Peking University and as a visiting professor of University of Tuebingen (2001–2002). His main research focuses on criminal law and criminal policy, and his important publications include “On the Structure of Punishment”, “Liang Genlin’s Review on Criminal Policy, Volume I, Criminal Policy: Standpoint and Category”, “Liang Genlin’s Review on Criminal Policy, Volume II, the Arm of the Law: Expand and Limit”, “Liang Genlin’s Review on Criminal Policy, Volume III, Criminal Sanction: Manner and Choice”. Besides, he has also published over 40 discourses on criminal law and criminal policy since 1996.     

中国死刑复核程序的检讨与改进

1980年以来,部分死刑案件核准权被下放使死刑复核程序名存实亡,立法上的疏漏和诉讼构造的缺失造成死刑复核程序难以起到最后的程序保障作用。试就完善立法、收回死刑核准权和改进死刑复核程序等三个方面的问题进行分析和探讨。