论正当防卫的主观条件

从客观主义刑法观即结果无价值论的立场出发,只要行为人意识到存在紧急不法的侵害,而对不法侵害人进行反击,没有超过必要限度造成重大损害的,都应当成立正当防卫。就相互斗殴和挑拨防卫而言,不能仅仅因为双方都具有加害对方的意图而一概否定正当防卫存在的可能性,而应当先对对立双方的法益进行比较衡量,然后考虑行为人的主观内容,最后作出正当防卫成立与否的判断;就主观上没有防卫意识而客观上引起了防卫效果的偶然防卫而言,该行为不能说成立正当防卫,但该行为并没有引起法益侵害的结果,因而对行为人应当作无罪处理。     

明知、特别认知与刑法归责

刑法主观主义与客观主义的立场之争,在不法论上表现为行为人的主观不法与行为的客观不法之对立,由此刑法归责的对象也一直在行为人与行为(包括结果和行为)之间徘徊辗转。罗克辛教授和雅科布斯教授虽然在归责理论体系存在差异,但在不法论上都坚持把重心放在客观构成要件方面,但是特别认知问题的存在,使得客观归责理论如芒刺在背。审视罗克辛教授在特别认知问题上的相关阐述,其可能存在如下几个问题:客观归责不"客观";故意判断客观化的实质是意欲要素客观化、不要论;法益保护立场指导的风险概念及其判断空洞化、实质化;客观归责理论自身缺陷导致解读结论差异化,体系自洽性和逻辑性仍然存在缺陷和不足。而针对特别认知问题,雅科布斯教授的角色理论、团结义务以及保证人地位等阐述不仅存在与罗克辛教授客观归责理论本质上相同的不足之处,也在评价规范依据、不作为义务的性质与范围界定、具体的适用规则等方面存有可质疑或商榷之处。置于我国刑法理论语境下,从明知这一角度考察,基于明知内容、程度等内涵的分析,并从刑法处罚范围、归责的责任分配和归责效果等方面综合考虑,对特别认知者不进行刑法归责为妥。     

德国刑法学中结果无价值与行为无价值的流变、现状与趋势

德国刑法学自客观违法性论战胜主观违法性论而取得理论上的支配地位以后,历经了一元结果无价值论的盛行、行为无价值概念的引入、一元行为无价值论的闪现以及折中二元理论最终成为通说的过程。对于中国刑法不法理论来说,从中可以得出几条基本经验:第一,只要承认不法具有确定犯罪类型的功能,那么二元论就拥有难以撼动的内在合理性。第二,强化法益侵害对于不法的基础性意义,这是现代法治国家刑法理论发展的大势所趋;同时,行为无价值也完全可以和法益保护立场相一致。第三,结果无价值与行为无价值应以法益侵害和结果归责为纽带建立起紧密的内在联系。     

新刑法与客观主义

新刑法与客观主义张明楷一、序说：客观主义与主观主义的区别刑法理论上存在旧派与新派之争，是众所周知的事实；二者在犯罪论方面表现为客观主义与主观主义的对立，也是不言而喻的现象。客观主义认为，刑事责任的基础是表现在外部的犯罪人的行为及其实害。因为犯罪是对...     

论原因自由行为概念之除去——对责任主义的一种尝试性审视

责任的本质在于非难可能性,是就符合构成要件的违法行为对行为人的非难。一方面,应是对行为人符合构成要件行为本身的非难（法益保护的手段）。因为在一般意义上,违法行为后的逻辑后果便是结果的无价值;另一方面,是对行为人造成的符合构成要件结果的非难（法益保护的根本目的）。因为行为人对由于其不法定向行为意思致使法益侵害或威胁这样一种结果的无价值。即＂责任与行为同在＂原则中的责任应当是对法益侵害的结果或威胁这一整体法律后果（当然包括行为）的非难,而非仅仅局限于对行为人实施构成要件所要求的定型行为的非难。在刑法理论通说已经将责任与行为同在中的＂行为＂限定为＂实行行为＂的情况下,通过对责任主义本质的另一种不太谦虚的尝试性重新审视,以行为人主观面的不法定向作用来决定行为的不法色彩,并在法益保护的结果无价值立场下,对不法定向行为（原因自由行为）进行归责判断,从而除去原因自由行为之概念。     

刑法行为人主义的辨析及其价值

刑法主观主义通常对应刑法行为人主义,刑法客观主义对应刑法行为主义,二者的争论在西方刑法学说史上的地位举足轻重。我国大多数学者会选择行为主义的立场,对行为人主义存在明显忽视,刑法行为人主义也曾成为众矢之的。但是,行为人主义其实不乏具有诸多可以借鉴之处,它在我国日益繁荣的刑法学研究中不应该被淡忘,对此有必要重提行为人主义,以充分发挥行为人主义的理论与实践价值。行为人主义贯穿刑法始终,其至少应分别从刑法观、犯罪论与刑罚论三个层次逐一进行分析。近些年来的刑法修正案也涉及到诸多的行为人主义思想内容,像预防刑法、犯罪人处遇方式的发展、犯罪圈的扩张范围等。在理论上,应当主动运用行为人主义的视角与内容,去合理解释这些现实问题,对于不合理的地方也应当结合行为主义及时进行合理的刑罚限缩。在行为主义占据绝对优势地位的情形下,重提行为人主义,既是对未来刑法学发展的合理预见,也是对当下刑法的范围保持清醒认知。     

论西方刑法的哲学基础与结构矛盾

西方刑法的客观主义和主观主义分别以抽象人本质观和实证人本质观为其哲学基础。在刑法体系上 ,客观主义是行为与行为人和罪与责抽象统一的“罪———刑”体系 ,主观主义是行为与行为人和罪与责主客观分裂的“罪———责———刑”体系。两大学派理论上的唯心主义片面人本质观决定了西方刑法体系上犯罪与责任不能真正统一的深层结构矛盾。     

解读客观归责理论

刑法实践中的归责问题首先是一个行为及其结果是否与法律的要求相冲突的违法性问题,而违法乃是一个法益侵害与规范违反相统一的结构,当行为客观上造成了法益侵害的结果时,行为人是否应当对该结果负责,首先决定于行为是否违反规范,而规范违反并不是抽象的,按其实质内容而言,亦即行为人的行为对行为对象制造了不被允许的风险。故客观归责理论乃是违法论中的归责理论或归责理论化了的违法论。由于构成要件并非构成特定结果之原因的构成要件,而是构成特定之违法、有责行为的构成要件,故客观归责理论并非判断因果性的理论,而是一种判断犯罪构成符合性的理论。     

刑法主观主义与中国刑法

一、刑法主观主义与中国当代刑法理论翻开历史画卷 ,不难发现这样一个朴素的真理———人类社会自从建立刑事法律制度以来 ,对犯罪者科以刑事责任 ,一般都是通过刑罚的力量来实现的 ,“然而科人以刑责 ,何以能实现正义 ,亦即刑事责任之理论根据如何 ,是乃刑法思想之根本问题 ,每因时代不同而异其见解。”①一般认为 ,在刑事责任之理论根据问题上 ,西方刑法学说史上最经典的对立是刑事古典学派与刑事近代学派之间的论战 ,两派争论很大程度上就是主观主义 (又称行为人主义 )与客观主义 (又称行为主义 )的对立。② 客观主义学派和主观主义学派…     

刑法中的客观不法与主观不法——由故意的体系地位说起

故意在犯罪构造体系中地位的变化,与不法论上的主客观之争相关。当故意作为罪责要素时,对应的是客观不法论;当故意成为构成要件要素时,则表征着主观不法论的兴起。客观归责理论的出现,为客观不法论的复兴提供了契机,但它并未触动主观不法论的核心范围。目的主义代表的主观不法论与客观归责理论代表的客观不法论之间,不是对立关系而是并列关系。有必要摆脱概念式思维,从类型思维的角度对刑法中的不法论展开解读。目的主义与客观归责理论各自跟意志归责与规范归责相呼应;故意作为犯属于主观不法的类型,过失犯与不作为犯则应归入客观不法的类型。刑法中不法论的类型化发展,是风险社会背景下刑法体系日益趋向以一般预防为主导的结果。梳理与考察不法论的发展走向,对我国刑法理论的研究具有重要的启示意义。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.