浅析刑事和解制度的构建

刑事和解是兼顾被害人与加害人合法权益的一项制度.作为一项新的刑事结案制度,它符合构建和谐社会的理念和执行宽严相济的刑事政策的要求.但是,在具体的司法实践中,刑事和解存在着一些困境和制度本身的价值缺陷.因此,有必要在具体的程序设计上探讨刑事和解制度在我国如何合理构建.     

国家应对犯罪策略转变的历史选择——解读刑事和解的探索实践

在我国,以新刑法为标志的现代刑事法律制度初步建立与刑事和解制度的导入处于同步发展的状态。这是中国国情使然。就国家应对犯罪的策略或刑事法律具有的社会治理效能而言,适合中国国情的就是符合刑事法制一般作用规律和基本价值倾向的。刑事和解是宽严相济刑事政策实施的具体保障制度之一。刑事和解制度创新的过程实际就是刑事政策调整、宽严相济刑事政策产生的过程。从规范刑事法学、社会刑事法学与价值刑事法学理应存在融通、协调之处的视角,刑事和解契约观与刑事和解修复观可以水乳交融。我国司法机关积极探索的刑事和解制度,实为解读国家应对犯罪策略转变的一般规律和普遍问题的绝好样本。     

刑事和解的价值提取——以化解社会矛盾、构建和谐社会为目标

随着时代的发展,形势的变化,刑事执法理念以及制度均发生了改变,刑事和解就是其中的一种重要表现。本文以化解社会矛盾、构建和谐社会为目标就刑事和解的价值提取作了简要的论述。     

刑事和解的正义价值探析

刑事和解制度是加害人与被害人直接对话协商解决刑事纠纷的方式,它具有公平价值、效率价值、节约司法资源等多重价值,以恢复正义理论、平衡理论、叙说理论为三大理论基础,并以正义价值为核心价值。司法正义是一种矫正的正义,而刑事和解的正义价值就是对矫正正义的矫正,它的正义是＂和谐的正义＂,是＂无害的正义＂。但是,刑事和解从其产生开始就存在价值瑕疵,其在刑事司法实践中存在诸多的缺陷,为了避免它的缺陷所带来的弊端,我们必须构建一套科学合理的刑事和解制度,要明确界定刑事和解案件适用范围与适用刑事和解的前提条件,并且从程序上完善刑事和解制度的监督制约机制等。     

刑事和解制度的本土化建构研究——以检察机关刑事和解的司法实践为基础

本文以介绍刑事和解的概念和价值为起点,阐述了我国构建刑事和解制度的可行性,并对目前国内三种模式的概况及问题进行重点剖析,指出我国存在刑事和解与刑事诉讼有效衔接的问题,提出可借鉴法国刑事和解制度的经验解决问题,最后作者初探检察机关构建本土化刑事和解制度的路径,以期对我国刑事司法改革提供有力参考。     

刑事和解的正义价值探析

刑事和解制度是加害人与被害人直接对话协商解决刑事纠纷的方式,它具有公平价值、效率价值、节约司法资源等多重价值,以恢复正义理论、平衡理论、叙说理论为三大理论基础,并以正义价值为核心价值.司法正叉是一种矫正的正义,而刑事和解的正义价值就是对矫正正义的矫正,它的正义是"和谐的正义",是"无害的正义".但是,刑事和解从其产生开始就存在价值瑕疵,其在刑事司法实践中存在诸多的缺陷,为了避免它的缺陷所带来的弊端,我们必须构建一套科学合理的刑事和解制度,要明确界定刑事和解案件适用范围与适用刑事和解的前提条件,并且从程序上完善刑事和解制度的监督制约机制等.     

恢复性司法视野下刑事和解的衡平建构

恢复性司法是刑事和解的理论基础,刑事和解需要置于恢复性司法的视野下才能全面发掘刑事和解的制度价值。刑事和解与我国传统观念存在价值上的的冲突,故要实现刑事和解的衡平建以刑事一体化理念为指导,构筑受害人谅解基础、健全柔性刑罚体系、建立刑事被害人救助制度、引入刑法人格化理念。     

刑事和解协议的法律效力问题探究

随着全球法律文化交流融合与我国和谐社会构建朝全方位、深层次发展,刑事和解制度日益受到各界的关注和研究。刑事和解协议是刑事和解制度构建和运行的归宿,而刑事和解协议的法律效力问题更是直接关系到刑事诉讼的进程。本文试以刑事和解协议的性质和价值为出发点,围绕刑事和解协议的效力来源、效力内容、效力实现和效力审查等五个方面对此协议加以分析,以期为刑事和解制度的充实完善提供有益思考。     

在宽严相济的语境中浅谈在校学生犯罪刑事和解

刑事和解是司法上的非犯罪化措施,我国研究和引入刑事和解制度应当以现行的刑事政策为指导,在宽严相济的语境中谈刑事和解的运作。本文以在校生犯罪为视角,从刑事和解制度的理论基础出发,对在校生犯罪刑事和解的现实需要与制度缺失、构建在校生刑事和解需要破解的难题等方面进行了较为深入的阐述。     

刑事和解制度的探索与实践

以国家起诉为标志的现代刑事司法模式和以监禁刑为中心的现代刑罚结构带来了很多问题，改革当前的刑事司法模武则成为必然。而源于西方恢复性司法运动的刑事和解制度在解决这些问题方面凸显了其独特的价值功能。构建和谐社会和贯彻宽严相济刑事政策，迫切需要建立适应我国司法环境的刑事和解制度。     

Where Do They Belong? Giving Victims a Place in the Criminal Justice Process

Historically, victims once had an active participatory role in the criminal justice process and were responsible for not only initiating but also for prosecuting offenders. In common law countries, victims were gradually sidelined and by the 20th century, their role was reduced to that of a witness to a crime against the state. The exclusion of victims from the criminal justice process is a major source of dissatisfaction for victims as many of them want to participate in the criminal justice process. This has fuelled initiatives with restorative justice that claim to more fully include victims than conventional criminal justice. This paper examines three different approaches found in the literature on how to let victims participate. One view is that victims should leave the criminal justice system and that criminal justice should be replaced by alternative, restorative justice schemes in which victims are granted full recognition and respect for their dignity. A second approach is to integrate restorative practices such as victim-offender mediation in the criminal justice process. The third approach is to integrate victim participation and respect (so-called restorative values) in the criminal justice system. These three approaches are discussed and compared with one another. The paper closes with recommendations for criminal law reform.     

关于刑事和解的几点看法

刑事犯罪多发背景下,被害人利益难以通过传统刑事诉讼程序获得有效救济,甚至存在被害人在刑事诉讼过程中二次受害的情形,从而引发一系列不稳定社会因素,与建设和谐社会的要求背道而驰。刑事和解正是在被害人保护思想的发展与犯罪人复归思想的兴起基础上产生的以恢复性司法为基本理念以构建和谐社会为终极目标的新型刑事案件解决制度。     

Victim-offender- reconciliation: The Danger of Cooptation and a Useful Reconsideration of Law Theory

The conceptual orientation and implementation of Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich (TOA), the German version of Victim-Offender-Reconciliation Programs (VORP), in the criminal and juvenile justice system in Germany brings some dangers with it. It can hide the real nature and character of conflict mediation and prevent elements of restorative justice from giving up their shadowy existence. The practice of TOA for the most part is far from corresponding to the basic idea of conflict resolution and reconciliation as well as to established professional reconciliation standards. Conspicuous is the multiple search for niches of acceptance and an adaptation to inappropriate ideas out of the world of juvenile welfare and criminal law. TOA/VORP in its conception is not the ideal way to foster a restorative justice approach but, on a continuum of possible steps for the treatment of conflicts, it is useful. If victim-offender reconciliation has any essential meaning, it is not because of its modest attempts at practical realization but because it makes the essential tasks of law clear to us.     

理性诘问：刑事和解是否是“以钱买刑”

刑事和解是西方社会比较重要的一项刑事司法制度,但在中国司法实践中展开的刑事和解被许多人批判为＂以钱买刑＂。＂以钱买刑＂作为中国古已有之的概念与刑事和解有本质的区别。给人以＂以钱买刑＂表象的刑事和解,其实质与刑法的基本原则在本质上是统一的,其纠正了传统刑事司法的偏颇,实现了刑事司法的实然正义,是人类的一种理性选择。但为了避免刑事和解在实践中出现异化为＂以钱买刑＂的弊端,必须进行制度化和法律化的构建,从而使刑事和解的应有价值得以保证。     

Restorative justice and probation decisions – an analysis of intentional assault cases in China

The restorative justice model focuses on amending offender-victim relations. Compared to Western countries, China's criminal justice policy has relied on both formal and informal mechanisms in dealing with criminal offending. Recently a victim-offender reconciliation (VOR) program has been codified in China to provide incentives for offenders and victims to resolve their disputes through court-guided mediation sessions. Using restorative justice as an interpretive framework and drawing upon 1000 minor intentional assault cases, this study examines the impact of core VOR concepts on probation decisions. Our analysis suggests that offender compensation and attitude were significantly related to the likelihood of receiving probation, and the defense attorney played an unexpected yet impactful role in shaping judges’ probation decisions. Theoretical and policy implications are discussed.     

Judges who drive under the influence of alcohol: ethical implications and the role of restorative justice measures to balance judicial duty and societal expectations

Judges across the US have been charged or convicted of driving while intoxicated, yet many judges are allowed to continue to practice despite their criminal act(s). The issue becomes not only a societal issue, but also an ethical and professional one which impacts the individual criminal justice practitioner and criminal justice agencies. Duty to judicial and social expectations informs an argument regarding ethical theories: deontology and utilitarianism. Solutions include an examination of restorative justice measures such as: a balance of service to the community such as participating in victim-offender mediation and victim-offender panels as the offender, and completing community service where the victim chooses the judges number of hours and location of the service. While some may believe these jurists should suffer punitive punishments such as loss of judgeships, long-term treatment, and extensive probation coupled with individual psychiatric therapy, consideration of all factors with restoration in mind, might be more appropriate for these judicial offenders.     

构建刑事和解制度探讨

刑事和解应适用于刑事诉讼的各个阶段,原则上由人民调解委员会主持,检察机关参与到和解的各个过程,且应与社区矫正相对接,从而实现犯罪人和被害人的共同正义。     

我国刑事和解实证分析

在构建和谐社会背景下,各地检察机关积极探索当事人和解刑事案件的宽缓处理方式,取得了良好的社会效果。但由于受现行法律框架、司法资源、考评机制以及传统司法观念的束缚,对当事人和解的刑事案件的处理,在适用范围、处理方式及相关配套措施等方面还存在一些问题。因此,应当建立与我国时代背景和法律文化相契合的刑事和解制度,包括填补立法上的缺失,明确其适用程序,并健全相关的配套措施等。     

追问刑法精神

所谓刑法精神 ,是指贯穿于刑法之中 ,作为刑法之基的关于犯罪与刑罚的基本观念或理念。刑法典为刑法之形 ,刑法精神为刑法之魂。我国刑法在基本立场或基本精神上更加接近于古典派 ,更准确地说 ,是接近于新古典主义 ,带有明显的折衷或调和色彩。刑法精神(此处特指刑法典精神 )应当是一国整个刑事法律体系的基本精神 ,一国刑事法律体系的基本精神必须统一于刑法精神或曰刑法典精神     

检察机关适用刑事和解调研报告

刑事和解是近年来我国各地检察机关努力探索的一种新的刑事案件处理方式。虽然目前尚缺乏有关刑事和解的统一法律规定,但检察机关适用刑事和解的实践表明,各地在刑事和解的适用范围、条件、程序等方面都存在着共通性和相似性,从而为立法上确立刑事和解制度奠定了基础。但同时,各地检察机关在刑事和解适用的证据条件、调解主体的担任、辩护人及诉讼代理人对刑事和解的参与等方面仍存在不同认识,需要从理论上进一步加以研究解决。