论品格证据在未成年人恢复性司法中的运用

品格证据是指证明诉讼参与人的品格或品格特征的证据,即专属和区分不同个体的道德品质总和.由于未成年人恢复性司法的适用对象、启动和强化都需要品格证据的支持.因此,有必要在未成年人司法中引入品格证据,以期完善我国未成年人司法制度.在具体的设计中,品格证据的调查主体应由基层司法行政机构来承担;品格证据的调查内容应包括:身心方面、家庭方面、社会交往方面、成长经历和案发后的表现.同时,为了保证未成年人恢复性司法能更好地发挥作用,品格证据应贯穿于未成年人恢复性司法的启动、协商和后续活动之中.     

论恢复性司法的本土资源与制度构建

恢复性司法缘起于上世纪70年代的刑事司法实践,并逐渐成为影响传统刑事司法的重要司法范式。恢复性司法是在反思传统司法的基础上产生、发展起来的。可以弥补传统刑事司法过于对抗、忽视被害人等缺陷,从而迅速风靡于西方国家。我国无论是文化观念,还是刑事司法制度与实践,都存在着契合于恢复性司法的因素。刑事司法制度的完善,有必要吸收恢复性司法的理念,结合我国刑事司法的本土资源,建立恢复性司法制度。     

法官的司法伦理基础探析

司法制度设计本身及司法运行实践表明中国法官地位不高 ,这与法官本应具备的极高社会威望相悖。而出现司法不公时 ,公众往往对法官进行道德先究 ,法官整体的司法伦理匮乏又使公众道德先究的结果更加不利于司法公信力。因此要想使中国法官也具有西方法官神坛的地位 ,司法伦理可谓之基础。司法伦理具有底位、中位和高位三个层面 ,它要求法官具备良好的司法伦理道德素养并使之制度化 ,从而构建一个规范、养育及运用它的理性环境。     

建立少年恢复性司法模式刍议

恢复性司法是一种全新的刑事法治模式,本文试从恢复性司法的内容、特征与价值功能等方面进行考察,并对其理论内核进行评析。在目前恢复性司法在我国的理论研究与实践现状的基础上,提出在少年司法制度中首先探索建立恢复性司法模式。     

恢复性司法制度刍议

恢复性司法是人们对社会秩序的重新弥合,恢复被破坏的社会平衡的一种良好的追求。在我国研究恢复性司法,无疑是在探讨犯罪处理方式中另辟蹊径。本文试通过分析恢复性司法制度,并结合我国的刑事司法制度的有关规定,提出恢复性司法制度引进我国亟待解决的问题。     

论恢复性司法与和谐社会的构建

恢复性司法作为一种全新的刑事司法模式,以被害人权益为导向,通过搭建被害人、犯罪人与社区间的对话平台,促进社会关系的修复,并取得良好的司法效果。鉴于此,和谐社会的构建以及刑事司法制度的完善,有必要吸收恢复性司法的理念,结合我国刑事司法的本土资源,建立恢复性司法制度。     

对未成年人犯罪“恢复性司法”模式的思考

司法实践中,针对未成年人犯罪的特点,人民法院在审判组织、审判程序等方面,不断进行探索。如在审判组织上,大多数法院设立了专门的审判组织审理未成年人犯罪案件;而在审判程序上,各地法院普遍在实践中大胆探索各类新的未成年人刑事司法模式,比如近年来实践中就有越来越多的法院开始探索"恢复性司法"模式。但在我看来,当下包括未成年人刑事司法中广泛实践的"恢复性"司法模式只是给传统的一些习惯做法贴上了"标签"而已。正是基于这样的印象,本文将考察当下未成年人刑事司法实践中被称作"恢复性司法"模式重在揭示这一模式是否有效的实现了恢复性司法的目标和理念,并在此基础上提出未成年人刑事审判"恢复性司法模式"的若干设想。     

恢复性措施在环境刑事司法实践中的应用分析

环境犯罪不仅破坏了环境资源保护制度,也损害了生态法益,保护公共环境利益是刑法介入环境保护最根本的出发点。近几年来,随着环境司法专门化和环境司法理念的发展,越来越多的环境恢复性措施出现在环境刑事司法实践中。与传统惩治犯罪的刑罚措施不同,环境恢复性措施着眼于对受到损害的环境质量、生态系统进行修复。恢复性措施的应用让犯罪人更清楚地认识到其行为对环境的危害,督促犯罪人主动承担环境修复责任,有利于利害关系人的参与,实现社会和谐。但是,恢复性司法与传统司法在原则和理念等方面存在一定的冲突,实践中恢复性措施的应用带有一定的随意性,存在地区差异大、标准不统一、程序不规范等问题。环境恢复性司法必须根植于我国的刑事司法制度,不与刑法基本原则相违背,在此基础上注重对环境损害的救济及公众利益的考量,逐步完善环境恢复性司法的法律依据,增设环境刑罚辅助措施,鼓励法院发挥司法能动性,践行恢复性司法理念,创新恢复性措施,最大限度修复生态环境。     

略论英美法官文化及其启示

基于悠久的历史文化传统，英关法系国家司法制度中，对法官的知识结构、思维方式，甚至对充任法官者的年龄、资历、性格，以及法庭仪式、法官装束等都达成了诸多共识，形成独具一格的法官文化。这对于保证法官独立、司法公正、公众对司法判决的服从乃至法律信仰都起了不可或缺的作用。     

未成年人司法改革的意义与方向

建立、完善未成年人司法制度,是中央司法改革方案的重要内容。未成年人检察,则是未成年人司法的基本环节。本文充分肯定各地检察机关未成年人司法改革的意义,并在借鉴法治发达国家未成年司法成熟经验的基础上,结合我国实际,对当前未成年人司法改革的方向、合理设置未成年人司法组织、未成年人司法的社会化、办理未成年人案件的证据规则等相关问题提出完善建议。     

Punitive Restoration and Restorative Justice

Criminal justice policy faces the twin challenges of improving our crime reduction efforts while increasing public confidence. These challenges are exacerbated by the fact that at least some measures popular with the public are counterproductive to greater crime reduction. How to achieve greater crime reduction without sacrificing public confidence? While restorative justice approaches offer a promising alternative to traditional sentencing with the potential to achieve these goals, they suffer from several serious obstacles, not least their relatively limited applicability, flexibility, and public support. Punitive restoration is a new and distinctive idea about restorative justice modeled on an important principle of stakeholding, which states that those who have a stake in penal outcomes should have a say about them. Punitive restoration is restorative insofar as it aims to achieve the restoration of rights infringed or threatened by criminal offences. Punitive restoration is punitive insofar as the available options for this agreement are more punitive than found in most restorative justice approaches, such as the option of some form of hard treatment. Punitive restoration sheds new light on how we may meet the twin challenges of improving our efforts to reduce reoffending without sacrificing public confidence, demonstrating how restorative practices can be embedded deeper within the criminal justice system.     

The repentant defendant and the potential of international criminal justice

ABSTRACT

Repentant defendants are a more common feature of the international criminal trial than commonly thought, and offer interesting opportunities to conceptualize the possibility of restorative justice within what is otherwise a conventionally retributive framework. Repentance may arise at different stages of the trial and is an inherent part of the assessment at the plea bargain and sentencing stages. It must be understood as a particular performance from the accused, one that individualizes guilt and performs the sort of moral agency on which international criminal law is otherwise premised. Its force lies potentially in its power to break down some of the constitutive dichotomies of international criminal justice, including those between perpetrator/victim, international/domestic, and retributive/restorative justice. One needs to account, however, for the potential ambiguity of repentance and the fact that it may be subtly exonerating, as well as the fact that international criminal tribunals have reasons to encourage it that have nothing to do with restorative justice. Only if the sincerity of repentance can be ascertained and if it can be addressed to victims may the restorative potential of international criminal justice be realized.     

Is restorative justice for sexual crime compatible with various criminal justice systems?

In addition to the more conventional approaches of the criminal justice system, this article suggests that there is a need for restorative justice as another method of addressing sexual crime. In support of this view, the present article explores the possibility of a hybrid justice system based on a complementary relationship between restorative justice and the criminal justice system. An analysis of the limits of the criminal justice system and the need for restorative justice in the contentious area of sexual crime will be followed by a detailed examination of key justice considerations when trying to marry both criminal justice and restorative justice perspectives. Such considerations include: the meaning of justice; legislation; sentencing principles; due process; victims’ rights; and the location of restorative justice within/alongside/outside the criminal justice system. The aim of this article is to determine whether it is possible to reconcile two seemingly juxtaposed methods of justice delivery in the context of sexual crime in order to create a hybrid system of justice that best protects and responds to the rights and needs of victims and offenders.     

On restorative justice practiced in China

The victim-offender reconciliation (VOR), practiced by the basic public security, procuratorates and courts since the advent of 21^st century, is a new mode different from the mediation or conciliation in the procedure of civil litigation or of that accessory to the public prosecution in criminal proceeding. This mode connects the criminal justice with the mediation or private reconciliation by themselves. Thus, non-official settlement can influence the criminal justice and the decisions of authoritative agencies. It is beneficial to restore the victim’s interests, urge the offender to repent for his wrongdoings, compensate for the victim’s loss and restore the damaged social relationship. The VOR in China is the same in essence as the Western restorative justice, so it could be regarded as a Chinese mode of global restorative justice movement. Though the VOR mechanism works well, it still brings some matter in further consideration: (a) the legitimacy of VOR; (b) the conflict against the basic concept of crime; (c) the effect to the social reality.     

恢复性司法及其本土制度化危机

凭借伦理和宗教规范作为肯统刑事解纷方式的恢复性司法属于非国家正式刑事司法机制。从类型学上分析，可以把恢复性司法划分为不同的模式和类型。概括地看，恢复性司法存在于当代社会的法理基础是政治多元合法化和刑事司法制度民主化。从传统文化和现实的国家权力与公民权利的关系看，我们缺乏借鉴和实施恢复性司法本土制度化的资源。     

The value of restorative justice*

This paper starts by defining restorative justice and analysing its components. It looks at its practical benefits for the criminal justice system and explores the human benefits, not only for victims, but also for offenders, the families of both parties and the community. The experience of restorative justice in juvenile courts in New Zealand is examined in order to highlight the main benefits of the practice. Studies have shown that restorative justice can have positive effects such as reducing reoffending, providing an insight into offending, bringing together victims and offenders and repairing emotional harm. The paper concludes that although restorative justice on its own will not fix all social problems, it has many positive impacts on participants.     

Engaging students on the topic of restorative justice and serious offenses

Within contemporary society, there is a prevailing sentiment that our criminal justice system leaves much to be desired in its responses to the offender, the victim, and the community. As a potential answer to these conceded shortcomings, restorative justice has earned significant recognition and consideration. While restorative justice principles and programs have received increasing support, for many individuals this is limited to cases involving relatively ‘minor,’ first time, and/or juvenile offenses. When it comes to situations with more ‘serious’ and violent offenses, acceptance of restorative responses dissipates. Gaining broader acceptance can be particularly challenging with current college students. With many students raised in the ‘get tough on crime’ era, embracing this alternative approach to serious crimes can be a difficult paradigm shift. This article will provide a framework for approaching the feasibility of applying restorative justice with serious offenses in the college course. In addition, suggestions for readings, projects, and assignments that will further assist in effectively engaging students with these issues will be provided.     

恢复性司法对我国刑事诉讼制度的影响

恢复性司法是一种不同于传统司法模式的新型司法模式,它寻求尽可能利用罪犯、受害者和社区的积极和自愿参与的方式,恢复受犯罪影响的所有当事方的一切权益。我国引入恢复性司法既具有刑事司法实践、刑事观念、刑事制度和社会发展的基础,也与我国当前的刑事诉讼制度存在一定冲突。恢复性司法实践与理念对我国刑事诉讼可能产生的影响,突出表现在刑事观念、诉讼制度和检察机关法律监督方式等诸多方面。     

Connecting restorative justice with gender-responsive programming

Despite the encouraging results of public opinion assessments on restorative justice, people are not likely to spontaneously suggest restorative measures after a crime. Restorative justice thus seems in need of a public relations strategy. This paper discusses the strategy labeling victims as the universal remedy to promote restorative justice, and the proposal of promoting restorative justice through the media by foregrounding crime victims in media reports on crime. This strategy stems from a belief that the most appealing aspect of restorative justice to the public is its thoughtfulness to victims. However, I will argue that there are three problems with this approach. These concern: (1) the victim’s position in both restorative justice theory and practice; (2) the characteristics of media reporting on crime in general and victims in particular; and (3) the risk of attaining a result opposite to the initial objective (i.e. increasing punitive attitudes instead of promoting restorative justice).