以审判为中心视阈下诉讼制度改革问题研究

“以审判为中心”的诉讼制度改革,是党的十八届四中全会针对我国长期以来“以侦查为中心”的诉讼现状提出的具有时代意义的改革方案。“以审判为中心”要求侦查和审查起诉活动服务于审判活动进行,围绕审判的要求和标准展开,保障审判的重心和中心地位。我国“以审判为中心”诉讼体制改革,受公、检、法三机关分工负责,检察院特有审判监督权及政治性制约影响,改革过程受到一定约束。本文通过从明确侦查、起诉机关职责;加强证据规则运用;促进庭审实质化转变三个方面入手,提出一些完善建议,逐步推进诉讼体制向“以审判为中心”转化,实现其重心地位。     

从“侦查中心主义”到“审判中心主义”下的诉审关系建构

侦查中心主义是将侦查机关作为刑事诉讼核心角色的刑事诉讼模式。在该模式下,侦查案卷对法官的判决具有直接的控制力,司法裁判生成的过程在某种程度上与侦查机关对案件事实的确认无异,使得法院在很大程度上成为侦查机关的橡皮章,从而导致庭审程序严重虚化。与侦查中心主义相对的是审判中心主义,审判中心主义的基本特征是庭审的实质化,这要求无论是定罪还是量刑都应通过法庭的实质性审判来完成。在“侦查中心主义”与“审判中心主义”中,检察机关与审判机关具有不同的结构关系。审判中心主义会促成新的诉审关系的生成,诉审关系的不同也会直接影响着审判中心主义目的的实现,这也是重构诉审关系的价值所在。     

论建立以一审庭审为中心的事实认定机制

刑事诉讼的事实认定,应以一审庭审为中心,即以审判为中心、庭审为中心、一审为中心;而不应当以庭前程序为中心、庭下活动为中心、上级审为中心。然而,上述反诉讼规律的做法,在某种程度上正是中国刑事案件事实认定机制的现实。如果不解决刑事案件事实认定结构与机制的问题,就不能提高刑事案件的办案质量。但考虑现实条件,应区别案件类型与司法任务,确立不同的司法应对方式,限制这一机制的适用范围。建立这一机制,需要适度阻断侦审联结,限制庭前活动的"预审"与代审功能,实现庭审的实质化、有效性和中心作用;需要通过加强审判法官与合议庭的责任,限制审委会与院、庭长在案件事实认定上的权力,限制庭下阅卷的作用等措施,发挥庭审对事实认定的决定作用;需要规范请示汇报制度,调整诉讼资源配置,规范发回重审制度,同时全面加强基础基层建设,增强一审法院司法能力,保证事实审理以一审为中心。     

庭前会议对“以审判为中心”的促进

2012年《刑事诉讼法》围绕强化庭审功能的主旨,进行了大幅修改,体现出以审判为中心的精神.以庭审公开、透明、参与的司法特点,完成定罪量刑、保障人权的司法任务.庭审时间有限,审判人员精力有限,庭审的有限性要求庭审活动应当集中力量,审理重点事实和争议问题.庭前会议是改革完善审判程序的应然产物,控辩审围绕审判所需,明晰争议问题,整理事实焦点,促进庭审查明事实、甄别是非.设置庭前会议是强化庭审中心地位的举措,形成庭前程序与庭审程序二元并存的审判格局.     

认罪认罚从宽：“以审判为中心”的抵牾与协调

"以审判为中心"的诉讼制度改革要求实现审判实质化。基于对效率的追求,认罪认罚从宽制度在理论与实践中存在降低证明标准、虚化庭审程序、强调检察机关主导等误区,在一定程度上削弱了庭审在查明事实、认定证据、保护诉权、公正裁判中的决定性作用,悖离了"以审判为中心"的诉讼制度改革方向。"以审判为中心"的诉讼制度改革是认罪认罚从宽制度的正当性基础,是认罪认罚自愿性的结构性保障,同时也是评价认罪认罚制度实效的重要标尺。在具体制度设计中,认罪认罚案件的审理亦应当坚持"以审判为中心"的红线,保障辩护人独立行使辩护权,确保法院依法独立行使审判权,坚持证据裁判原则和法定证明标准,实行书面审理与开庭审理相结合,保障被告人的上诉权,从而防止认罪认罚从宽制度对"以审判为中心"诉讼制度改革产生消减作用,甚至沦为司法实践中规避"以审判为中心"的现实路径。     

审判中心主义视域下刑事冤错案防范机制研究

刑事错案多源于错误的事实认定,错案的防范应对事实的形成机理加以深刻的反思.侦查中心主义下,事实定格子侦查,无法实现对证据能力的审查,庭审证明形式化、证明标准虚置,辩方的主体地位及诉讼权利受到压制,冤错案的发生在所难免.以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革强调事实形成于庭上,审判中心主义下,重塑了审前与审判活动的关系,强化了冤错案的监督、制约机制;要求实现庭审证明的实质化,确立了冤错案的发现、救济渠道;强化控辩对等,为冤错案的防范提供了对抗性制度的支撑.以冤错案的防范、救济为指向,未来以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革应以证据裁判原则为核心,构建完善的刑事证据规则体系;以庭审实质化为目标,细化并落实庭审程序规则;以被告人的权利保障为重心,完善辩护制度.     

落实庭审实质化推进以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革——以修改后的《人民法院法庭规则》为中心

党的十八届四中全会明确提出了推进以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革要求,保障庭审在查明事实,认定证据、保护诉权、公正裁判中发挥决定性作用.新修订的《人民法院法庭规则》通过平等对待诉讼各方实现了控辩双方平等对抗;通过完善庭审公开让庭审活动剧场化、可视化;通过在刑事法庭配置同步视频作证室提高证人出庭率;通过刑事被告人着装的去“标签化”贯彻无罪推定的理念.《人民法院法庭规则》的修改以落实庭审实质化为抓手,积极回应“推进以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革”的要求.     

刑事庭审实质化的维度与机制探讨

庭审实质化是"以审判为中心"的诉讼制度改革的重要内容。当前对于庭审实质化的理论研讨尚有一些盲点,相关的改革举措也存在较大局限。推进庭审实质化并非是刑事庭审制度局部的技术性改良,而是刑事审判方式转型的系统性工程。首先应当从确定案件类型、审理层级、审理内容三个维度上对庭审实质化予以推进。其次,要重塑以抗辩制为内核的庭审事实发现机制,构建庭审内外部的裁判心证约束机制,规范合议决策和法院案管决策的案件裁断审决机制。     

论以审判为中心的审查起诉工作改革

在“推进以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革”的背景下,审视现行审查起诉工作,存在着不愿意主动排除非法证据,“带病”举证;证据不够充分,勉强起诉;撤诉后以原事实、证据重新起诉甚至变更管辖后重新起诉;不全面移送证据材料,将有利被告人的证据隐匿不送等问题.面对上述问题,应当坚持“以审判为中心”,依据审判的要求和标准审查案件事实证据;以审判的思维决定是否起诉;全面收集和移送证据材料;避免就案件事实认定和定性与法院提前沟通;客观公正作出无罪不起诉决定.推进“以审判为中心”的审查起诉工作改革,检察机关还必须转变理念,确立当事人角色意识;调整关系,支持法院依法独立公正行使审判权;破除陈规,改革审查起诉工作考评机制.     

“以审判为中心”诉讼制度改革的法院视角

“以审判为中心”的诉讼制度改革，亟需法院在理念上更新，在制度上革新，在实践中创新，有的放矢，循序渐进。要更新司法理念，追求裁判思维法治化；重构庭审程序，追求裁判过程实质化；重视诉讼经济，追求裁判方式集约化；改进司法方式，实现证明体系标准化；优化职权配置，实现裁判责任实定化。突出庭审的中心地位，立足于审判的导向作用，强化司法公正、缓解审判压力，完善人权保障的同时，最大程度地修复和提升司法公信力。     

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.     

What similes in Sāṃkhya do: a comparison of the similes in the Sāṃkhya texts in the Mahābhārata, the Sāṃkhyakārikā and the Sāṃkhyasūtra

In Sāṃkhya similes are an important means to communicate basic philosophical teachings. In the texts similes are frequently used, especially in the Sāṃkhya passages in the Mahābhārata, in the Sāṃkhyakārikā and in the Sāṃkhyasūtra. This paper compares the similes in these three texts and analyses changes in the philosophy as revealed in the similes. A comparison of the similes of Sāṃkhya texts produced over more than one thousand years reveals changes in the emphasis in this philosophical system. The purpose of the similes in the Sāṃkhya passages of the Mahābhārata is to produce an intuitive understanding of the separateness of puruṣa and prakṛti. The similes are designed to lead the listener to understand this basic dualism. In the Sāṃkhyakārikā the most difficult issues are the relationship between prakṛti and puruṣa and the idea of prakṛti working for the salvation of puruṣa. One whole chapter of the Sāṃkhyasūtra is devoted to similes.     

The Brahman and the Word Principle (Śabda)

The literature of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana attention in contemporary times. The writings of the prominent linguistic philosopher and grammarian Bhartṛhari and of Manḍana, an encyclopedic scholar of later seventh century and most likely a senior contemporary of Śaṅkara, shape Indian philosophical thinking to a great extent. On this premise, this study of the influence of Bhartṛhari on Maṇḍana’s literature, the scope of this essay, allows us to explore the significance of Bhartṛhari’s writings, not only to comprehend the philosophy of language, but also to understand the contribution of linguistic philosophy in shaping Advaita philosophy in subsequent times. This comparison is not to question originality on the part of Maṇḍana, but rather to explore the interrelationship between linguistic philosophy and the monistic philosophy of the Upaniṣadic tradition. Besides excavating the role of Bhartṛhari writings on the texts of Maṇḍana, analysis this will reveal the interrelatedness of the Advaita school of Śaṅkara often addressed as ‘pure non-dualism’ (Kevalādvaita) and the Advaita of Bhartṛhari, identified as ‘non-dualism of the word-principle’ (Śabdādvaita).     

The Realism of Universals in Plato and Nyāya

It has become commonplace in introductions to Indian philosophy to construe Plato’s discussion of forms (εἶδος/ἰδέα) and the treatment in Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika of universals (sāmānya/jāti) as addressing the same philosophical issue, albeit in somewhat different ways. While such a comparison of the similarities and differences has interest and value as an initial reconnaissance of what each says about common properties, an examination of the roles that universals play in the rest of their philosophical enquiries vitiates this commonplace. This paper draws upon the primary texts to identify the following metaphysical, epistemological, semantic and soteriological roles that universals play in the philosophy of Plato and of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika:

Metaphysical: causal of the existence of x Metaphysical: constitutive of the identity/essence of x Epistemological: cognitively causal (i.e. of the cognition of one over many) Epistemological: epistemically causal (i.e. of knowledge of x) Semantic: necessary condition of speech and reason Epistemological: vindicatory of induction (Nyāya only) Metaphysical: explanatory of causation (Nyāya only) Soteriological: cathartic contemplation (Plato only)

These roles provide us with motivations or reasons to believe that universals exist. As we examine these motivations, we find pressures mounting against our assimilating Platonic forms and the universals of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika in the discourse about common properties. It is especially when we appreciate the utterly different contribution that universals make in securing our highest welfare that we realize how Plato and the two sister schools are not so much talking somewhat differently about the same thing, but talking somewhat similarly about different things. This better understanding of this difference in these philosophies opens a route for our better understanding of their unique contributions in the ongoing dialogue of philosophy.     

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 Descent of Power: Possession,Mysticism, and Initiation in the Śaiva Theology of Abhinavagupta

This paper surveys the key terms śaktipāta and samāveśa (both of which refer to religious experience) in the primary sources of Tantric Śaivism over several centuries of textual development, building up a theory as to their range of meanings. It specifically focuses on their usage by Abhinavagupta (Kāshmīr, 10th century) by presenting a complete translation of chapter 11 of his Tantrasāra. The paper thus serves to (a) illuminate the nature of spiritual experience and the qualifcations for religious praxis in Śaivism, (b) give insight into the worldview of the Tantric Śaivas, and (c) help in pinpointing a specific and significant issue in the phenomenological study of religion generally. An earlier version of this paper has been published in a somewhat different form in Evam: Forum on Indian Representations vol. 4, published by Samvad India, New Delhi, India. This paper could not have been written without two years of intensive study with Professor Alexis Sanderson of All Souls College, Oxford, whose scholarship has proved essential in advancing my understanding of Śaivism. Also very helpful was Dr. Somadeva Vasudeva, now of Columbia University, whose database and encyclopedic knowledge have been invaluable. The germ of the idea for this article was suggested to me when Professor Paul Muller-Ortega (University of Rochester) first pointed out to me the passage beginning at MVT 2.14.     

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.     

Without Negative Origins and Absolute Ends: A Jurisprudence of the Singular

This paper is a preparatory analysis for a jurisprudence of the singular. Through a critical analysis of the negativity and the absolving character of the transcendental metaphysics of law and justice it reads mainly through M. Heidegger, Heraclitus, G. Agamben and J-L. Nancy a realignment of the questioning of justice that takes its provisional name in ‘dike’, at thepoint where the routes of ontology, the juridical and the political intersect and reveal the pseudo-propriety of their presuppositions. Without the transcendental dialectical discourse of the origin and its absolving-absolute ‘ends’, this paper re-poses the urgency of thinking the singular-multiple ‘right’ otherwise. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Anyathākhyāti</Emphasis>: A Critique by Appaya Dīkṣita in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Parimala</Emphasis>

In this paper, the problem of illusory perception, as approached by the Nyāya and Advaita Vedānta schools of philosophy, is discussed from the standpoint of the Parimala. This seminal work belonging to the Bhāmatī tradition of Advaita Vedānta was composed in the sixteenth century by the polymath Appaya Dīk?ita. In the context of discussing various theories of illusion, Dīk?ita dwells upon the Nyāya theory of anyathākhyāti, and its connection with jñānalak?a?apratyāsatti as a causal factor for perception, and closely examines if such an extraordinary (alaukika) perception is tenable to explain illusory perception. He then proceeds to point out the deficiencies of this model and thereby brings to the fore the anirvacanīyakhyāti of Advaitins as the only theory which stands scrutiny.