我国刑诉结构及价值追求探析

一我国刑事诉讼结构的概念有个发展过程。８０年代中后期,有专门论述刑事诉讼结构的论文认为：“刑事诉讼形式,是指进行刑事诉讼所采用的诉讼形式,具体说,就是司法机关和当事人在刑事诉讼中的地位、诉讼权利和义务及相互关系。"①陈光中的定义非常简明："诉讼程序的基本结构,是指诉讼主要参与者的组成、诉讼地位和诉讼的基本形式。”②而陈光中的学生李心鉴则认为："刑事诉讼构造是由一定的诉讼目的所决定的,并由主要诉讼程序和证据规则中的诉讼基本方式所体现的控诉、辩护、裁判三方面的法律地位和相互关系。"③从上列概念表述中,…     

刑事诉讼的目的、价值及其关系

刑事诉讼的目的是指国家根据各种刑事诉讼主体的客观需要及其对刑事诉讼价值的认知所预先设计的、希望通过刑事诉讼立法和司法而实现的理想的诉讼结果。刑事诉讼价值是指刑事诉讼程序本身所固有的、不依赖于刑事诉讼主体及其需要而独立存在的、能够通过刑事诉讼活动对国家、社会和所有公民的合理需要和要求的满足具有积极意义的一种特性。刑事诉讼目的与价值的联系在于 :刑事诉讼目的的产生是人们对刑事诉讼的价值进行认知、评价、选择的结果 ,刑事诉讼目的的实现是刑事诉讼价值的体现。两者的区别在于 :刑事诉讼目的具有主观性 ,刑事诉讼价值具有客观性 ;刑事诉讼目的是人们从事刑事诉讼活动的起点和终点 ,刑事诉讼价值是人们价值认知的对象 ;刑事诉讼目的追求的程序公正是人的主观目标 ,刑事诉讼程序本身的公正性是其内在的本质规定。     

论我国刑事诉讼目的、价值的定位及其实现条件

在刑事诉讼价值问题上应确立程序内在价值优先的价值观;在刑事诉讼目的问题上应确立安全优先兼顾公正的目的观;两者并不矛盾。提出,为了实现我国刑事诉讼目的,体现刑事诉讼价值,必须完善现行刑诉法;设置科学合理的司法体制;使司法人员真正树立法律至上、公正司法的法律价值观;设置完善的监督制约机制。     

刑事诉讼价值论与目的论述评

大陆法系和英美法系国家在刑事诉讼上存在着侧重各不相同的价值观和目的选择 ,并形成了不同的理论学说 ;随着价值、目的用语的引入及对国外学说的借鉴 ,我国刑事诉讼价值与目的的理论也逐步确立并发展起来。通过对几种具有代表性的理论观点的评析 ,试图区分价值与价值观 ,澄清价值与目的用语 ,并揭示其意义     

刑事诉讼证据能力的三种属性

刑事诉讼证据能力是指在诉讼上可允许作为证据的资格。诉讼证据能力有的也称“可采信”、“证据能力”、“证据的适格性”等等,虽然说法不同,但没有性质上的差异,都是指“事实材料”能够成为刑事诉讼证据所应具备的条件或资格。刑事诉讼证据能力的法律性刑事诉讼证据的法律性是指必须是按照法律规定的要求和法定程序而取得的事实材料,才具有证据资格(也称证据的合法性)。法律性是证据能力不可或缺的构成要素;证据不具备合法性特征,不能成为“证据”。合法性特征主要含义有:它首先表现为在证据的形式上必须符合证据法律制度所规定的证据表现…     

刑事诉讼价值模式论析

<正> 刑事司法作为一项社会控制工程,其制度设定须达到两项基本标准,一是技术(手段)合理性,一是价值(目的)合理性。这两点即哲学上的所谓“工具理性”与“价值理性”问题。笔者曾提出“两重结构”理论(见《现代法学》1990年第3期),侧重于“工具理性”的结构、功能分析,本文则着重就刑事司法涉及的利益结构,利益关系以及价值模式及其调整原则问题进行探讨,拟循“价值合理性”,开辟刑事诉讼研究的另一条新路。     

刑事诉讼目的新论

“惩罚犯罪”作为我国刑事诉讼的两大目的之一,存在六大缺陷。刑事诉讼的目的应当是“发现真实、保障人权”。“发现真实”的“真实”是一种法律真实。“发现真实”作为刑事诉讼的目的,有助于实现我国诉讼认识论和刑事诉讼构造的转变,在证明标准等问题上促进我国证据制度的发展。     

刑事诉讼的功能性结构及其法理学分析

所有刑事诉讼主体的诉讼功能之间的整体关系构成刑事诉讼的功能性结构,经过法理整合的审判、控诉和辩护三种基本诉讼功能之间的关系的整体构成刑事诉讼基本的功能性结构。以刑事诉讼的功能性结构概念为基础建构的“三分圆”理论模型优越于“三角”理论模型,既可藉以对刑事诉讼的基本结构作定性分析,又可藉以对刑事诉讼的结构模式进行定量分析。当事人主义与职权主义结构模式的区别在于刑事审判程序中证据调查的功能性结构的不同,二者的划分严格讲来只适用于刑事审判程序。刑事诉讼的两重结构不是两种结构。     

现代刑事诉讼法的“帝王"原则:程序法定原则重述

程序法定原则作为刑事诉讼法的首位原则、“帝王”原则,构成了现代程序法的基石, 其地位如同罪刑法定原则之于刑法典。从内容上分析,程序法定原则包括了形式(程序合法性)和实质(程序正当性)两项要件,由此产生了形式意义上的程序法定原则和实质意义上的程序法定原则。作为现代刑事诉讼程序的一种通论性和一般性原则,程序法定原则对于整个刑事诉讼程序具有统摄性,在刑事诉讼各个阶段都存在着程序法定的具细原则。我国刑事诉讼制度在立法和司法实践中存在的种种问题最后几乎都可以归结为“程序法定”原则的不彰、程序法定价值的不显。基于此,刑事诉讼法典的制定和运行,贯彻程序法定原则是当务之急。     

逮捕阶段控辩结构均衡化保障机制探究———以逮捕阶段律师辩护权保障为视角简

“刑事诉讼结构,是指刑事诉讼法所确立的进行刑事诉讼的基本方式以及专门机关、诉讼参与人在刑事诉讼中形成的法律关系的基本格局,它集中体现为控诉、辩护、裁判三方在刑事诉讼中的地位及其相互间的法律关系.”而控辩关系则是诉讼结构中最为重要的一对关系,直接决定着诉讼结构是否均衡、公平.典型的“诉讼结构”和“控辩关系”概念用于审判阶段,在审查逮捕阶段极少提及,这主要是因为在旧刑诉法的背景下,逮捕阶段隶属于侦查阶段,其程序本身具有“行政化”、“追诉化”的特点,加之旧刑诉法中并未规定侦查阶段的律师辩护制度,审查逮捕阶段的控辩关系自然无从谈起,“等腰三角形”诉讼结构就更是空中楼阁了.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.