贯彻恢复性司法理念预防未成年人犯罪

关于恢复性司法的涵义,目前学界还没有统一的界定.2002年4月,联合国经社理事会、预防犯罪和刑事司法委员会通过的《关于在刑事事项中采用恢复性司法方案的基本原则》从恢复性程序和恢复性结果两方面对恢复性司法做了全面的阐释.     

也议恢复性司法——以刑事一体化为视角

在构建和谐社会的历史背景下,在宽严相济刑事政策的指导下,恢复性司法成为了刑事法领域讨论的热门话题之一。恢复性司法是刑事一体化思想的实体展开,由于恢复性司法的积极意义,在司法实务界进行了广泛的积极实践。本文以刑事一体化为导向进一步探讨了恢复性司法。     

恢复性司法践行理路探析——以欧洲的实践为视角

恢复性司法是一种对犯罪做出的系统和积极的反应,较之传统刑事司法具有社区性、无害性、多层面等特点。20世纪末,在传统刑事司法遭受困境、刑事政策面临变革以及人权保护的背景下,恢复性司法得到空前的复兴和重视。欧洲等国的恢复性司法的立法和实践为我国提供了灵感和经验。面对世界刑法这一全新的发展潮流我国应审慎对待并完善相关制度,逐步有序地将恢复性司法贯行到刑事司法改革之中。     

恢复性司法的思想基础研究

恢复性司法作为一种新的解决刑事案件的方式,在中国受到了很多刑事法学研究者的青睐,针对传统的国家司法模式的弊端恢复性司法似乎为我国的刑事司法改革和刑事一体化进程提供了一种新思路.然而,实践上升到制度化规范化终归需要理论的论证支撑在法律体系内部传统的犯罪观念的更新、被害人主体地位的回归、罪行法定原则从绝对到相对的转变均为恢复性司法的合理性提供依据.同时,后现代主义哲学为恢复性司法提供了统一社会学语境下的论证,为恢复性司法的成长发展铺平了道路.     

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。     

恢复性司法理念下的中国刑事和解制度——兼评“当事人和解的公诉案件诉讼程序”

本文重点在于以恢复性司法理念为核心,探讨特别程序中的刑事和解内容,包括刑事和解与恢复性司法理念的契合;刑事和解适用范围的局限性;刑事和解程序的适当性和公安机关在刑事和解中的权利。     

犯罪的未成年人保护与恢复性司法引入探讨

近些年,恢复性司法在国外刑事司法改革中获得了较大发展,我国也开始进行恢复性司法本土化尝试。对于未成年人来说,引入恢复性司法有助于未成年人的社会化,有助于社会秩序稳定,也有助于被害人的权益保护。本文分析了恢复性司法在国外的兴起以及恢复性司法的内涵,接着分析了我国目前未成年案件处理存在的弊端,最后提出了我国未成年案件引入恢复性司法的对策措施。     

浅析恢复性司法的理论基础

作为与传统刑事司法相异的新型司法模式,恢复性司法认为犯罪不是对国家造成侵害,而是对被害人和社区造成侵害,因此。恢复性司法从产生以来,就受到广泛的争议,但恢复性司法的存在是客观的,任何事物的存在都具有合理性,因此恢复性司法也受到普遍关注,世界上一些国家在刑事司法领域方面也普遍运用。由于恢复性司法的主要作用是使犯罪所受到的侵害结果最小化,并不在于使犯罪人得到惩罚,而是使犯罪人得到受害人和社区的谅解,重新修复因犯罪所破坏的社会关系。使犯罪人重新融入社区。本文主要围绕在恢复性司法框架下如果更好的保护被告人权利来进行分析。其在更好的保护被告人权益。     

恢复性司法简论

与传统的报应性司法相比，恢复性司法是一种通过恢复性程序实现恢复性结果的犯罪处理方法。它通过承认错误、分担并理解有害的影响、在补偿方面达成一致、就将来的行为构筑理解等四个步骤把犯罪人和受害人组织到一起，以便建立一个使犯罪人和受害人进入对话状态的“模式”，进而创造一个更加紧密的社区关系。本文通过对恢复性司法的基本理念及其所面临问题的阐述，提出在中国刑事立法与刑事司法中借鉴该制度的初步构想。     

恢复性司法在我国的试行及其理论研究述评

近年来，在我国一些地方恢复性司法实践已经出现。尽管在国家法律制度层面来看，我国对恢复性司法基本处于排斥的状态，但是，国内学者对恢复性司法的本土化研究所取得的成果，对推进我国的刑事司法改革，仍然具有一定的理论价值。     

论未成年人恢复性司法的合理性与局限性

恢复性司法是一种通过恢复性程序实现恢复性后果的非正式犯罪处理方法。为考察司法人员与公众对待确定未成年人恢复性司法制度态度,对法官、公众等不同群体作问卷调查,结果表明,法官和公众对未成年人司法制度的诸项改革基本认可。该制度的合理性表现在可减少刑事污点对未成年人的消极影响,有利于恢复受损的社会关系,对违法犯罪的未成年人有积极的矫正作用;其局限性体现在难以满足同罪同罚的刑法原则,难以避免替代性的承担责任的现象等。避免局限性的关键在于要解决恢复性司法与正式司法程序的关系问题。     

司法的恢复性与社会的和谐化——恢复性司法理论国际研讨会综述

在我国建设和谐社会的宏大工程中,刑事司法是极其重要的一环,因而对发端于西方且正试行于我国实践中的恢复性司法模式展开研究,具有重要的理论价值和现实意义.会议围绕恢复性司法的理论基础、价值取向、实践模式、具体运作及其引入中国的可行性等五个主题,进行了广泛而深入的研讨,取得了丰硕的成果.     

从社群主义拯救罪错少年——恢复性少年司法及其社区参与

少年司法固有的福利模式和刑事模式均无法单一地解决少年犯罪的问题,因而受到学界的批评.同时,以恢复社会关系,促进罪错少年回归社会为目标的恢复性少年司法似乎正在成为少年司法的“第三条道路”.从社会变迁的角度看,社会、社群和社区的发展变化对少年司法制度的发展具有巨大的影响力.我国的城市化和市民社会正处于迅速发展的阶段,社会、社群、社区的发展驱动了具有恢复性少年司法因素的少年司法的发展,这体现了社群主义的价值底蕴.我国不少地方的司法机关进行了恢复性少年司法的探索,其各个阶段均具有社区参与的因素.从社会发展的趋势看,城市化和市民社会的发展使恢复性少年司法的社区参与具有广阔的前景.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

论宽严相济政策指导下的刑事和解制度

刑事和解制度对构建社会主义和谐社会具有价值功能,与我国宽严相济刑事政策具有相融性。司法实践中,应将其统一于社会主义的法治理念、纳入现行法律的框架轨道、融于宽严相济的刑事政策之中进行探索和试行。刑事和解制度最终应转化为国内立法,以法律明文规定的形式加以规范。     

论我国刑事和解的理论基础与制度构建

刑事和解作为一种新型纠纷解决制度,立基于和合文化、恢复性司法、司法处遇个别化和利益共赢等理念,在司法实践中行之有效但又备受争议与质疑。厘清刑事和解的内涵,明晰刑事和解的适用范围与条件,进而设计不同诉讼阶段刑事和解的适用程序,解决现行刑事和解试点中的冲突与失范,应当成为制度化构建中国范式刑事和解的实然径路。     

论刑事和解在我国司法实践中的完善——以恢复正义理论为视角

近年来,肇始于西方的刑事和解成为了我国刑事法理论界和实务界研究的热点,司法机关更是对其进行了试点并取得了一定的成绩。由于对刑事和解内涵的把握存在一定的偏差,实践中司法机关大多把金钱赔偿作为实现加害人与被害人和解的唯一手段,致使公众对刑事和解不甚了解。以恢复正义理论为视角,从提倡和解手段的多样性、鼓励社区参加刑事和解程序和设立司法机关监督下的独立的调解机构等方面入手,对完善我国司法实践中的刑事和解大有裨益。     

Balancing justice goals: restorative justice practitioners’ views

Despite the importance of facilitators, staff, and volunteers to restorative justice programs, we know very little about what they think about the goals of restorative justice. This paper fills that gap by reporting the findings of a survey of restorative justice practitioners in Nova Scotia, Canada. Participants rated the importance of 29 justice-related goals such as punishment and accountability. The results show how respondents distinguish between, prioritize, and balance competing justice goals. A factor analysis shows how goals cluster together revealing more depth about how practitioners understand goals, such as accountability, that have different meanings depending on the context. The findings are particularly interesting because the restorative justice program in Nova Scotia is deeply embedded in the criminal justice system. The findings speak to concerns about whether programs rooted in the mainstream system risk being diluted by dominant criminal justice system discourses. I conclude that restorative justice practitioners can prioritize the values of restorative justice in a program that is deeply rooted in the mainstream criminal justice system.