构成要件符合性与客观处罚条件的判断

客观处罚条件与不法构成要件要素具有排斥关系。在判断后者的类型性特征时需借助客观归责理论。构成要件结果必须是构成要件行为类型性危险的相当性实现。基于此,丢失枪支不报罪中的“严重后果”属于客观处罚条件。在判断不法构成要件要素的违法性特征时,需考察该要素是否为构成要件行为的违法性提供实质根据。依此衡量,“情节严重”中的“严重”、“多次盗窃”中的“多次”、侵犯著作权罪中的“违法所得数额较大”等均是客观处罚条件。积极的客观处罚条件增加需罚性,消极的客观处罚条件减少需罚性,二者均具有限制处罚的机能,不会冲击责任主义。     

论诚信危机的社会心理及信用重塑

诚信危机是当前我国市场经济建设中面临的一个较为现实的社会问题。是一种在一定范围内存在的社会病态心理的体现，它的存在影响着我国市场经济的正常运行和社会风气的和谐。本文针对诚信危机产生的社会心理进。行了阐释和剖析，并对重塑诚信风尚提出了看法和建议。     

考试成败结果的复合原因、情感反应和行为决定试探

本研究采用问卷法探查小学生对考试成败结果的复合原因评定、情感反应和奖励、惩罚的行为决定。结果表明：１．韦纳的原因归因，情感、行动归因模式适用我国小学生；２．小学生能够理解复合原因在考试结果上的作用，并能依照所负的责任不同而表达情感和行为决定；３．三年级的学生开始具有辨别不同复合原因功能的认知水平，但还只是处于初级的萌发阶段，四年级以上的学生才能够比较全面地理解复合原因的内在含义，比较准确地分析复合原因的归因后果     

New visual technologies in court: directions for research

Litigation is being transformed by new visual communication technologies, including videoconferencing, PowerPoint, and computer animations. Yet the effects of these visual technologies on legal decision making are largely unknown. In order to understand better the most pressing issues surrounding technology in the courtroom, psychologists, lawyers, and representatives from technology companies and funding agencies attended a Research Conference on Courtroom Technology organized by the Federal Judicial Center. The goals of the conference were to identify issues raised by courtroom uses of new technologies that could be illuminated by empirical research and to suggest designs and methods for conducting that research. This paper emerged from that conference. The authors provide an overview of considerations that should guide research in this area, including a framework that takes into account features of the technology, the audience, and the legal strategy of the user of the technology. They outline a paradigm for conducting such research, illustrate it with several possible empirical studies of varying levels of experimental and conceptual complexity, and identify directions for subsequent research.     

Adolescents' Intergroup Attributions: A Comparison of Two Social Identities

This study investigated the intergroup perceptions of 2 social groups. English adolescents aged 14–15 years were asked to make causal attributions for various positive and negative behaviors performed by members of an in-group and an out-group. In the first condition (n = 45), participants rated members of their own peer group and members of a peer group to which they did not belong. Participants in the second condition (n = 45) rated English adolescents and members of a national out-group (either France or Germany). Results showed that participants in both conditions reported perceptions that were biased towards the formation of a favorable in-group evaluation. However, the relationship between intergroup discrimination and identification with the in-group was in the expected direction for participants in the peer group condition only. This observation is explained in terms of the potential level of identity threat posed by the prevalent intergroup context.     

论经济法调制主体及其工作人员的责任追究模式与分担方式

对经济法调制主体及其工作人员进行责任追究时,应以其违反了法定的调制程序而不是行为造成了实体损害为前提。调制主体本身不应当对其工作人员实施的普通违法调制行为承担责任,但基于实际需要,应代位承担赔偿责任,这种赔偿责任应纳入传统的国家赔偿责任。     

常设机构利润归属原则探析

当前的常设机构利润归属原则实际上是对独立实体和公平交易原则的限制适用。由于各国对该原则中相关重要概念的解释存在着分歧,并且该原则的适用很多情况下依赖于国内法的规定,因此,实践中容易产生双重征税和互不征税的后果。而解决这一问题的最佳方法,就是各国能够就常设机构利润归属问题达成更进一步的共识。     

试论我国著作权职务作品法律制度的完善

职务作品的著作权的原始归属问题 ,英美法系的“视为作者”原则与大陆法系的“创作人为作者”原则截然不同 ,且各有特点。我国的《著作权法》虽结合了两大法系的相关规定 ,但对“单位的优先使用权”及尊重创作者的精神利益等方面应予以修改和重视     

Attribution of crime motives biases eyewitnesses’ memory and sentencing decisions

In court, the basic expectation is that eyewitness accounts are solely based on what the witness saw. Research on post-event influences has shown that this is not always the case and memory distortions are quite common. However, potential effects of an eyewitness’ attributions regarding a perpetrator’s crime motives have been widely neglected in this domain. In this paper, we present two experiments (N?=?209) in which eyewitnesses were led to conclude that a perpetrator’s motives for a crime were either dispositional or situational. As expected, misinformation consistent with an eyewitness’ attribution of crime motives was typically falsely recognised as true whereas inconsistent misinformation was correctly rejected. Furthermore, a dispositional vs. situational attribution of crime motives resulted in more severe (mock) sentencing supporting previous research. The findings are discussed in the context of schema-consistent biases and the effect of attributions about character in a legal setting.     

Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts

There has been an increasing amount of research conducted on issues of procedural justice. Although this research has demonstrated that the type of procedure used to allocate outcomes has an independent influence on people's judgments of the fairness of a decision, there is growing empirical evidence that such judgments are influenced by the enactment of the procedure as well. Fairness concerns raised about the propriety of a decision maker's behavior during the enactment of procedures are representative of a desire forinteractional justice. In this paper, we present three studies that examine the effects of giving acausal account, or a justification, versus not providing a justification, on judgments of interactional fairness and endorsement of a decision maker's actions. In Study I, a laboratory study, ratings of interactional fairness and support for a manager were higher when subjects received a causal account that claimed mitigating circumstances for a manager's improper action than when they did not receive such a causal account. A second laboratory study replicated the same pattern of findings in two different organizational contexts. In addition, it was found that the perceived adequacy of the causal account was a critical factor explaining its effect. In Study 3, a field setting, ratings of both interactional fairness and procedural fairness were higher when a manager provided anadequate causal account to justify the allocation of an unfavorable outcome. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for research on interactional and procedural justice.