Desistance and Legitimacy: The Impact of Offender Notification Meetings on Recidivism among High Risk Offenders

Legitimacy-based approaches to crime prevention assume that individuals will comply with the law when they believe that the law and its agents are legitimate and act in ways that are “fair” and “just.” Currently, legitimacy-based programs are shown to lower aggregate levels of crime; yet, no study has investigated whether such programs influence individual offending. Using quasi-experimental design and survival analyses, this study evaluates the effectiveness of one such program—Chicago’s Project Safe Neighborhoods’ (PSN) Offender Notification Forums—at reducing individual recidivism among a population of returning prisoners. Results suggest that involvement in PSN significantly reduces the risk of subsequent incarceration and is associated with significantly longer intervals that offenders remain on the street and out of prison. As the first study to provide individual-level evidence promoting legitimacy-based interventions on patterns of individual offending, out study suggests these interventions can and do reduce rates of recidivism.     

Turning defiance into compliance with procedural justice: Understanding reactions to regulatory encounters through motivational posturing

This paper uses Braithwaite's motivational posturing framework to explain how individuals react to encounters with regulatory authorities. Of interest is whether procedural justice can reduce defiance and improve self‐reported compliance among individuals who are either resistant or dismissive of regulatory authority. Using longitudinal survey data collected from tax offenders (Study 1), and individuals who had a recent police‐citizen interaction (Study 2), it will be shown that procedural justice can promote compliance behavior. Procedural justice is also found to be effective for reducing resistant forms of defiance over time, but not dismissive defiance. Further, the results reveal that neither resistant defiance nor dismissive defiance moderate the effect of procedural justice on compliance, suggesting procedural justice works equally well for both low and high resisters and low and high disengagers. Finally, an unexpected result reveals that resistance, but not dismissive defiance, mediates the effect of procedural justice on self‐reported compliance behavior. The findings have implications for procedural justice research and for the regulation of defiance.     

浅析诉访分离对政法工作的新挑战

近年来,涉法涉诉信访案件居高不下,“群体访”、“越级访”、“重复访”情况时有发生,信访人及近亲属缠访、闹访情况比较严重.依法妥善解决涉法涉诉信访问题,诉访分离是关键.诉访分离是解决涉法涉诉信访问题的有效途径,政法机关唯有理性改革、整合资源、完善机制、正确面对,才能适应修改后的民事诉讼法和司法改革的需要,才能引导好、处理好、解决好涉法涉诉信访难题.     

Financial industry groups' adaptation to the post‐crisis regulatory environment: Changing approaches to the policy cycle

This article explores the advocacy efforts of financial industry groups since the financial crisis. I describe key changes in the post‐crisis financial regulatory environment and argue that financial industry groups have adapted their advocacy strategies to these new conditions in innovative ways. Faced with a more challenging environment, financial industry groups have shifted their emphasis along the different stages of the policy cycle. Specifically, increased issue salience and a strained policy network have weakened financial industry groups' capacity to veto regulatory proposals at the stage of actual policy formulation. Focusing on the advocacy strategies of the global banking and derivatives industries, I show evidence that the response has been to invest in more subtle advocacy strategies which focus on other stages of the policymaking cycle. Self‐regulatory moves attempt to affect the agenda setting stage of policymaking, and a strong focus on the timing, rather than the content of new regulations, has attempted to affect the implementation stage. Such a transformation of advocacy strategies differs sharply from most depictions of financial industry groups simply “blocking” regulatory change since the global financial crisis.     

辩论主义的根据

对辩论主义的根据,理论上存在本质说、手段说、防止意外打击说、程序保障说、多元说、法探索主体说、信赖真实协同确定说等观点,它们从不同的角度论证了实行辩论主义的必要性。由于现代民事诉讼法的价值理念包括实体价值和程序价值两个方面,并且民事诉讼在客观上乃民事诉讼法和民事实体法共同作用的“场”,因而辩论主义的确立和贯彻,有其实体根据和程序根据,是以此为基础的多元根据的必然要求。     

试论程序辩护

程序辩护是刑事诉讼民主、文明的体现,在我国,无论诉讼理论还是司法实践对程序辩护的关注明显不足。因此有必要对程序辩护的涵义、内容、价值作深入分析,进而提出完善程序辩护的对策建议。     

解读“技术侦查”与“乔装侦查”——以《刑事诉讼法修正案》为中心的规范分析

第十一届全国人民代表大会第五次会议通过了《关于修改<中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法>的决定》(即《刑事诉讼法修正案》),明文规定在《刑事诉讼法》第二编第二章第七节后增加第八节"技术侦查措施"。但是,《刑事诉讼法修正案》在技术侦查措施的立法技术上采取了"概括授权"的方式,即仅笼统规定侦查机关对于危害国家安全犯罪、恐怖活动犯罪、黑社会性质的组织犯罪、重大毒品犯罪或者其他严重危害社会的犯罪案件,根据侦查犯罪的需要,经过严格的批准手续,有权采取技术侦查措施,而并未明确列举可采取的技术侦查措施的具体种类和手段。与此相关,《刑事诉讼法修正案》在"技术侦查措施"这一章节下同时授权公安机关为了查明案情,在必要的时候,经公安机关负责人决定,可以由有关人员隐匿其身份实施侦查,此即"乔装侦查措施"。问题在于,《刑事诉讼法修正案》在乔装侦查措施的立法技术上同样采取了概括授权的方式,除列举性地规定了作为乔装侦查方式之一的"控制下交付"之外,并未在立法上明文列举乔装侦查措施的具体类型和方式,其结果是造成《刑事诉讼法修正案》中"技术侦查措施"、"乔装侦查措施"等基础概念含义不清、相关法条内容模糊,减损了法条的可操作性,威胁到司法的确定性,可能直接或间接地冲击《刑事诉讼法》保障人权和打击犯罪的终极目的。《刑事诉讼法修正案》施行在即,上述基础概念的界定问题不解决,司法实务中将无法正确操作《刑事诉讼法修正案》中与"技术侦查措施"和"乔装侦查措施"相关的程序与制度。因此,应运用法律解释的方法对"技术侦查措施"和"乔装侦查措施"这两个基础性概念进行规范解释,勘定"技术侦查措施"和"乔装侦查措施"的合理内涵与外延。     

违法侦查行为的程序性制裁效果研究——以非法口供排除规则为中心

不断出现的冤案及其背后的违法侦查问题使整个刑事司法的公信力日趋式微。学界和司法部门最高层认识到,只有通过建立非法证据排除规则,剥夺违法侦查者非法取证的利益,才能促使其依法取证。此谓程序性制裁。但是,在目前的机制下,由于我国违法侦查的发现几率极低、无法定罪的成本极小和次级制裁机制的乏力,程序性制裁根本无法成为依法取证的"激励机制"。因此,如果要使程序性制裁的威慑效果发挥作用,必须建立有效的违法侦查行为发现机制,把非法证据排除真正转变为违法侦查的成本,并使法院真正具备作出无罪判决的能力。     

中国特色刑事诉讼制度的重大发展

刑事诉讼法修改在坚持从我国基本国情出发,循序渐进地推进我国刑事诉讼制度的完善;坚持统筹处理好惩罚犯罪与保障人权的关系;坚持着力解决在惩治犯罪与维护司法公正方面存在的突出问题原则下,贯彻了"尊重和保障人权"的宪法原则,对证据制度、辩护制度、强制措施、侦查程序、审判程序、执行程序等方面作了完善,是中国特色刑事诉讼制度的重大发展。但在取得很大成绩的同时,问题与不足也是客观存在的,还需要进一步完善,并通过司法解释的出台和实施细则的制定加以弥补。     

对修改后的《民事诉讼法》中公益诉讼制度的理解

本次修改民事诉讼法建立公益诉讼制度,主要是为了解决以下问题：一是随着环境污染、消费者权益保护等涉及社会公共利益问题日益突出,社会各界呼吁建立公益诉讼制度,而现行《民事诉讼法》第108条对原告主体资格限定为与本案有直接利害关系的公民、法人和其他组织,人民法院受理公益诉讼存在法律障碍;二是部分实体法对原告主体资格作出扩张性规定,如《海洋环境保护法》第90条规定海洋监督管理部门可以代表国家对责任者提起损害赔偿诉讼,但程序法规定的缺失,导致诉讼救济渠道不畅、法律保护不力,且存在着法律之间不够协调等问题。但是,基于我国国情,目前立法不宜走得过急,而应先集中解决制约公益诉讼开展的起诉条件问题,即设定公益诉讼的案件范围和确定提起公益诉讼的主体资格。至于公益诉讼的其他问题,留待以后总结经验后再逐步作出规定。