回归法律规范:刑事值班律师制度适用问题再反思

目前我国刑事值班律师制度规范背后折射出有权机关抑制辩方权利的倾向。根据法律规范意旨,只要被追诉人没有辩护人,国家就应“强制指派”值班律师介入案件。将“约见”解读为国家指派值班律师需以被追诉人申请为前提,这混淆了律师会见与介入案件的关系,且将国家责任转嫁给个人,弱化了对被追诉人获得最低限度法律援助权利的保障。相关规范性文件将值班律师阅卷权能限定为“查阅”,但基于法律援助法第37条的文义、控辩平等之程序公正底线要求等因素,值班律师阅卷权能还应包括“摘抄”“复制”。《法律援助值班律师工作办法》第10条第2款规定,值班律师有量刑异议时,只要其认可犯罪嫌疑人认罪认罚的自愿性,就应在具结书上签字。这是对值班律师功能“见证化”的公开宣示,与2018年刑事诉讼法第201条的意旨以及值班律师实质性参与量刑协商的改革要求相矛盾。值班律师应被赋予拒绝签字的权利。“实质性参与”应是目前完善值班律师制度的基本方向。     

Theoretically,yes, but also empirically? How the corruption-turnout link is marginally explained by civic duty to vote

Corruption is generally associated with low electoral participation. A recurrent explanation of the negative correlation between corruption and electoral turnout involves the rational calculus of the costs and benefits of voting. More specifically, in a context of high corruption, citizens do not vote because they think that doing so will hardly affect policy decisions. A number of influential studies has argued that corruption affects citizens' electoral engagement in a different and more fundamental way as well: It erodes their sense of civic duty to vote in elections. Yet, a relation between corruption and civic duty and a mediation effect of the attitude remains empirically untested. This article examines empirically whether perceived corruption and sense of civic duty are correlated, as well as whether civic duty mediates the relation between perceived corruption and turnout. It does so with the pooled Making Electoral Democracy Work data, as these data contain measures on individuals’ sense of civic duty to vote in four election levels, namely, national, regional, European, and municipal elections, as well as on their perception of corruption in each of these government levels, and on their participation in these four election levels as well. I find a weak relation between perceived corruption and civic duty, and a low mediation effect of the attitude (compared with rational factors), irrespective of the election level.     

Tarasoff in Missouri: The jurisprudence of a mental health provider's duty to warn and protect non-patients of potential risks from patients

In 1976, the Supreme Court of California issued its well-known Tarasoff Principle. From this principle, other courts found a duty to warn, and some found more than just a duty to warn, a duty to protect. As courts in other states adopted a version of the Tarasoff Principle, they issued a wide variety of third-party liability rules. In light of the dynamic, everchanging Tarasoff jurisprudence in the United States and recent relevant appellate court opinion in Missouri, a timely updated summary and update of Tarasoff-related jurisprudence in Missouri is warranted. In the present analysis, we compiled the four appellate court decisions that pertained to the questions of Tarasoff-like third-party liability in the State of Missouri: Sherrill v. Wilson (1983), Matt v. Burrell (1995), Bradley v. Ray (1995), and Virgin v. Hopewell (2001). We reviewed all legal measures for clinicians to protect nonpatients in Missouri, not just those that relate to protecting nonpatients from violence as in a Tarasof-like scenario. Thus, this paper concisely provides a compendium of such options and allows for a meaningful comparison of which legal, protective measures are mandatory and which are permissive, thereby evoking the question of whether measures of protecting nonpatients from a patient's violent acts ought to be mandatory duties or permissive application of professional judgment.     

On the Tort of Negligence in Common Law Legal System

It is difficult for judicial practitioners to determine the liability of tort of negligence due to the fact that it has not been specially stipulated in the provisions of the Tort Liability Law or other civil laws and regulations in China. On the contrary, the principles of tort of negligence in common law legal system have been refined in judicial practice and provided the corresponding solution for determining the liability of tort of negligence. The author believes that the empirical research on the tort of negligence in common law legal system will help us to further strengthen the understanding and application of the Tort Liability Law in China. This article thus comprehensively surveys and researches the tort of negligence from the perspective of common law legal system.     

对我国姻亲继承合理性的再思考

根据我国《继承法》，不仅丧偶儿媳或女婿对公婆或岳父母尽了主要赡养义务后能成为第一顺序继承人，继兄弟姐妹间、旧社会形成的一夫多妻家庭中子女与生母以外的父亲的其他配偶间形成扶养关系的，也均互有继承权，该规定直接突破了世界通行的继承权仅在血亲及配偶范围内的传统基础。无论从继承权产生的基础，还是从姻亲继承产生的源流上分析，我国基于赡养扶助行为授予姻亲继承权都是对继承权基础的直接违背，也是对现实生活中民众继承习惯的背离。通过对姻亲的赡养扶助行为与继承权关系的分析，找出合理的路径与渠道对其实施赡养扶助行为后的权益进行补偿，始为正确的选择。     

美国无救助义务规则的修正

无救助义务是美国传统侵权法上的一项重要规则。由于社会组织结构的精细化使人与人之间的关系更加紧密了,容易出现牵一发而动全身的局面,如果还任由人们对他人的困境无动于衷可能会造成无法挽回的严重后果,加之作为与不作为的区分越来越小,故美国选择了一条侵权过失责任的改良道路,主张不作为不应该成为被告承担过失责任的障碍。而美国的司法判例和立法经验也告诉我们,一般无救助义务规则正经受两方面的侵蚀:一是扩大特殊救助义务的范围;二是通过制定法律承认一般救助义务。     

浅析不作为犯罪的义务来源

不作为犯罪是我国刑事犯罪的重要组成部分,它与作为犯罪一样具有严重的社会危害性。研究不作为犯罪,首先要明确不作为犯罪的义务来源,不作为犯罪的义务来源是不作为犯罪的核心问题,它包括四个方面:法律明文规定的义务,先行行为引起的义务,职务或业务上要求的义务以及法律行为引起的义务。除此之外,道德义务不应成为不作为犯罪的义务来源。     

职务犯罪黑数的解读与控制

职务犯罪黑数是指应当依法追究而未被追究刑事责任的职务犯罪行为数。职务犯罪黑数具有客观性、法定性、隐蔽性、动态性等特征。应当充分认识职务犯罪黑数产生的原因及危害,采取相应对策控制其增长。     

博弈视野下的职务犯罪侦查监督关系

最高人民检察院出台相关规定,确立了职务犯罪案件由上一级检察院决定逮捕的模式。从博弈论的角度看,职务犯罪案件决定逮捕权上提一级的模式实质上是确立了上级检察院侦监部门、下级检察院侦监部门和下级检察院自侦部门的侦查监督三角博弈关系。自职务犯罪案件决定逮捕权上提一级实施以来,司法实践中出现了一些问题,三角博弈关系在现实中处于失衡状态,究其原因在于博弈的前提规则的不完善。有必要重塑博弈规则,完善职务犯罪案件侦查监督的相关措施。     

论职务犯罪侦查中的控制下交付手段

在职务犯罪侦查中适用控制下交付既具有法理上的正当性，也具有实践的必要性，此次对刑事诉讼法修改已明确规定检察机关在职务犯罪侦查中可以运用控制下交付。因此，应从控制下交付的适用条件、实施主体、审批程序、法律后果以及国际合作五个方面对职务犯罪侦查中适用控制下交付进行具体的法律规制。