刑法中客观主义与主观主义之争的初步考察

与学派之争无关的主客观争议,有必要从刑法中客观主义与主观主义之争中予以剥离。刑法中客观主义与主观主义之争,其意义可分为两个维度。第一维度的客观主义与主观主义之争涉及刑罚对象的争论,即刑罚的对象究竟是对法益的侵害还是行为人的人身危险性;第二维度的客观主义与主观主义之争乃是在不法论意义上而言,即不法的成立是根据行为的客观面或是行为人的主观意思进行判断。客观主义与主观主义之争在我国刑法学中尚未真正展开,双方的论争缺乏针对性,且在概念的指涉与运用上充满混乱。就我国刑法的立场问题而言,有必要根据客观主义与主观主义之争的不同维度进行立场选择。在第一维度的客观主义与主观主义之争中,应采客观主义;在第二维度的客观主义与主观主义之争中,应采受客观主义严格约束的主观论,即一种以法益侵害为基础的二元的行为无价值论。     

Youth restorative justice conferencing: facilitator’s language – help or hindrance?

Youth crime is an ongoing concern in Australia. Victims, offenders and the community are all affected by crime and the current criminal justice approach seems both ineffective and inefficient. Restorative justice proponents have posited that their approach to justice through dialogue and negotiation in the conferencing process may be more effective than the traditional retributive justice. Restorative justice conferencing for young offenders is not, however, unfaultable in its ability to reduce the harm caused by crime or to reduce recidivism. The main focus of conferencing has been on the outcomes with limited attention paid to the process and its impact on a young offender’s sense of wrongdoing and remorse. There has been limited research undertaken into the oral competencies of young offenders in relation to their performance in conferencing, and equally limited studies on the specific use of language by facilitators. Other research has shown a coexistence of youth offending and developmental language and learning disabilities. The secondary study discussed in this paper reveals the language difficulties encountered by young offenders in the conferencing process. It is recommended that in order for young offenders to understand what they have been asked, to reflect on it, to express their thoughts and feelings, and for behavioural change to occur, the communication, both verbal and non-verbal, must be unambiguous, comprehensible and pitched at their individual demographic. More research is required into language use by conference facilitators and its impact on young offenders.     

但书、罪量与扒窃入罪

刑法修正案八生效以来,扒窃应否一律入罪、但书是否得为扒窃的出罪依据之争,困扰着我国刑法理论研究与司法实务。解决这一问题的理论前提是,建立对但书及其规制下的罪量类型、政策机能、体系定位、出罪机制的基本共识,消除刑法知识转型时代不同话语系统囿于语境差异的对话困难。通过以阶层犯罪论体系与我国刑法规定为背景,立足于刑法教义学与刑事政策的融通,分析我国刑法特有的罪量要素的类型与政策功能,可以认为,扒窃包含为但书所规制并须结合刑法的规范保护目的进行涵摄的罪量要素。从扒窃行为的客观不法与“扒手”的人的主观不法两个维度,才能揭示扒窃的规范含义,并据以依次判断扒窃行为是否该当扒窃型盗窃罪的构成要件。扒窃作为盗窃罪的不法行为定型,既表明我国刑法包含涵摄罪量要素,也展现了我国刑法以行为不法为基础,重视人的不法的新动向。     

An International Comparison of the Incidence of Public Sector Whistle‐Blowing and the Prediction of Retaliation: Australia,Norway, and the US

We compare results of several large‐scale survey studies of whistle‐blowing by public sector employees, from samples in Australia, Norway, and the United States. Specifically, we review incidence rates of wrongdoing, whistle‐blowing and retaliation, as perceived by thousands of respondents employed by many government agencies in these countries. Despite differences in measurement in the studies and variation in results, findings suggest that wrongdoing was quite frequently observed and was reported in many cases. Retaliation resulted for far fewer than half of the whistle‐blowers, in all three nations. We also compare findings from the various studies concerning variables that predicted retaliation against whistle‐blowers in the different samples. Differences in results across the three countries add to existing evidence that country and workplace cultures can affect the whistle‐blowing process.     

Should Law track Morality?

Does the moral status of an action provide in itself a non-instrumental, pro-tanto reason for a corresponding legal status—a reason that applies regardless of whether the law promotes a value that is independent of the law, such as preventing wrongdoing or promoting utility or distributive or retributive justice, regardless of the consequences of doing so? While the relation between morality and law is a familiar topic, this specific question is rarely discussed explicitly. Yet it seems to be controversial. The article highlights and considers this question, while focusing on the criminal law. It concludes that the answer is negative—there is no necessary relation between morality and law in this respect. Rather, there is a reason in favor of incorporating morality into the law only when this incorporation promotes a moral value that is independent of the law.     

Privatising war: assessing the decision to hire private military contractors

There has been a huge growth in the size and number of Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) in the last decade or so. In this context, the question of when, if ever, states should hire PMSCs to carry out military operations has gained particular urgency. In this paper, I defend the answer that states should do so whenever PMSCs will be the most effective agents available against a number of recent objections. All of these objections claim that considerations aside from the relative effectiveness of PMSCs should bear on the question. Some argue that there is something inherently morally problematic with hiring PMSCs, and thus infer that they should sometimes not be hired even when they are the most effective agents available. Others point to undesirable side-effects that hiring PMSCs is thought to cause, and claim that these should be taken into account when deciding whether to hire them. I argue, however, that all of these further considerations are either irrelevant to the decision or reducible to effectiveness.