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。     

论税收法定原则的司法化

税收法定原则的司法化是“全面落实税收法定原则”的必然要求,而传统理论疏漏了其中的司法内涵,导致税收法定原则出现了作为基本原则却难以直接指导和适用于税收司法的悖论。鉴于税收法定原则与罪刑法定原则的亲缘性,发展相对成熟的罪刑法定原则可以为完善税收法定原则的内涵构成提供三点启示。同时,结合税收法定原则的固有内容,税收法定原则的司法化应当在适用范畴上向司法原则扩围,价值层次上向实质正义升华,法定程度上向相对法定适当松动。据此,三路并进,税收法定原则的司法内涵得以全面、系统的补漏。税收法定原则司法内涵的完善将有助于打破税收法定原则司法化的理论困局,助推“全面落实税收法定原则”法治图景的实现。     

Observer determination of the make,model, and year of questioned vehicles

Often, criminal acts involving a vehicle are caught on digital video surveillance systems. While potentially useful for an investigation, the recording conditions are typically less than optimal for the extraction of key information for the identification of the perpetrator, such as a license plate. Providing the make, model and year of a questioned vehicle is a common request for examiners, to narrow the field of potential suspect vehicles. This study seeks to compare the performance of a nonpeer-reviewed make, model, and year determination between two separate groups, specifically, trained forensic image examiners and nontrained individuals. Results show that even with varied image capture conditions and quality, the trained forensic image examiners more correctly and completely identified the test group of questioned vehicles make, model, and year.     

Analysis of off-farm work decisions among smallholder farm households in Burkina Faso

This article investigates off-farm work decisions by smallholder farm households. Using data on 1,101 households from Burkina Faso, it demonstrates that in addition to the usual household socio-demographic characteristics, remittances, access to information and beneficiary of specific training affect off-farm work decisions, as well as rainfall factors and idiosyncratic health shocks. Community characteristics such as accessibility and number of inhabitants are also key factors. While suggesting that off-farm work is less likely to be undertaken for accumulation purposes, these results have important policy implications. In particular, policy measures should consider each segment as a separate entity.     

Shaking off the neoliberal shackles: “democratic emergence” and the negotiation of democratic knowledge in the Middle East North Africa context

ABSTRACT

There is a general assumption in democracy promotion that liberal democracy is the panacea that will solve all political and economic problems faced by developing countries. Using the concept of “good society” as analytical prism, the analysis shows that while there is a rhetorical agreement as to what the “good society” entails, democracy promotion practices fail to allow for recipients’ inclusion in the negotiation and delivery of the “good society”. Contrasting US and Tunisian discourses on the “good society”, the article argues that democracy promotion practices are underpinned by neoliberal parameters borne out from a reliance on the transition paradigm, which in turn leave little room to democracy promotion recipients to formulate knowledge claims supporting the emergence of alternative conceptions of the “good society”. In contrast, the article opens up a reflective pathway to a negotiated democratic knowledge, which would reside in a paradigmatic change that consists in the abandonment of the transition paradigm in favour of a “democratic emergence” paradigm.     

论互联网时代诽谤罪的公诉范围

我国刑法对诽谤罪采取自诉为主、公诉为补充的双轨制模式。由于刑法但书“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”的公诉依据具有模糊性,同时司法解释本身缺乏解释力和可操作性,存在同义解释、近义解释等问题,加剧了公诉诽谤罪和其他罪名之间的冲突和竞合,特别是当被害人为地方领导干部时,诽谤罪的公诉权在实务中存在被滥用风险,部分限制公诉权的要件在实务中被淡化甚至忽略。从相对狭义的角度看,“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”只有在行为人对侵犯个体法益具备主观故意,但对侵犯社会法益或国家法益不具备主观故意(或无法证明其具备故意)的情形下,才有其独特的法律适用价值并不与刑法其他罪名相冲突。为妥善处理和平衡诽谤犯罪中惩治犯罪和保障人权的关系,适应互联网时代的内外部变化,建议通过修改我国刑法,将诽谤罪区分为情节不严重、情节严重、情节特别严重的三种形态,为充分保障宪法权利,情节不严重的不作为犯罪处罚;为充分保障自诉权,情节严重的为绝对告诉乃论;为依法惩治犯罪,对符合特定形式要件和实质要件,情节特别严重的诽谤犯罪可以依法公诉,以维护网络信息秩序。     

“河长制”优化研究

"河长制"全面实施以来,我国河流管理与保护成效显著。"河长制"确认各级河长在河流管理保护中的职责,通过对河长每年工作履职情况进行严格考核并实施严格追责等措施,促进了我国水环境和水生态质量的改善并向长久保持。在实践中,我国"河长制"面临着本质偏离、考核异化、多元共治欠缺的困境,使得河流治理容易出现短期、反弹等现象,影响了"河长制"的实效。为此必须通过明晰各级河长的责任,确保以责任驱动"河长制"工作;建立多层面的科学完善的考核指标体系;坚持多元共治,弱化对行政权力的依赖来优化"河长制"制度,保障"河长制"的长效化、法治化。     

论行政程序在大数据下的内涵变迁

大数据时代的到来,形成了数据的普遍化和社会化,传统行政法治的内涵也因此受到了巨大冲击,行政程序作为行政法治的核心要素无疑不能例外。这既影响到行政程序在行政法中的地位、价值、内容和运行,也影响到行政程序的规制模式和构型设计。正因如此,大数据背景下行政程序规制应由粗放向精确、由程式向有序、由定性向定量、由感性向理性变迁。在行政程序构型上,应由板块式到结构式、由自洽式到自证式、由博弈式到分配式、由套路式到效率式转换,以体现行政程序的时代特性和科学内涵。     

新时代提升党员干部政治能力问题研究--基于安徽省的调查与思考

政治能力是新时代党员干部第一位的能力。当前党员干部政治能力建设中还存在着政治敏锐性不高、政治定力不足、政治担当不够、政治执行力不强等问题,究其原因,既有主观方面的因素,也有客观方面的因素。因此,新时代提升党员干部政治能力,必须从加强党的长期执政能力建设出发,从党员干部个人和党组织主客观两个方面切入,既靠党员干部自身努力内外兼修提升政治能力,也要靠组织培养,充分发挥党组织政治功能。     

What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?

In response to research demonstrating that irrelevant contextual information can bias forensic science analyses, authorities have increasingly urged laboratories to limit analysts' access to irrelevant and potentially biasing information (Dror and Cole (2010) [3]; National Academy of Sciences (2009) [18]; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2016) [22]; UK Forensic Science Regulator (2015) [26]). However, a great challenge in implementing this reform is determining which information is task-relevant and which is task-irrelevant. In the current study, we surveyed 183 forensic analysts to examine what they consider relevant versus irrelevant in their forensic analyses. Results revealed that analysts generally do not regard information regarding the suspect or victim as essential to their analytic tasks. However, there was significant variability among analysts within and between disciplines. Findings suggest that forensic science disciplines need to agree on what they regard as task-relevant before context management procedures can be properly implemented. The lack of consensus about what is relevant information not only leaves room for biasing information, but also reveals foundational gaps in what analysts consider crucial in forensic decision making.