认罪认罚从宽制度的体系性反思与建构

虽然认罪认罚从宽制度是在我国《刑事诉讼法》中得以正式确立的,但《刑事诉讼法》中涉及此制度的具体规定又都是操作层面的。据此,认罪认罚从宽制度的合理性并不能得以阐释。而依据我国《刑法》,对认罪认罚从宽制度的合理性则可以从形式逻辑、实质逻辑以及价值理念三个维度予以充分证成。由此可知,认罪认罚从宽制度本质上系《刑法》中的一种刑罚裁量制度,认罪认罚本质上是法定的从宽量刑情节。在定罪层面,犯罪嫌疑人、被告人只需自愿承认不法事实系其所为,即构成"认罪",而无需准确评价自身行为的法律性质并准确识别具体罪名;在量刑层面,"认罚"考察的重点是犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的悔罪态度和悔罪表现。应当通过刑法立法的方式将认罪认罚从宽制度与自首制度、坦白制度部分重叠地整合在一起,以避免"概念混同""重复评价"的错误倾向。     

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN PRETRIAL RELEASE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES: A COMPARISON OF HISPANIC,BLACK, AND WHITE FELONY ARRESTEES*

The present study uses data on the processing of felony defendants in large urban courts to examine Hispanic, black, and white differences at the pretrial release stage. The major finding is that Hispanic defendants are more likely to be detained than white and black defendants. And, racial/ethnic differences are most pronounced in drug cases. In fact, Hispanic defendants suffer a triple burden at the pretrial release stage as they are the group most likely to be required to pay bail to gain release, the group that receives the highest bail amounts, and the group least able to pay bail. These findings are consistent with a focal concerns perspective of criminal case processing that suggests Hispanics as a newly immigrated group are especially prone to harsher treatment in the criminal case process.     

刑事自由裁量权基本问题

刑事自由裁量权是指在刑事法适用过程中,涉及刑事法适用的官方人员在所适用的刑事法规则内容允许的范围内,有权在可以采取的多种行为中作出选择。刑事自由裁量权具有绝对性,同时也具有相对性。绝对性是指裁量行为是任意的,不受限制。相对性是指刑事自由裁量权仅仅是一种弱式自由裁量权。行使刑事自由裁量权的主体涉及公安人员、检察官和法官。公安人员和检察官行使的自由裁量权主要是依据刑事诉讼法的程序性权力。法官行使的自由裁量权除程序性权力之外,主要是依据刑法的实体性权力。     

法律推理视角中的法官自由裁量

法官自由裁量客观存在于法律推理过程中;审判三段论的大前提和小前提分别蕴涵着法官对适用法律和案件事实的自由裁量;在实质法律推理中法官通过价值判断进行自由裁量.     

起诉便宜主义相关问题评析

起诉便宜主义在当事人主义及职权主义诉讼结构的国家都已有广泛运用并出现了发展新趋势。我国应扩大起诉便宜主义运用的范围。起诉便宜主义是审判中心主义得以确立的前提。起诉便宜主义与“检警一体化”是不相容的 ,并集中反映了检察官的裁判职能。     

刑事诉讼强制措施的适用应遵守比例原则——兼论相关检察监督

刑事强制措施作为刑事诉讼的重要手段和保障措施长期以来得到了充分的运用,但法律有关强制措施强度及其适用的规定存在着明显不足,客观上导致其在实践中被不正确适用甚至滥用。引进比例原则,对强制措施的适用加以合理限制,使其与被追诉人适用的刑罚相谐调,有利于其在刑事诉讼中发挥合理效能。     

解读民事诉讼中的诚实信用原则

毋庸置疑,在民事诉讼中需要确立诚实信用原则,然而,如果我们不本着客观的态度认真审视诚实信用原则,而盲目地一味扩大诚实信用原则在民事诉讼中的功效,甚至将其诠释为实质上授权法官自由裁量权,其结果势必与希望确立当事人主义诉讼模式的目的背道而驰.结合司法权理论、诉讼模式对诚实信用原则的基本内涵及其功效等进行系统的阐释.     

法理学视野中的法官自由裁量权

法官自由裁量权的定位是司法改革中的重要问题。作者从法理学的角度对法官的自由裁量权进行了较全面的探讨。文章首先分析了法官自由裁量权的内涵 ,基于此 ,作者接着从哲学、法学和实践的角度对法官自由裁量权进行了考察 ,并对自由裁量权的存在根基进行了分析 ,最后就如何缓解法官自由裁量权中个性化的涉入提出了建设性的意见。     

关于消防行政执法中自由裁量权的几点思考

没有自由裁量权,现代行政将会失去其价值和意义.本文从自由裁量权的特征、存在的合理性及其法律监控和救济等几个方面对目前我国消防行政执法中存在的问题进行相关思考,并提出合理建议.     

Police professionalism and cynicism reconsidered: An assessment of measurement issues

A hierarchical logistic model is used to analyze data on Three Strikes-eligible offenders in California and the counties in which they are sentenced. The analysis finds that discretion is widely exercised by elected prosecutors and judges in the administration of Three Strikes. Discretion functions as a “safety valve” and preserves some sentencing proportionality, but may also allow political concerns to influence sentencing decisions. A more conservative political environment is strongly associated with stricter application of the law. Consistent with racial threat theory, eligible felons are more likely to receive Three Strikes sentences in counties with larger Latino populations. However, the size of the black population has no significant effect. Higher unemployment rates are associated with more stringent application of the law. Prosecutorial and judicial discretion benefits offenders unequally. Controlling for legally relevant factors, black offenders are more likely to receive Three Strikes sentences, while younger ones are less likely.