International Criminal Courts and Political Reconciliation

In A Moral Theory of Political Reconciliation, Colleen Murphy devotes a full chapter to arguing that international criminal trials make significant contributions to political reconciliation within post-conflict and transitional societies. While she is right to claim that these trials serve an important function, I take issue with her with respect to what that important function is. Whereas Murphy focuses on the contributions international criminal prosecutions might make to political reconciliation within the borders of transitional societies, I claim instead that their primary function is to restore order at the international level and to dispense justice. The aims of justice are not always consistent with the aims of reconciliation. Moreover, several features of international criminal trials should give us pause with respect even to how well, in fact, they manage to serve the ends of international justice.     

论刑事政策与刑法

刑事政策可表述为:国家或政党基于犯罪态势而制定的控制(预防)犯罪的方略,可分为基本的刑事政策和具体的刑事政策。指导刑法立法的刑事政策是基本刑事政策;影响刑法司法的刑事政策是具体刑事政策。只有在较长时期内涉及全过程的主要的刑事政策才是基本刑事政策。具体刑事政策,它相对于基本刑事政策而言,指在犯罪控制的某一领域或某一阶段中起作用的刑事政策。就刑事政策与刑法立法来讲,刑事政策即基本刑事政策是刑法的灵魂,刑事政策高于刑法;就刑事政策与刑法司法来讲,刑法则高于刑事政策即具体刑事政策,具体的刑事政策只能在刑法的框架内运作,但可以影响定罪与量刑。     

刑事政策与刑法关系论纲

刑事政策与刑法的关系十分复杂。在理论上国内外学者对此有不同的认识。从中国的实践看,两者关系经历了一个复杂的演化过程:在不同的历史时期,法律和政策有不同的定位和分工,自新民主主义革命时期以来,政策与法律的关系曾经发生过很多次的换位,政策相对于法律的地位作用也因为时间、空间、法律完备程度和法律权威程度的不同而发生了很多变化。这些发展变化既改变了政策本身,也改变了法律或者法治。从应然的追求看,在宏观意义上,刑事政策优位于刑法;在规范的层次上,两者有各自发挥作用的界域,应各就各位,互不替代,但应相互制约,协调发展,相互推动,共同进步。两者关系的核心应是在区别两者前提下的互动的制约与促进关系。     

刑事诉讼中的刑事政策:以社会理论为基础的分析理路(一个导论)

中国刑事司法实践基本上一直沿袭着旧有的刑事政策以及与此有关的惯习操作 ,在程序上与刑事诉讼的法治化要求多有抵牾 ,刑事政策的合理化是以“自上而下”的权力型改革模式作为推动刑事诉讼法治化的根本动力。虽然刑事政策逐渐受到学者的关注 ,但因囿于价值判断和视野局限而造成对社会事实缺乏有效的分析 ,所以 ,对“理解”中国刑事司法的问题助益无多。而以一定的社会理论为分析理路 ,或许是研究刑事诉讼中的刑事政策的一种可行的方法     

刑事政策与功能主义的刑法体系

在刑事政策与刑法体系的关系处理上,存在分离模式与贯通模式两种类型。我国当前的处理方式应归入分离模式,该模式的缺陷在于,不仅教义学理论的构建缺乏刑事政策上的目标指引,而且刑事政策的运作可能突破教义学的体系性逻辑。为克服这种缺陷,我国有必要改采贯通模式,将刑事政策的目的性设定与法教义学的构建相贯通。功能主义的刑法体系能够合理地解决体系的自主性与应变性之间的紧张关系,它使得犯罪论的构建不再以应罚性作为主导,而以需罚性作为主导,由此重塑犯罪阶层体系。刑法体系的功能化发展,易于对法的客观性与统一性形成冲击,并对个体自由的保障构成威胁。这样的危险根源于其方法论上的目的性思维。因此,有必要构建一种二元性的规制框架,即通过刑法教义学的内部控制与合宪性的外部控制来实现对功能主义刑法体系的正当性控制。     

国际刑事法院证人规则研究

作为国际法发展的最新成果,国际刑事法院的证人规则代表着两大法系互相借鉴的最新趋势,代表着未来国际证据法发展的大体方向。本文试就国际刑事法院的证人规则(证人资格与范围、证人权利与义务、证人保护等)作初步讨论,并由之谈及对中国刑事立法的启示。     

司法新举措：法院里的人民调解工作室

去年,上海市杨浦区联合人民调解委员会在法院设立了驻法院人民调解工作室。这一新举措不仅有利于缓解诉讼压力、节约司法资源、节省当事人的诉讼成本,而且还将对我国的人民调解制度及司法制度的改革与发展产生积极的影响。     

Strict Adherence to Law by Courts in Criminal Trials

The reinforcement of legality and public order by every possible means, and the fuller protection of the rights of Soviet citizens are inviolable conditions for the successful building of a communist society in our country. In connection therewith, there is a marked increase in the demands made upon the judicial agencies, whose work must be performed with exact and undeviating execution of the laws.     

论公诉的刑事政策

刑事政策一般是指国家根据犯罪的规律 ,为预防犯罪、惩治犯罪而采取的各种方针、原则和措施。广义的刑事政策 ,包括刑事法律确立的基本原则。因法律明文规定的原则 ,如罪刑法定、罪刑相适应、无罪推定等原则己为人们熟知 ,在此讨论的刑事政策 ,指我国为预防犯罪、惩治犯罪而采取的体现我国法律精神的各种方针、原则和措施。理论界公认的刑事政策有 :社会治安综合治理方针 ,对犯罪惩办与宽大相结合的政策 ,预防犯罪的刑罚原则 ,依法从重从快的“严打”方针 ,惩罚罪犯与改造教育相结合的政策 ,诉讼经济原则 ,刑罚个别化等区别对待的原则 ,公共…     

“宽严相济”与“两极化”之辨析

我国的宽严相济刑事政策与美国的两极化刑事政策在生成背景、基本含义、精神实质等方面都有显著区别,不宜混淆。两极化刑事政策的生成背景是矫正刑运动的危机及其反动,其基本含义是重重和轻轻二元分立、两极分化,其精神实质是重刑主义。而宽严相济刑事政策的生成背景是对严打刑事政策的反思和纠正,其基本含义是根据犯罪的严重程度和犯罪人的人身危险性大小实行宽区别对待、宽严互济、互补,其精神实质是宽严适度、侧重宽缓。     

法院内部控制刑事裁判权的方法与反思

我国法院内部对刑事裁判权的控制有着独特的方法与逻辑。在方法上,有严格的流程监控和细密的考核指标,即过程控制与结果控制。这种控制刑事裁判的方法体现了独特的制度逻辑,而制度实践者则基于不同的动因或主动或被动地选择了该方法。法院内部控权模式有利有弊,总体来说,过程控制在一定程度上消解了结果控制的效果,结果控制则又在一定程度上加强了过程控制,如此循环导致对刑事裁判权的控制不但成效不大,且产生了一定的副作用。法院内部控权模式存在双重悖论,未来对刑事裁判权的控制应遵循基本的司法规律。     

Female Defendants and Criminal Courts in Taiwan: An Observation Study

It has long been contended that the criminal justice system extends the influence of patriarchy in society. Feminist and critical criminologists have produced countless examples of the male domination in the criminal justice system. Critics of law and criminal justice point out that the system treats women the same way as does the mainstream society (MacKinnon 1989, 1991; Smart 1989). Therefore, criminal justice cannot be expected to remedy injustices legally before they are recognized as injustices socially. Sociological studies in crime and delinquency have also neglected gender issues. By employing the qualititaive research approach of field observation, this study focuses on how practitioners in three criminal courts in Southern Taiwan interact with female defendants. The findings point out that the court system was unbending in treating the observed defendants in a condescending manner, and expedited the trial process to pronounce the defendants’ guilt. The study aims to offer explicit and nuanced empirical evidence of how gender complicates courtroom interaction. Evidence from this study also forms the basis for policy recommendations and future reform in the criminal justice system.     

Delinquent Careers and Criminal Policy

This article critically examines the prevailing judicial waiver statutes that require juvenile court judges to make individualized determinations as to a youth amenability to treatment and danger to society. It concludes that such decisions cannot be made with an acceptable degree of accuracy using current methods of clinical diagnosis or prediction, and that the broad discretion given judges in making transfer decisions results in inconsistent and discriminatory applications that undermine the fairness and predictability of the process. In light of the expanding research on the development of delinquent careers, it contends that a legislative redefinition of juvenile court jurisdiction that automatically excludes certain youths from the juvenile court on the basis of their present offenses and past records not only identifies more accurately those youth who should be prosecuted as adults, but also increases the fairness, rationality, and predictability of the adulthood determination. It suggests that an application of "just deserts" principles to the juvenile court waiver decision could have salutary consequences for youths, the juvenile and criminal justice systems, and social control.