Is restorative justice for sexual crime compatible with various criminal justice systems?

In addition to the more conventional approaches of the criminal justice system, this article suggests that there is a need for restorative justice as another method of addressing sexual crime. In support of this view, the present article explores the possibility of a hybrid justice system based on a complementary relationship between restorative justice and the criminal justice system. An analysis of the limits of the criminal justice system and the need for restorative justice in the contentious area of sexual crime will be followed by a detailed examination of key justice considerations when trying to marry both criminal justice and restorative justice perspectives. Such considerations include: the meaning of justice; legislation; sentencing principles; due process; victims’ rights; and the location of restorative justice within/alongside/outside the criminal justice system. The aim of this article is to determine whether it is possible to reconcile two seemingly juxtaposed methods of justice delivery in the context of sexual crime in order to create a hybrid system of justice that best protects and responds to the rights and needs of victims and offenders.     

网络民意介入刑事司法之再反思——基于典型刑事案件的研究

网络民意介入刑事司法的合理性值得质疑。网络民意和刑事司法在刑事个案中的博弈时有发生。网络民意的主观性、非理性和不确定性同刑事司法的客观性、专业性和可预期性相抵触。网络民意介入刑事司法有违无罪推定原则和罪刑法定原则。最后,网络民意作为行使言论自由的一种方式,不得触及司法正义的底线。     

Theorising Children's Rights in Youth Justice: The Significance of Autonomy and Foundational Rights

This paper develops a theoretical approach to children's rights in youth justice, located within a wider rights‐based theory of criminal justice which emphasises the centrality of citizens' autonomy. Understanding what is special about children's rights in the youth justice system requires an understanding of how children's autonomy differs from that of adults. One difference is that within the legal system children are not considered to be fully autonomous rights‐holders, because childhood is a time for gathering and developing the assets necessary for full autonomy. These assets should be protected by a category of ‘foundational’ rights. It is argued that an essential component of a rights‐based penal system for children is that it should not irreparably or permanently harm the child's foundational rights. The concept of foundational rights can then underpin and strengthen international children's rights standards, including those relating to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, differential sentencing for children and adults and a rights‐based system of resettlement provision.     

人权保障目的优先论

诉讼以解决争议为目的,当事人在诉讼中具有平等的地位,诉讼的结果具有正义性和强制性;现代刑事诉讼的控方多由国家公诉机关充当,被告人的对抗力量得到了进一步加强,保障被告人权已经成为刑事判决的正当性的依据.诉讼以及现代刑事诉讼的这些本质特征决定了现代刑事诉讼应兼顾实现打击犯罪与保障人权两大目的,在二者发生冲突时,人权保障具有优先性的地位.     

刑期折抵制度的刑法精神

不仅要预防犯罪,还要保障人权、关怀人性、崇尚公正,这是当代刑法的基本精神所在。而刑期折抵制度因其彰显了当代刑法的人权保障功能,实践了当代刑法的人性关怀,体现了当代刑法的公平公正而弘扬了刑法的精神,是刑法走向现代化的重要表现和必然要求。     

荷兰刑事诉讼权利保障的法律基石

荷兰刑事司法受到了现代人权法律的深刻影响。在荷兰刑事诉讼过程中,诉讼权利保障主要依据国际性和地区性的人权条约以及相关国内法。荷兰刑事诉讼程序运作体现了对人权的真切关怀：荷兰签署加入了多部国际公约和欧洲区域公约,国际条约、欧洲人权法院的判例法都对荷兰刑事诉讼中的人权保障起到了重要作用。在国内法体系中,荷兰的《宪法》、《刑事诉讼法》以及其他法律也规定了刑事诉讼程序权利保障。荷兰的法院、检察机关组织运作体制和诉讼制度设计较为完备,保障了诉讼参与者在刑事诉讼程序中的权利。在刑事审前程序中,检察机关发挥了主导作用,但参与其问的侦查法官则对检察官和警察的侦查权形成了有效制衡。从刑事诉讼权利保障法律体系的整体而言,荷兰审前程序权利保障的体制属于适度的职权主义诉讼模式,而审判程序中的权利保障体制则兼采当事人主义和职权主义的混合式诉讼模式。     

刑法目的观转变简史——以德国、日本刑法的祛伦理化为视角

刑法的目的是刑事立法与司法的界限,是刑法学最为基本的问题.自启蒙以来,德日刑法目的观的不断流变表明,刑法目的由其所处的时代精神决定.在蔑视人权、专制统治时代,强调刑法目的是维护国家道义、社会伦理;在提倡保护人权、重视宪法、实行法治的时代,强调刑法目的是保护宪法性法益.当前,德日两国刑法学界一般认为,刑法的目的是保护(宪法性)法益,在刑事立法和司法中,应将单纯违背社会伦理而没有任何外部侵害性的行为排除在犯罪之外.     

论刑事司法权利的宪法保护

公民受刑事追究时享有一系列程序性权利 ,涉及人身自由和安全的保障 ,属于基本人权范畴。此类权利应当具有防范国家司法权力侵害的防御功能 ,因此仅仅通过刑事诉讼法予以确定和保护是不够的 ,还应当由宪法加以确定和保障。保障公民的刑事司法权利应当是尊重和保障人权的核心内容。借鉴各国宪法的规定以及有关国家宪法实践 ,我国应当完善公民刑事程序权利宪法保护。     

恢复性司法对我国刑事诉讼制度的影响

恢复性司法是一种不同于传统司法模式的新型司法模式,它寻求尽可能利用罪犯、受害者和社区的积极和自愿参与的方式,恢复受犯罪影响的所有当事方的一切权益。我国引入恢复性司法既具有刑事司法实践、刑事观念、刑事制度和社会发展的基础,也与我国当前的刑事诉讼制度存在一定冲突。恢复性司法实践与理念对我国刑事诉讼可能产生的影响,突出表现在刑事观念、诉讼制度和检察机关法律监督方式等诸多方面。     

Differences in attitudes toward gays and lesbians among criminal justice and non-criminal justice majors

The criminal justice system is supposed to protect and serve all members of the community equally; therefore, any prejudicial attitudes harbored by criminal justice students may negatively impact their job performance as future justice professionals. Four hundred and eighty-four students at a large Midwestern university were surveyed on their views toward gay and lesbian persons and issues. The responses of criminal justice majors were compared to the responses of students majoring in other fields. Criminal justice majors tended to have more negative views of gays and lesbians than students in other majors. However, there was not a significant difference between the two groups of students in their willingness to extend rights to and socialize with gay and lesbian individuals.     

全球化和刑事司法

刑事司法的全球化正在逐步成为现实。而且全球化的进程旨在在世界范围内采取联合行动预防和惩治某些特定的犯罪。然而,刑事司法全球化的构建需要建立在统一的刑事司法文化基础上,与修正的报应模式和法律与秩序模式不同的是,刑事司法全球化必须有整合一致的人权文化。提高个体、政治、社会和经济人权的整体文化,是保障建立刑事司法全球化的最佳途径,它服务于国际公共价值和秩序,同时还致力于社会公正,确保相关人员,特别是被害人和被告人的权利保障。     

和谐社会的刑事法治理性探讨

构建和谐社会需要实质的刑事法治,尤其需要高度重视、重新审视和检讨刑事政策的公正价值与谦抑宽容理性,合理兼顾犯罪防控和人权保障。在理论上,片面强调以报应主义论证刑法公正,把“刑法公正必然内在要求报应主义”这个命题作为一个“不言自明”的公理是存在很大疑问的。在刑事政策意义上的相对公正理性,不但内含了对犯罪规律的基本认识、对犯罪态势的基本判断、对可资利用的现实物质基础和精神文化资源的基本估价、对社会发展的基本考量、对人权尊重的基本态度,还内含了人性假设的基本立场以及在特定历史条件下的价值权衡和价值取向。现代刑事政策内含的谦抑宽容价值理念应当充分体现出最大限度地保障人权、最大限度地促进社会发展、最大限度地体现相对公正、最小限度地维持必要秩序这样一种“三大一小”理念;因此,现代刑事政策理念应当坚持“人权保障至上”、反对“犯罪防控至上”,坚持“公正至上”、反对“效率至上”。     

论犯罪控制视野中的刑事诉讼监督

犯罪控制并非程序正义的对立面,其目的之一即是对公民人权的保障。但是,犯罪控制的＂度＂把握不好就会有害于程序正义的实现。因此,有必要对犯罪控制进行＂度＂的控制,刑事诉讼监督即为方式之一,其关注点是人权与正义。新时期实施刑事诉讼监督,应坚持宽严相济刑事政策,吸取情境预防的经验,理顺法律监督内外部关系。     

论刑事司法中的人权保障

刑事司法中的人权保障是当前人权保障的首要内容。人权的基本含义是保护个体不受任何外来势力的命令和剥夺,自由体现自己的意愿。但具有抽象人权和具体人权的双重属性。个体人权到集合体人权的发展体现了人权内容的可变性。刑事司法中的人权侵犯现象不仅普遍存在,而且具有多样性。加强刑事司法中的人权保障,要全面树立人权保障观念,正确处理实体正义和程序正义的关系,完善和正确适用刑事程序制度和刑事实体制度。     

刑事诉讼法再修改之基本理念——兼及若干基本原则之修改

刑事诉讼法的修改是大势所趋 ,势在必行 ,其目标应力求将刑事诉讼法修改成为一部符合现代民主法治国家要求、与国际刑事司法准则相衔接、符合中国国情、形式完备的法典。为此必须更新理念 :应坚持惩罚犯罪与保障人权相结合 ;实体公正与程序公正并重 ;客观真实与法律真实相结合 ;公正优先并兼顾效率的原则     

《刑事诉讼法》修改凸显人权保障——论不得强迫自证有罪和非法证据排除条款

此次我国《刑事诉讼法》修改,规定了不得强迫任何人证实自己有罪,还增加了非法证据排除的规定。这些新增内容之间存在紧密联系,每一项又有各自的意义。"不强迫自证其罪"条款是"尊重和保障人权"的进一步体现,关系到我国刑事侦查、检察和司法部门的职责和个人权利的保障;非法证据排除是落实不强迫自证其罪的具体措施,通过约束侦查部门取证行为对侵犯个人权利提供了补救措施。这些都是我国《刑事诉讼法》在原则性和制度方面的重大修改。文章详细研究了新增加的这些条款的确切含义,指出其中的进步意义,分析了存在的问题,提出执行新增加的这些法律条文必须注意的事项。     

Defence lawyers and probation officers: offenders' allies or adversaries?

The shift in recent decades towards an explicitly punitive agenda for criminal justice in Western jurisdictions has been well-documented in the criminological literature. People accused of offences and convicted offenders progress through a punitive criminal justice system replete with crime control values. Furthermore, in criminal justice policy development, the notion of victims' rights and the quest to rebalance the system in favour of victims now override concerns about rights. In the light of this state of affairs, it seems necessary to assess the role of practitioners within the criminal justice system who, by virtue of their professional mandates, can be expected to act as much needed allies for defendants as they progress through the system. These practitioners are defence lawyers and probation officers. Insufficient attention has been paid to the role of both and they have not previously been considered as two parts of a greater whole despite their obviously complimentary nature. In an effort to address this gap in knowledge, this article draws on two different studies to offer an exploratory discussion of how both practitioners interact with their clients and whether or not the practitioners can be viewed as effective allies of those implicated with the criminal process.     

The Right to Representation by Criminal Defense Counsel in Ethiopia: A Critical Analysis

This paper explores and critically reflects on the legal foundations and the practice of criminal defense in Ethiopia within the overall due process framework of a fair criminal trial. A brief review of Ethiopian constitutional history shows that the right to representation by legal counsel has been one of the fundamental due process rights granted to accused persons in criminal proceedings. The constitutional right to counsel is, however, not specified by detailed legal provisions. A logical consequence of this is that the enjoyment of this right is fraught with legal and practical problems. While the legal problems, among other things, include obscurity regarding the scope and content of the right, the practical problems include absence of public defense offices at district levels where the vast majority of criminal proceedings take place. Consequently, accused persons appear during trials without the aid of legal counsel; they are in fact deprived of their due process rights and marginalized. This has a number of legal ramifications both to the accused and the criminal justice system. In sum, the constitutional provision of the right to criminal defense counsel is undelivered and remains a hollow promise. It is therefore difficult to uphold the constitutional norms which underlie criminal trial process such as procedural justice, as well as the legitimacy of the government. The justice sectors are responsible to ensuring due process and equal protection. Substantial justice reforms are needed at all levels.     

Rethinking responses to 'domestic violence' in Australian indigenous communities

The United Nations' response to violence against women was to adopt the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women in December, 1993 that recognized indigenous women to be especially vulnerable to violence. Australia's initiatives during the 1990s included criminal justice reform, crisis service provision and community-based mediation programmes that have not proved altogether helpful for indigenous women. Given the intractable nature of violence against indigenous women, this paper holds that community-based programmes cannot work in isolation from criminal justice intervention. An approach to male-to-female violence, that views the criminal justice system not only as a means of punishment, but also as an institution for expressing human rights norms is advocated.     

How many tiers of criminal justice in England and Wales? An approach to the limitation on fair trial rights

This article proposes a recognition of five tiers of criminal justice reflecting five degrees of limitation on fair trial rights instead of the traditional notion of two tiers of indictable and summary processes in England and Wales. Over the last 15 years, the radical transformation of summary criminal processes has challenged the idea of ‘two tiers of justice’. Such measures as preventive orders, out-of-court disposals and regulatory offences process, which are characterised by higher levels of restriction on due process rights in comparison with the traditional summary process in Magistrates’ Court, should be considered new tiers.