犯罪概念：刑法之内与刑法之外

犯罪属价值事实,是具体主体评价的对象,因此不存在犯罪的一般概念。由犯罪概念的主体性决定,研究犯罪概念问题,首先要明确犯罪概念的论域,不能把法律论域的犯罪概念与社会论域的犯罪概念相混淆。社会危害性是社会论域犯罪概念的本质,法律论域犯罪概念的本质则是法益危害性;观察和讨论法律论域的犯罪概念,应当在法律论域里,以本论域的理论原则和逻辑进行;如果不分法律论域还是社会论域,混在一起进行讨论,必然出现混乱。     

On Process of Land Expropriation: Outside Experiences and Inside Problems

符合“正当程序”是土地征收的合法性要件之一.而“正当程序”的满足需要一系列制度作为支撑条件,美国和法国的法律对此都有相似的规定.中国的土地征收制度重实体而轻程序,程序设计总体而言存在诸多不足之处.如何进一步修改完善是一个复杂的命题.     

土地征收的程序合法性要件分析——域外经验与中国问题

符合"正当程序"是土地征收的合法性要件之一。而"正当程序"的满足需要一系列制度作为支撑条件,美国和法国的法律对此都有相似的规定。中国的土地征收制度重实体而轻程序,程序设计总体而言存在诸多不足之处。如何进一步修改完善是一个复杂的命题。     

From the Inside Out: Efforts by Homeless Women to Disrupt Cycles of Crime and Violence

The premise that childhood victimization is a risk factor for crime and violence in adulthood finds general support, though few agree that there is a direct causal relationship. Mediating factors and intervening variables are often studied. Rarely investigated, however, are the complex and difficult dynamics experienced by those enmeshed in these “cycles of violence.” In this study we explore the struggles of homeless women to disrupt patterns of violence in their lives. Using in-depth qualitative interviews, we illustrate how these women learn and understand that they are caught up in cycles of crime and violence and, to varying degrees, have made active efforts to disrupt them. However, we find that they have very few tools or resources with which this could be accomplished, which ultimately thwarts potentially successful efforts for lasting change while foregrounding deficiencies in systemic support.     

The Effects of Visitation on Incarcerated Juvenile Offenders: How Contact with the Outside Impacts Adjustment on the Inside

The present study investigates how visitation from parents impacts youths’ mental health in the first two months of incarceration in a secure juvenile facility. A diverse sample of 276 male, newly incarcerated serious adolescent offenders (14–17 years) was interviewed over a 60-day period. Results indicate that youth who receive visits from parents report more rapid declines in depressive symptoms over time compared to youth who do not receive parental visits. Moreover, these effects are cumulative, such that the greater number of visits from parents, the greater the decrease in depressive symptoms. Importantly, the protective effect of receiving parental visits during incarceration exists regardless of the quality of the parent–adolescent relationship. Policy changes that facilitate visitation may be key for easing adjustment during the initial period of incarceration.     

最高人民法院大法官的流动分析

大法官流出最高人民法院的背后,反映出来的仍然是法院体制的官僚化、法官的公务员化。从知识的角度来看,这破坏了上诉审与初审司法知识的分工,以及司法与其他部门知识的分工,不利于司法知识传统的形成;同时也强化了上级法院对下级法院的控制,以及法院与其他部门的同质化。     

Justices,Political Actors,or Both: An Exploration of the Brandenburg Line Through the Regime Theory Lens

Regime theory seeks to explain decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States by noting that justices tend to decide cases in ways that align with the prevailing political ideology. The theory emerged from political science literature and has not been explored regarding communication law. This article tests regime theory against the progression of seven Supreme Court precedents that led to the threatening speech test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The test is traditionally viewed as the fruit of about a half-century of deliberate judicial evolution. The analysis found regime theory helped explain the Court's progression and decisions in this line of cases, but contained some notable weaknesses.     

In-Service training: Outside looking in

This paper describes and explores prominent issues pertaining to in-service training of law enforcement personnel. The overall situation in in-service training is examined, with special coverage being given to state mandates, availability and expense, the nature of programs, and the potential role of non law enforcement personnel in providing in-service training. Some possible solutions to current problems are discussed and general conclusions are offered.     

Lawyers,Justices, and Issue Salience: When and How Do Legal Arguments Affect the U.S. Supreme Court?

A good deal of scholarly evidence suggests that the decisionmaking of the U.S. Supreme Court is affected by legal argument. At the same time, it seems clear that in a great many cases the justices have enduring, strongly held views. In such cases, they should be impervious to the effects of advocacy. When are the justices apt to be influenced by the Court's legal community, and when will lawyers be less relevant? The answer, we think, has to do with the salience of the issue before the Court. We suspect that in nonsalient cases the justices have less‐intense preferences and therefore are open to the persuasion of lawyers. In salient cases, by contrast, the content of legal policy matters much more to the justices. As a result, they are less amenable to legal argument and adhere more strictly to their personal policy preferences. Our empirical tests support this orientation.     

内外勾结骗取保险金行为的定性分析

首先介绍了当前理论界对内外勾结骗取保险金行为定性的几种主要观点,继而对各种观点进行了简要评析,并对内外勾结骗取保险金行为的定性进行了法理分析,最后得出结论:内外勾结骗取保险金的行为应以贪污或职务侵占论处。     

Working from Inside and Outside Institutions: How Safety Audits Can Help Courts' Decision Making Around Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment

As systems begin to work collaboratively to address the overlap of domestic violence and child maltreatment, systems‐analysis approaches are also being explored to test the effectiveness of collaborative interventions in meeting the needs of victims and their families. The institutional safety audit model is one such approach currently being explored in sites across the country. Under this model, case files of families receiving services are submitted to an analysis that compares the interventions received with the needs that were demonstrated. Though still in a formative stage, the institutional safety audit has the potential to be used by the courts as an innovative information‐gathering tool on the effectiveness of court‐ordered interventions. This article will provide a detailed overview of the safety audit model, describe how safety audits are currently being used in the field, and discuss how the courts can incorporate safety audit findings into decision‐making around domestic violence and child maltreatment.     

Justices and Legal Clarity: Analyzing the Complexity of U.S. Supreme Court Opinions

Legal clarity is important to understand and measure because of its connection to the rule of law. We provide the first systematic examination of the clarity of Supreme Court opinions and discover five important results. First, certain justices systematically craft clearer opinions than others. Justices Scalia and Breyer write the clearest opinions, while Justice Ginsburg consistently writes the most complex opinions. Second, ideology does not predict clarity in majority or concurring opinions. Third, all justices write clearer dissents than majority opinions, while minimum winning coalitions produce the clearest majority opinions. Fourth, justices across the board write clearer opinions in criminal procedure cases than in any other issue area. Finally, opinions that formally alter Court precedent render less clear law, potentially leading to a cycle of legal ambiguity.     

Ethics of Disenfranchisement and Voting Rights in the U.S.:Convicted Felons,the Homeless,and Immigrants

This paper examines the contemporary ethical issues surrounding voting rights of three disenfranchised groups in the U.S.: convicted felons, the homeless, and immigrants. Even in modern countries like the U.S., voting and other forms of political participation are skewed toward the elite, those with higher incomes, those who are employed, and those with more education. Low voter turnout presents serious challenges to democratic responsiveness, or the ability of leaders to respond to the needs and demands of citizens. Hence, voting should be encouraged in accord with the common interest. An important conclusion is that allowing all citizens – irrespective of their status – to vote would give them a voice in the context of governance. This notion is also associated with distributive justice, a philosophical concept that concentrates on just outcomes and consequences.     

To Live Outside the Law: Frank O'Hara

This essay reflects on the New York School poet Frank O'Hara in terms of the idea of law. I suggest that art depends on a notion of an immanent law: that for language to become artistic is to become a meaningful part of an order which announces its autonomy from the surrounding world. O'Hara exploits this fact by making the most unlikely pieces of language into poetry, and thus giving the law to the life from which his words are taken. But he is also constantly improvising his own rules of art, drawing the law of poetry from the whim of the moment in radically individualist fashion. The gamble of O'Hara's writing is that the reader will submit to this profoundly personal law for the duration of a poem. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.