Serious tax fraud and noncompliance

Research Summary This article reviews what international evidence exists on the impact of civil and criminal sanctions upon serious tax noncompliance by individuals. This construct lacks sharp definitional boundaries but includes large tax fraud and large-scale evasion that are not dealt with as fraud. Although substantial research and theory have been developed on general tax evasion and compliance, their conclusions might not apply to large-scale intentional fraudsters. No scientifically defensible studies directly compared civil and criminal sanctions for tax fraud, although one U.S. study reported that significantly enhanced criminal sanctions have more effects than enhanced audit levels. Prosecution is public, whereas administrative penalties are confidential, and this fact encourages those caught to pay heavy penalties to avoid publicity, a criminal record, and imprisonment. Policy Implications Although it has yet to be proven that prosecution has a greater or lesser impact on these offenders, increased prosecution might be justified for purposes of moral retribution as well as perceived social fairness.     

慎行缓起诉制度

基于对传统报应刑罚观的反思,现代刑事政策发生了某些转向。在“两极化刑事政策”、社区矫正、保护被害人、“除罪化”等刑事理念的影响下,现代国家对于轻罪案件中被指控人的处遇问题作了重新审视。缓起诉制度时被指控人虽有“去犯罪标签”之功能,但其适用不当可能侵蚀法官保留原则、滋生检察官权力滥用,进而有损刑事司法的谦抑性。我国未来如果引入缓起诉制度,应当严格限定其适用条件,并设置必要的救济程序。     

法庭科学的表述与法律证明

法庭科学评价意见在法庭上陈述的方式应当与法官所要求、陪审团实际应用的刑事证明程序相兼容。这并非一个数值性的归纳过程,而是在探求排除合理怀疑证明标准下的“最佳解释推理”。面临的问题并不是控方主张的数学概率问题,而是在全面考量了法庭上出示的所有证据后,控方主张是否为唯一可解释假说的问题。为确保陪审团仍然能专注地运用这一法律证明标准,笔者主张,控方提出的评价性法庭科学证据不应当以似然比的形式在强调若控方主张为真便更有可能认定证据,而应聚焦于本方证据对辩方有利的解释范围并在被告被定罪之前排除掉所有这些解释的合理可能性。     

论刑事诉讼专家证人制度的构建

专家证人制度主要是英美法系的一种法律制度,功能是弥补法官在专业知识上的缺陷,帮助法庭查明案件中遇到的专业性问题。专家证人在我国民事诉讼中初露端倪,而在刑事诉讼中是一个盲点,这种状况已越来越不能适应刑事司法发展的需要。在刑事诉讼中引进专家证人制度,强化对鉴定结论的审查,应不失为一种有益的尝试。     

He‐said–she‐said: Contrast effects in credibility assessments and possible threats to fundamental principles of criminal law

Purpose. Some criminal trials turn on evaluations of credibility of the complainant and the accused. When credibility is based on how a witness testifies, an evaluation of one party should not influence an evaluation of the other party. If credibility evaluations are bidirectional, fundamental principles of criminal law may be offended. Methods. Six hundred and thirty seven undergraduates read a vignette that described a sexual assault (SA) or a motor vehicle accident (MVA). Karen, the complainant in the SA case and bystander witness in the MVA case, was described as 5, 13, or 20 years old. The vignette was a summary of the police investigation and, in three conditions, the trial. Trial information was manipulated in one of three ways: no information concerning how Karen testified, Karen's testimony was described positively (pro‐prosecution), or described negatively (anti‐prosecution). Participants then rated the perceived credibility of Karen and the accused (Bob) and the probability that Bob was guilty. Results. Karen was viewed more positively in the pro‐prosecution condition and more negatively in the anti‐prosecution. When Karen was judged to be less credible, Bob was rated as more credible and less likely to be guilty. When Karen was seen as more credible, Bob was viewed as more likely to be guilty. Conclusions. This bidirectional effect that the manner in which the prosecution witness testified affected perceptions of the accused and probability of guilt, in certain circumstances, may compromise fundamental principles of criminal law and be a reversible error. We offer possible solutions for future empirical testing.     

刑事归责的时间之维——论危害结果延迟发生案件的司法处理

在处理危害结果延迟发生的案件时,若已经存在对行为人就同一犯罪行为的有效刑事裁判,则即便之后又发生了危害结果或加重结果,也不应再据此追究或加重行为人的刑事责任。观念论的时间观所揭示的人的认知规律和刑事不法的本质,共同决定了经过较长时间才延迟发生的危害结果不能再被归责于早已实行终了的实行行为。这种刑事归责的时间之维是在考虑过往的实行行为对于在现时社会中确证规范效力、保护法益之意义的基础上,从功能主义与目的理性的角度建构刑事不法的结果,其与刑事追诉时效制度存在紧密的内在关联,故在个案中应当类推适用追诉期限判断实行行为与危害结果之间的时间间隔是否已经足以阻却归责。     

The criminal justice response to wife assault

This paper reviews the criminal justice response to wife assault. By establishing a set of conditional probabilites for the reporting, detection, prosecution, and conviction for wife assault, the paper establishes that a “winnowing process” occurs that is not dissimilar to that reported for other crimes. The probability of wife assault being detected by the criminal justice system is about 6.5%. Given that it is detected, the probability of arrest is about 21.2% [comparable to a 20% arrest rate for a composite of 121 crimes reported by Hood and Sparks (1970)]. Subsequent conditional probabilities for conviction and punishment generate an aggregate probability that, given that an event of wife assault occurs, the perpetrator has a 0.38% chance of being punished by the courts. The policy implications of this review are that the greatest impact on wife assault recidivism reduction would be generated by police arrest rates regardless of court outcome. At present, however, it is not known whether this effect is produced by specific deterrence or by the didactic function of law. It is concluded that too little is known of the subjective states of wife assaulters to ascertain whether deterrence or some other mechanism accounts for the decreased recidivism reported after arrest.     

公诉审查略式程序研究--省略我国审查起诉程序的思考

公诉审查程序以防止无根据的追诉和审判,防止国家公诉权滥用,保障犯罪嫌疑人权利为要.但不利于提高诉讼效率,保障犯罪嫌疑人获得迅速审判的权利.因此各国都规定在一定条件下,可以省略公诉审查程序.目前我国任何案件进入审判程序都必须经过审查起诉程序.因此,应当规定可能判处三年以下有期徒刑、拘役、管制或者单处罚金的案件,如果证据确实充分且犯罪嫌疑人同意简化公诉审查程序的,经检察机关同意,可以省略审查起诉程序.     

Terrorizing Criminal Law

The essays in Waldron’s Torture, Terror, and Trade-Offs have important implications for debates about the criminalization of terrorism and terrorism-related offences and its consequences for criminal law and criminal justice. His reflections on security speak directly to contemporary debates about the preventive role of the criminal law. And his analysis of inter-personal security trade-offs invites much closer attention to the costs of counter-terrorism policies, particularly those pursued outside the criminal process. But is Waldron right to speak of a ‘welcome the return to the criminal justice model’? This article considers the arguments in favour of prioritizing the prosecution of terrorist suspects and asks if their prosecution can safely proceed without undue hazard to the criminal law and criminal process.     

Selective Attrition and the Age-Crime Relationship

One of the most widely accepted findings in criminology is the strong curvilinear association between age and crime. Studies have indicated that involvement in criminal behavior rises throughout the teenage years until it levels off during the late teenage and early adult years and then declines throughout the remainder of the life span. Many of these studies, however, have relied on cross-sectional or repeated cross-sectional officially recorded data. In recent years, researchers investigating changes in self-reported criminal behavior among the same individuals as they age have discovered that involvement in criminal behavior actually declines during the adolescent years. Although there are a number of possible explanations for this phenomenon, we explore the extent to which this decline can be attributed to selective or non-random panel attrition.     

刑法第三百零六条犯罪主体之探析

刑法第三百零六条规定的是辩护人、诉讼代理人毁灭证据、伪造证据、妨害作证罪,关于本罪的犯罪主体,刑法明确规定为刑事诉讼中的辩护人和诉讼代理人,刑事诉讼法又将辩护人和诉讼代理人限定在审查起诉和审判两个阶段。这一规定已远远落后于司法实践的发展,事实上在刑事诉讼的各个阶段都存在着辩护和诉讼代理活动,在这些活动中都可能发生具有相当危害性的妨害证据的行为,因此律师在刑事诉讼中的每个阶段都可能以辩护人和诉讼代理人的身份成为本罪的犯罪主体,在立法中对此予以确认也势在必行。     

大陆法系各国（地区）亲告罪立法之比较

告诉乃论制度对充分保障被害人权利、实现刑罚谦抑、促进刑事和解具有重要意义。大陆法系各国均规定了数量庞大的亲告罪,我国的亲告罪名却很少,类型也很单一。制约亲告罪范围扩大的真正原因在于我国亲告罪告诉机制的缺陷。我国刑法与刑事诉讼法对亲告罪告诉权的救济性规则缺乏,亲告罪与自诉罪混淆,告诉权与证明责任混淆,告诉制度不完善。通过归纳、比较各国刑事立法例中的优劣,认为我国可采被害人可自由选择自诉的混合起诉制,以弥补亲告罪告诉机制的缺陷。     

Assessing evidence and testing appropriate hypotheses

It is crucial to identify the most appropriate hypotheses if one is to apply probabilistic reasoning to evaluate and properly understand the impact of evidence. Subtle changes to the choice of a prosecution hypothesis can result in drastically different posterior probabilities to a defence hypothesis from the same evidence. To illustrate the problem we consider a real case in which probabilistic arguments assumed that the prosecution hypothesis “both babies were murdered” was the appropriate alternative to the defence hypothesis “both babies died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)”. Since it would have been sufficient for the prosecution to establish just one murder, a more appropriate alternative hypothesis was “at least one baby was murdered”. Based on the same assumptions used by one of the probability experts who examined the case, the prior odds in favour of the defence hypothesis over the double murder hypothesis are 30 to 1. However, the prior odds in favour of the defence hypothesis over the alternative ‘at least one murder’ hypothesis are only 5 to 2. Assuming that the medical and other evidence has a likelihood ratio of 5 in favour of the prosecution hypothesis results in very different conclusions about the posterior probability of the defence hypothesis.     

新刑诉法实施后检察权运行面临的机遇、挑战与应对

新刑诉法围绕侦查权、公诉权、侦查监督权和辩护制度、证据制度等方面作了较大幅度的修订,进一步完善了法律监督制度,彰显了刑诉法人权保障功能。检察机关作为唯一参与刑事诉讼全过程的部门,刑诉法的修订必将对各项检察权的运行产生深刻影响。本文将从基本的规范分析入手,对新刑诉法实施后检察权运行面临的机遇、挑战与应对进行必要的梳理和分析,以期为各级检察机关更好地适应新刑诉法提供参考。     

我国审查起诉程序中和解机制的建构

近年来,尽管学界和实务界由于恢复性司法理论的影响对审查起诉程序中的和解问题进行了较为深入的探讨和大量的实践探索,并取得了一些有价值的成果。但也不能否认,不论是取得的学术成果还是实践探索的效果,均还未对制度的建构产生实质性的影响。基于不同思路的比较和我国国情的现实考量,提出以现行审查起诉程序为制度平台并以辅助性制度的设立为保障建构我国审查起诉程序中和解机制的设想。     

认真对待刑事推定

对我国刑事立法和司法中44个推定的实证分析表明,刑事推定在放松控方证明要求的同时又将存疑风险转移到被告人身上,背离了排除合理怀疑的证明标准,直接危及无罪推定原则所保护的价值与利益。对排除合理怀疑的证明标准不应作纯程序的解读,有必要将其与实体意义上的惩罚权相联系。对刑事推定的规制,本质上属于对国家刑罚权的限制,只有在满足相应的实体与程序条件时,才允许适用有利于控方的刑事推定。     

论公诉变更

公诉变更制度的设置,影响审判的公正、效率以及被告人合法权益的实现,但目前的刑事诉讼对此只有司法解释而无诉讼法规范。修改刑事诉讼法,应当设置这种规范。我国公诉变更权由检察机关享有,公诉的追加与内容的变更不得妨碍诉讼的正常进行与诉讼效率,同时应当保障被告人的辩护权,还应作出适当的审理时限规定。撤回起诉不得妨碍被告人获得公正审判的权利,并应明确撤回起诉具有不起诉的效力。     

Sex effects and sentencing: An analysis of the statistical literature

The violent victimization of medical patients resulting from reckless or negligent physician care has traditionally remained beyond the reach of the criminal law. The professional nature of the doctor-patient relationship, as well as the existence of civil and peer-initiated sanctions, has insulated doctors from criminal prosecution. The purpose of our research is to examine whether this traditional immunity remains intact or has been breached. As a prelude to this analysis, we identify several factors which, when considered together, indicate physicians' increasing vulnerability to criminal prosecution. We present the results of a search conducted to identify cases involving the criminal prosecution of physician violence, and we examine the cases in terms of several characteristics that marked the prosecutions. Our results suggest that we may be witnessing the beginning of the use of the criminal sanction against physician violence.     

对“自动投案”的认定——结合自首的本质探究

自首制度是我国刑法中一项重要的量刑制度,其本质不是悔罪而是犯罪嫌疑人犯罪后主动将自己交付国家追诉,从而使犯罪得以及时侦破和审判。实践中,认定自首时的疑难问题多集中在自动投案的认定上。为了更加合理地适用自首制度,应当结合自首的立法精神及其本质,对自动投案的时间、主动性等问题进行认定。     

刑事自诉制度重构刍议

目前的刑事自诉制度是随着新的《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》的颁布而建立起来的。应当说 ,中国的刑事自诉制度的立法初衷是美好的 ,但是在具体的司法实践操作中 ,这种制度已日见其弊端 ,而产生这些问题的根源在于司法权力的不合理分配。要解决司法权力的合理分配问题 ,在于加强检察机关由法律所赋予的各项职能 ,而这一点正是重新构筑新的刑事自诉制度的关键。