论我国刑事被害人权利保护的制度完善

本文从概述被害人权利保护的意义和国内外被害人权利保护的立法情况入手,简要说明联合国大会及有关国家加强和发展被害人权利保护的立法和实践情况;分析我国刑事立法在公诉案件被害人权利保护方面存在的缺陷及被害人国家补偿制度的缺失对被害人权利保护的不彻底性;进而提出完善被害人权利保护制度的建议和立法设想。     

论我国被害人的权利保障及制度建构

我国构建和谐社会的背景下,刑事诉讼中被害人的权利保障得到相应的关注。本文首先从被害人在刑事诉讼视角下审视被害人的权利地位,在对目前被害人有关制度在立法及司法进行深入剖析下,最后对我国关于被害人权利保障及制度的建构提出相应建议。     

浅析刑事被害人权利的保护与救助

我国现行刑事诉讼法在对被害人权利保护方面,将被害人地位上升为当事人,有实质性的突破,但仍然存在着许多不足。本文在对我国刑事被害人权利保护的现状分析的基础上,深刻剖析了上述现状的原因,并从程序和实体两方面,对完善我国立法对被害人的权利保护与救助提出了完善建议。     

论刑事被害人权利

本文在论述我国刑事被害人权利的特点和现行刑事被害人权利制度的内容后,提出了完善我国刑事被害人权利制度的建议。提出应赋予因犯罪行为而遭受精神损害的被害人提起附带民事诉讼的权利。     

刑事被害人的权利保护

刑事诉讼中,国家追求的目标是追究和惩罚犯罪,而对被害人来说可能更关注自身受损利益的恢复和补偿。然而,我国的刑事诉讼制度对保障被害人权利方面的立法非常有限,在司法实践中被害人的权利往往得不到保护。应借鉴西方国家维护被害人求偿权的立法和实践,结合我国刑事立法和司法实际,主要从公诉案件被害人的权利救济切入,从立法上完善刑事被害人对犯罪追诉权的法律保护,在司法上完善执行阶段对刑事被害人权利的保护的相关措施。     

刑事诉讼中被害人保护问题浅析

刑事被害人在刑事诉讼中作为权利受到侵害的一方,在我国的保护相对来说比较滞后,应当从法律层面上确立刑事被害人在刑事诉讼中的地位,认识到保护被害人权利的重要性,在宪法和法律中强调被害人的权利,让其享有上诉权等,并且在物质上要对被害人有所救助,这也是我国构建社会主义和谐社会的需要。     

刑事被害人的权利保护

刑事诉讼中，国家追求的目标是追究和惩罚犯罪，而对被害人来说可能更关注自身受损利益的恢复和补偿。然而，我国的刑事诉讼制度，对保障被害人权利方面的立法非常有限，在司法实践中被害人的权利往往得不到保护。面对我国刑事被害人存在的诸多问题，需从立法上完善刑事被害人对犯罪追诉杈的法律保护，并在司法上完善执行阶段对刑事被害人权利的保护。     

刑事被害人权利保障比较研究

我国新刑事诉讼法赋予被害人以当事人的主体地位,并赋予其更加广泛的诉讼权利,但在其权利保障方面,立法上仍有缺陷,故对被害人权益进行保障,缩小与国际标准的差距,应当根据被害人人权保障的国际标准,结合我国刑事立法的现状,构建我国的被害人权益保障机制,完善被害人的诉讼权利,同时加强对被害人的社会关怀。     

单位被害人问题探讨

加强对被害人权利的保护是修改刑事诉讼法的一条重要原则。为保护被害人权利,我国刑事诉讼法作出了比较详尽的保护被害人诉讼权利的规定。这些规定是在自然人被害人理论基础上建立起来的。随着我国社会经济的发展,各种所有制经济主体和混合制经济成分占到相当比重,传统的国家、集体、个人三者的利益划分,已经不能完全适应现代社会法治要求。其中,法人被害人的权利保护问题就值得研究。今后在修改刑事诉讼法时,应当考虑赋予法人被害人诉讼地位和权利,以进一步完善我国刑事法律保护体系。     

对我国刑事诉讼中被害人权利保障的思考

刑事诉讼中被害人的诉讼地位和诉讼权利长期以来出于一个被忽视的状况下,随着国际刑事诉讼制度的改革和发展,被害人的权利保障日益受到了重视。被害人的诉讼权利关系着起诉权的配置,诉讼构造的构建等诸多重要的问题。我国刑事诉讼法也从立法角度确立了被害人的当事人地位以及保障了被害人的诸多权益,但从保护人权保护被害人利益的角度思考我国刑事诉讼法对被害人权利的保障仍有改善空间。     

Developments in criminal law and criminal justice

Conclusion It follows from what has been said above that history, principle, and authority combine to compel the conclusion that § 80's guarantee of trial by jury precludes a verdict of guilty being returned in a trial upon indictment of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth otherwise than by the agreement or consensus of all the jurors. That being so, § 57 of the Juries Act, 1927, cannot, consistently with § 80, operate to authorize the conviction of either of the appellants by a majority verdict. Their convictions were unconstitutional and must be set aside.The appeal should be allowed. The orders of the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal should be set aside and in lieu thereof it should be ordered, in the case of each appellant, that the appeal to that court be allowed, that the conviction be quashed and a new trial ordered.B.A., Columbia University 1972; J.D., Hofstra University 1975.     

Developments in criminal law and criminal justice

Developments in criminal law and criminal justice     

Developments in criminal law and criminal justice

LL.B., Victoria University of Wellington 1969; J.S.M., Stanford University 1972.     

Publication productivity of criminal justice faculty in criminal justice journals

An important dimension of university faculty life is publication expectation. Often the level of publication productivity is used to assess general program prestige or to evaluate individual faculty performance. The publication rates of faculty in PhD and master-level programs have been unclear. This study examined the publication rates using a general list of criminal justice journals, and a select list of the leading journals, over a five-year period. The faculty members were located in criminal justice programs that granted PhD and master degrees. Publication productivity rates were established for the two different degree level programs, and the institutions with the strongest publication rates were identified. Publication rates are only one factor used in the assessment of program quality and the relationship of publication rates to other program features is discussed.     

Identifying criminal predators, sentences, and criminal classifications

This paper speculates that due to antiquated criminal predator identification that the courts render less prison time to predators who continually commit abominable forms of crime than to first time violent offenders who were controversially convicted of the crime of murder. A sample of 89 respondents includes 61 males and 28 females incarcerated in high custody penitentiaries. The findings show that many predators are rarely charged and/or convicted of heinous predatory acts consequently their prison sentences averaged an eight year confinement as compared to nonpredators with an average of 25 years to life, often without parole. The hypothesis was supported and a criminal offender classification was created to explain various offender profiles. One implication of this finding is that methods of crime control including criminal profiles are inadequate to deal with one of America's worst problems—predatory attacks. An assumption that arises from this implication is that crime control is linked to popular myths produced by the media and therefore predators largely go unchecked. Further research should be concluded to determine efficient methods of intervention for various categories of predators.     

Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction: Its impact on criminal justice

Public international law recognizes the right of states to protect themselves and their subjects against threats and damage from within their territory and outside. In the international sphere, the means and methods of national protection are restricted by the extraterritorial jurisdiction of courts and the laws they enforce.Criminal justice today is being confronted on an ever increasing scale by international criminal offenses that impinge on domestic concerns: drugs, securities and financial manipulations, money laundering, and terrorism, to mention only a few. This article discusses some of the issues that arise under the United States Constitution when criminal justice agencies are called upon to enforce U.S. laws beyond U.S. territorial limits. The principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction are discussed along with a number of United States court cases pointing to the importance of this new area of criminal justice.     

Mapping the criminal mind: idiographic assessment of criminal belief systems

An idiographic procedure designed to assess the belief systems of criminal offenders is described, investigated, and clarified. This measure, the Cognitive Map of Major Belief Systems (CMMBS), assesses the five belief systems (self-view, world-view, past-view, present-view, future-view) held to occupy the higher echelons of human cognition. Modest to moderate test-retest reliability was achieved when 19 inmates, enrolled in one of three drug-counseling groups, completed the CMMBS on two separate occasions, 2 weeks apart. It was also ascertained that the drug treatment specialist who served as therapist for all three groups "blindly" matched the 19 CMMBS records to the inmates who produced them. A case study of one of the 19 participants was used to illustrate how the CMMBS is employed with individual offenders and how belief systems interact with major schematic subnetworks such as attributions, outcome expectancies, efficacy expectancies, goals, values, and thinking styles to create crime-supporting lifestyles.