专家参与刑事司法的多元功能及其体系化

从1979年刑事诉讼法颁布至今,专家参与我国刑事司法的制度功能变得开放而多元。专家制度功能的多元化,根源于刑事司法的三重逻辑:弥合法律人与专家之间知识鸿沟的“认知逻辑”;落实公检法机关“分工负责,互相配合,互相制约”原则的“权力逻辑”;保障当事人合法权益与实现控辩平等的“权利逻辑”。从结构主义与整体主义的视角看,当前,刑事专家制度存在明显的体系化缺陷,主要表现为专家制度过度权力化、专家制度功能尚未结构化、专家制度不够规范化。改进刑事专家制度,应当采取体系化路径:首先,将多元专家参与模式调整为鉴定人与专家辅助人二元专家模式;其次,彰显专家制度的“权利逻辑”,矫正过度权力化倾向;最后,构建系统化的专家制度,为专家服务刑事司法创造制度条件。     

Internet for International Criminal Justice Organizations

Increasing pressure to reduce operational cost and the simultaneously arising demand to make more and more information available to a wider audience are the main motivation for using Internet as basis for publishing material. The project described in this contribution is an ongoing co-operation between the United Nations Centre for International Crime Prevention and the University of Vienna which is aimed at providing an Internet platform for the distribution of United Nations information related to crime prevention and criminal justice. It is shown how the technology is applied by an international organisation as basis for disseminating information and how the available information can be used by researches for analysis. The implemented system, UNCJIN (United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network), today has been received very well in the community and serves as a valuable basis for research requiring international data, such as country reports and statistics.     

协商性司法——德国刑事程序中的辩诉交易？

一、德国协商性司法简介 近年来,德国刑事司法的实施状况经历了剧烈的变化.指控、量刑与案件处理中的协商已经成为普遍存在的现象,尽管这些协商实践曾被认为与德国刑事程序中的若干诉讼原则与司法传统是相抵牾的.     

解读刑事法治

刑事法治是法治的根本标志之一 ,而刑事法治就意味着以刑法限制国家的刑罚权 ,罪刑法定原则也就成为了刑事法治的必然首选。而我国传统的法律文化认为 ,刑法是阶级统治的工具 ,是无产阶级专政的“刀把子”。因此 ,要把我国建设成为一个现代的社会主义的法治国家 ,除了健全法律制度之外 ,更重要的是 ,我们必须更新观念 ,正确认识刑法的功能 :刑法不仅保护国家的利益、维护社会的稳定 ,也保护公民个人的合法权益。刑法是人权保障的“大宪章”。     

从《所有人的正义》看英国的刑事司法改革

本文详尽介绍了英国刑事司法改革的背景、宗旨、目标、步骤和具体内容;在此基础上,总结出英国刑事司法改革的五大趋势,并阐述了英国司法改革对我国司法改革的几点启示.     

Criminal Justice in Soviet Russia

Compared to American criminal justice, the fabric of Russia's system is a tightly woven structure operating under centralized co-ordination. During recent history, the goals of Russia's criminal justice system have shifted from repression by terrorism to crime prevention through education and an emphasis on individual duty in peace-keeping matters.

The militia (police), created in 1917, has been mandated to prevent crime through intelligence activities, direct intervention, and citizen education. In 1966, it was given the responsibility for the supervision of offenders newly released from correctional institutions. Peoples Volunteer Brigades and the DRUZHINNIKS aid the militia in crime prevention.

The courts also make use of non-professionals in the persons of lay assessors to insure that the accused is judged by his “peers.” The court system itself is inquisitorial in nature as opposed to the American accusational model. As the accused person moves through pre-trial and trial procedures, one can see how his “rights” may be legally abridged at every step.

Russian courts have a variety of sentences from which to choose, ranging in harshness from public censure to death by shooting. Deprivation of liberty may be applied by degree from “education” to compulsory labor to strict incarceration. The Soviets are attempting an organized plan of diversionary sentencing, in order to reduce prison populations to all but the most dangerous offenders.

Correctional facilities depend on inmate commissions to keep order and motivate good behavior through group influence and peer pressure. Inmates as well as civilians have “a national duty to mind other people's business.”

In the United States, justice is fragmented into a variety of jurisdictions: municipal, county, state, and federal, each with its own law enforcement agencies, courts, and correctional agencies. Further, there is only limited coordination among the various segments of the system. There is little argument to the proposition that the American “system” of criminal justice is inefficient.

Unlike America's disjointed system, the Russian Criminal justice system is unified; militia (police), procurators (prosecutors), courts, and correctional facilities operate under a centralized coordinating body. This body is characterized by a unity of purpose and a high degree of systemic integration (Juviler, 1979, p. 1).     

The Quest for Quality in Criminal Justice Education

Criminal justice education has a checkered past, but a potentially very bright future. That past and that future, with the present sandwiched in between, are laid out here. My prime goal is to pose an agenda for teaching and learning about crime, law and justice in the 21st century. This is an agenda that seeks to insure quality, while dramatically expanding the scope and depth of criminal justice education.     

联合国刑事司法准则与我国刑事法律改革若干问题

1998年10月5日,我国签署了《公民权利和政治权利公约》。该公约最为明确、集中、具体地规定了联合国刑班司法准则．我们有必要将我国的刑事立法与联合国刑事司法准则相对照．寻找差距．并提出改革、完善的具体措施。从而推动我国刑事法律向前发展。试就涉及刑法、刑事诉讼法方面的问题作了一些探讨。     

Technology and Criminal Justice

The extent and use of technology in the British criminal justice system is uneven. Two areas are examined; first where technology is used in prisons or by the police, and secondly when it is used to develop new sanctions, as with electronic monitoring, or as attachments to existing sanctions such as drug testing. Technology in prisons is mainly in the form of perimeter security, and in the police through CCTV cameras or databases. In the second the emphasis is on tracker systems which gives the supervisor greater control. Technological development in criminal justice is not without its critics. Some regard existing technological developments with suspicion, seeing them as a means of enhancing control, or as an attack on traditional liberal values, or more importantly as an extension of a form of behaviourism which is concerned only with the observable act. Others note the expensive failures of technology where systems fail to work or are delivered late. It is suggested a Government study is required to examine existing technologies and its likely future impact whether on the criminal justice system generally or on those working within it or as inmates.     

American Criminal Justice Exposed

In The Ethics of Capital Punishment: A Philosophical Investigation of Evil and Its Consequences, Matthew Kramer argues that none of the standard rationales used to justify capital punishment successfully vindicates it and that a new justification, the purgative rationale, justifies capital punishment for defilingly evil offenders. In this article, it is argued, first, that a version of retributivism that adheres to the lex talionis as Kramer understands it does seem to call exclusively for the death penalty. Second, it is submitted that the purgative rationale is over-inclusive inasmuch as Kramer considers it applicable to certain offenders with abusive or deprived backgrounds, some offenders indoctrinated to adhere to pernicious ideologies that have impelled their crimes, and wrongdoers who have sincerely repented. Third, doubts are expressed about whether the purgative rationale justifies the execution of any offenders. Even if it is true that the continued existence of an extravagantly evil offender represents an affront to humanity, as Kramer suggests, a moral obligation to execute him does not follow. Since repentance is intrinsically valuable and since repentance would extinguish the affront to humanity, the community in which an unrepentant evil offender abides is duty-bound to foster repentance on the part of the offender by imposing banishment or life imprisonment, sanctions that afford the offender the most extensive opportunity for repentance. The community is therefore obligated to impose one of these sanctions instead of capital punishment.     

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。     

Assessing Criminal Justice Practice Using Social Justice Theory

In this article, I introduce two of the leading theories of social justice put forth by John Rawls and David Miller. Then, I assess criminal justice practice, from law-making to corrections, in terms of ways in which it is consistent and inconsistent with these theories of social justice. Throughout the article, I also identify ways in which criminal justice practice is inconsistent with social justice. Finally, I make recommendations for reforming criminal justice to make it more consistent with social justice.     

论刑事司法中的人权保护

2012年人权入法是我国人权保护工作的又一里程碑。但当前我国刑事法学理论界和刑事司法界均存在这样一种认识误区:将刑事法律当成被追诉人的大宪章,过于强调保护被追诉人的人权,有的甚至提出了宁可错放,也不错判的主张。这种观点不但与三大人权公约冲突、自身存在逻辑矛盾,而且有碍司法公正。事实上,无论是从犯罪的本质、刑罚的根据、刑法的调整对象看,还是从两法的目的与任务看,刑事司法中保护的都应当是包括被害人、被追诉人在内的全体公民的人权。保护方式有三种:通过打击犯罪、消除犯罪对全体公民人权的威胁来直接保护;通过限制刑罚权,防止其对犯罪人人权的过度侵害来间接保护;通过限制刑罚权,防止其对无辜者的侵害来间接保护。将刑事司法的目的与任务定位为保护全体公民人权有利于促进司法公正。