司法善后：合理化刑事错案追究制度及其展望

刑事错案的发生使得当事人的合法权益受到侵害,司法善后成为社会热点问题。除及时矫正错误裁判以外,对刑事错案责任人追究责任也显得尤为必要。我国的刑事错案追究制度还存在许多不合理的状况。我国应该在学习外国相关经验的基础上,结合我国国情,设计和推进合理化刑事错案追究制度。     

略论法官实体错案责任追究制度

作为司法的主体,法官能否公正司法,决定着司法是否能够得到公正有效实施,进而决定着国家的社会稳定,甚至长治久安。为维护司法公正,我国制定了不同层次的包括错案在内的法官责任追究制度,以制约法官滥用司法权力,防止司法腐败,维护法律的权威。但由于我国特殊的国情和历史原因,我国在法官错案责任追究制度方面还存在着诸多问题和争议,针对此类问题,尤其是颇受争议的法官实体错案责任,将进行初步研究和探讨。     

错案责任终身追究制浅析

错案责任追究制度在我国由来已久,随着我国法治进程的不断向前,改革的不断深入,这项制度的改革也呼之欲出。河南省高级人民法院推出的"错案责任终身追究制度"正是这一时代的产物。在支持此项制度的基础上,仍有需要加以改进之处,例如法官豁免制度同样要完善等等,以适应我国建设法治国家道路上不断产生的新的社会需求。     

对检察环节错案的反思

在司法实践中,错案及因此产生的赔偿等问题正逐渐成为困扰检察人员的一个突出问题.科学合理地界定错案,这对于我们正确认识错案现象,消除对错案追究和错案赔偿的不必要顾虑,提高办案的积极性、主动性,保障公正、正义、依法办案和防止司法腐败具有重要作用.从错案的界定入手,对检察环节错案形成的原因作一探讨,以期对正确认识错案现象有所裨益.     

错案界定的现实偏差及要件重构

"错案"一词在不同群体间的概念反射不同,理论界和实务界对"错案"的界定逻辑混乱、众说纷纭,尚未形成一个相对统一的标准。要实现错案追究制度的设计初衷,对"错案"的定义或者标准这一前提性概念进行合理界定非常重要。剖析"错案"一词称谓的由来、专家学者对于"错案"标准的界定与认知、现实中存在的错案界定和审查标准是科学界定错案的关键。     

司法责任制背景下法官责任豁免制度探析

目前,我国司法改革顺利完成,让"审理者裁判,让裁判者负责"的司法责任制全面铺开,法官对案件质量终身负责制度已经确立,但相对应的法官责任豁免制度却未明文确立起来,为了进一步落实法官权益保护及实现司法公正,本文运用比较方法,结合我国当前的具体国情,拟构建出具有中国特色的法官责任豁免制度。     

我国现行司法制度的弊端及改革的思路

理论界对依法治国的研究已向纵深发展,而党的15大提出要进一步健全社会主义法制,依法治国,建设社会主义法治国家,为此,必须推进司法改革,从制度上保证司法机关依法独立公正地行使审判权和检察权,建立冤案、错案责任追究制度。本文拟就当前司法制度存在的弊端、改革的思路,提出自己的初步看法,以求得广大同仁的指教。     

从错案问责到错案风险分配——法经济学进路

错案问责实际上是一种结果责任制,将错案的所有风险不加区分全部划归主审法官,这种问责机制不仅不利于减少错案,反而会激励法官以滥用调解、请示或"勾兑"监督者等方式逃避责任,引起更多的负面效应。建立在犯罪预防理论基础上的错案问责过分倚重惩罚,不满足参与约束和激励相容约束,无法为法官预防错案提供正面激励。正确的做法应该是查清并区分错案原因,将错案风险分配给能够有效控制该风险的主体;只有在法官有能力而未采取措施控制错案风险时才启动法官问责程序,并结合案件的具体情况确定法官应当承担的责任范围。     

韩国法科大学院制度的革新与缺失

韩国传统的司法考试制度具有典型的精英化特色,其作为司法制度中的重要一环,关系到司法改革的成败.在司法改革的大背景下,韩国法律人才培养与选拔制度将以法科大学院为中心,以律师考试作为从业资格获得的标准.法官和检察官也必须从从业多年的律师中选拔.应该说从根本上改变了韩国现有的法律人才选拔制度,也对韩国的法律教育产生了深远的影响.     

浅析刑事冤错案的赔偿问题

刑事冤错案是刑事诉讼必然要承担的风险,那么如何更好地完善刑事冤错案的预防、发现、救济机制就显得尤为重要,2012年修正的国家赔偿法进一步完善了我国的国家赔偿制度,然而我国的刑事赔偿制度依然存在一系列问题不可回避,如:死刑适用所带来不可挽回的后果;精神抚慰金规定过于原则等。这些问题的存在在一定程度上制约了我国刑事冤错案赔偿制度的完善,文章立足于上述问题进行了系统论述,并提出了相应的完善对策。     

错案频发的制度分析——以赵作海案为样板

从佘祥林到赵作海,"奇迹"惊人相似,成为现代司法不断复制的"耻辱"。错案频发,痛定思痛,除却表面的原因,制度设计、司法权力配置及运作中的弊端,都是导致错案的元凶。而坚守存弊的制度、变通规范的程序、践踏公民的权利及法律的尊严,根源则在于与现代司法格格不入的理念。     

公正审判基本人权视野下的司法独立与司法受制

公正审判基本人权视野下的司法独立，其全部目的是为了公正审判。为防止绝对的权力导致绝对的腐败，司法权本身也需要约束，因而司法独立也不是绝对的，存在公正审判的诉讼机制下司法受制的必要性，印司法要接受司法内监督和司法外监督。司法内的监督包括审级监督和再审监督，司法外监督包括媒体监督、权力机关监督和社会其他监督等，而司法外监督以不代替司法审判、不构成对司法权的不正当干涉为底限。司法独立与司法受制共同统一于公正审判。     

DEALING EFFECTIVELY WITH CROWDED JAILS: THE JUDGES' ROLE

That there is a jail crowding problem is well documented. The problem of jail crowding must b e acknowledged as one demanding the involvement of all key criminal justice actors. Judges have been identified as key decisionmakers playing a pivotal role in managing case flow and influencing jail population levels. What, then, is or should be the role of judges in dealing specifically with jail crowding? Conventional responses to this question have focused on either the role of the federal judge, who in the course of presiding over a case involving jail conditions is called upon to manage a facility, or the role of a trial judge in making sentencing decisions. Recent research efforts have recognized that a nexus exists between judicial and correctional systems that extends beyond overseeing and sentencing roles. This paper intends to expand the notion o f interdependence to encompass the entire criminal justice system with emphasis on the judge's contribution. Judges' decisions concerning the issuance of summonses, setting and reviewing bail, continuances and sentencing bear directly on the number of offenders in jail and/or length of the ir confinement. In numerous jurisdictions, judges have been instrumental in instituting changes aimed at dealing with the jail crowding problem and resulting in improvements in case processing. Judicial system-wide leadership has resulted in the establishment of guidelines for pretrial services personnel to be used in releasing certain defendants pretrial and in making pretrial release recommendations for others in one jurisdiction and the institution of a policy prohibiting the detention of misdemeanor defendants—a major factor in reducing the jail population–in many other jurisdictions. Increased use of nonfinancial pretrial release options by judicial officers was a key element in achieving a substantial drop in the jail population in several communities. Judges have introduced delay reduction strategies which have served to expedite case processing as well as minimize the number of detainees in jail. Judges have also successfully implemented a full range of sentencing atternatives, including community service, restitution and treatment programs for persons convicted of alcohol or drug-related offenses. This paper provides information on specific policies and procedures which have had a demonstrated impact on jail population levels without detracting from the operations of courts and, in most instances, contributing to improvements in judicial administration.     

Presidential address— Seeing through the fog

All public policies have two things in common. They deal with the future and, as a result, they are based on forecasts or projections. The forecasts or projections may be implicit or based on naive extrapolation or ad hoc assumptions. They may be explicit and based on elaborate extrapolations or on behavioral models. In either case, unfortunately, they are notoriously unreliable. In fact, they almost always are wrong—sometimes just a bit wrong, but often massively wrong. Nonetheless, forecasts are what distinguishes reasoned planning from blind action. Without forecasts, we would be totally at sea. That we have to use forecasts or projections, that we know they will be wrong, and that they usually are wrong raise some difficult questions for policy analysis and policymaking. Regrettably, in my view, they receive too little attention.2 My purpose today is to urge that they receive more. My comments are intended to make four points. First, it is important for policymakers to appreciate how errorprone forecasts and projections actually are. Second, it is important not to permit the availability of projections or forecasts to obscure fundamental policy questions that are important in any plausible scenario. Third, uncertainty means that, where possible, it is prudent to design policies with builtin flexibility that respond automatically to diverse possible outcomes. Fourth, where builtin flexibility is impossible, complete analyses should take into account the consequences if forecasts prove wrong, and weigh those consequences against the results of postponing action until information improves or against other policies under the plausible range of possible outcomes. © 2000 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

司法权与法律解释权辨析

司法权是法官在个案中行使的以裁判权为重心的权力,法律解释权是法官在个案中行使的对所适用的法律和所要处理的案件事实进行解释的权力,法律解释权属于司法权的一部分。司法权与法律解释权是同一种性质的权力,二者有许多相同之处。但法律解释权是一种相对独立存在的权力,它与司法权有一定的区别。厘清二者的关系,才能正确适用法律,保证司法公正。     

政党整合下的官僚制行政——当代中国公共行政的组织行为分析

当代中国公共行政的基本模式是在中国共产党的领导下由官僚机构实行国家管理的结构.党是国家管理的核心.因此,党的组织行为方式明显地影响了官僚制行政的方式,具体来说使得公共行政表现为三方面的特征公共行政的政治化、意识形态色彩和人格化.这些特征在一定程度上造成了公共行政的失范和无序,党必须严格规范其行为,才能够保证官僚体系程序化、理性化和公正化的实施管理.     

Institution of Public Administration Australia: Some Observations About the Profession of Public Service

What does the future hold for the great institution of public service in this country? I will try to answer that in the traditional way by going through some of the more interesting of the many challenges we face. But first let me observe that what public administration in most Western democracies has been through in the past two decades is nothing short of a revolution.     

我国刑事诉讼中公检法三机关互相关系原则之考察

公检法三机关互相关系原则是我国宪法层面的刑事诉讼基本原则,在刑事诉讼实践中的作用不可低估。但该原则也存在着一些不科学性和缺失,主要表现在互相配合与实现刑事司法公正价值机制相冲突,妨碍人民法院在刑事司法中的中立性和独立地位;互相制约没有明显的主次之分,过于强调“平分秋色”而忽略了“递进制约”关系,抑制了检察、审判职能的发挥。对此,有必要予以科学的分析,并给予规范和整合。     

司法公正的标准——从佘祥林案看我国的刑事司法现状

法律公正的标准应当是:第一,最终的调查认定结果客观真实,对行为人的处罚适当对等,且能体现社会文明和人道主义,伸张了正义,恢复了社会心理秩序。第二,法律有事先确定的能够公正解决冲突的规则和明确的可操作的程序;法律的适用能够做到无偏见地严格地适用公开的规则,平等地对待每一方当事人,平等地对待每一个具体的案件。实体公正和程序公正的完全统一,是实现法律正义的最佳状态,但由于法律本身的局限,这种完全统一始终是人类社会追求的一种理想状态,于是正义的救济就成为一个无奈而必须的选择。     

政府目的刍论

政府，人们对它再熟悉不过了。历史上的许多思想家都试图揭示政府的确切含义。但众说纷纭、莫衷一是。不管怎么说，我们以为政府是依照一定传统并建立在人民主权的基础之上，实现社会秩序、正义和自由的机构或组织。而政府的目的主要有：（1）实现秩序，维护正常的社会秩序；（2）实现正义，维护社会正义；（3）实现自由，维护公民自由。