The intersection of racial profiling research and the law

There has been a significant increase in the litigation of selective enforcement cases based on racial profiling claims. This trend has resulted in two legal issues that are problematic for racial profiling research. First, selective enforcement claims that rely on statistical evidence must successfully measure “similarly situated persons” who were eligible for police stops to provide a comparison against those actually stopped by police. Second, the research must demonstrate “how much” statistical evidence of racial/ethnic disparities exists. Although these legal components are necessary for successful selective enforcement claims, the methodologies and statistical analyses currently used in racial profiling research cannot adequately address these issues. It is argued that the over-reliance on social science research, in general, and statistical techniques, specifically, to provide evidence of discrimination in selective enforcement cases places policing research and legal decision making at a crossroads.     

Juries Don't Make Legal Decisions! And Other Problems: A Critique of Hastie et al. on Punitive Damages

Hastie, Schkade, and Payne (1998) published a simulation experiment intended to study the performance of jurors and juries regarding verdicts on whether punitive damages should be allowed. They concluded that juries were not very competent and discussed the legal policy implications of this conclusion. I identify a fatal conceptual flaw that renders the study irrelevant to legal policy: The jurors were asked to decide law, a decision that is the responsibility of the trial judge, not the jury. I also identify a number of misstatements and unsupported assertions in the article.     

司法审判的法哲学分析

司法判决是制度、事实、个人活动的合因之果,判决形成的思维工具包括法律解释和法律推理;判决以确定性为特征,而法官形成判决过程中的判断却具有综合性。     

人工智能法律人格论批判及理性应对

人工智能技术的进步使得法学界兴起"人工智能法律人格论"。然而,意志只能来源于自然人而非机器,人工智能也无法独立主张权利和承担义务,因此人工智能无法享有法律人格。赋予人工智能法律人格可能会严重冲击现有法律制度,使得其沦为自然人逃避法律制裁的工具,甚至加剧奴役和压迫。面对人工智能技术,需要坚持人类唯一主体地位,在现有法律框架内处理责任承担问题,不得随意拟制法律人格,根据其技术含量采取前期引导、中期约束、后期干预的立法逻辑,理性应对人工智能技术带来的挑战。     

论客观性证据审查应用模式

构建客观性证据审查应用模式,在证明事实的刑事司法证明活动中,以客观性证据为审查重心,凭借其可靠的稳定性和关联性的证据特性,确证案件基础事实,并优先运用客观性证据进而引导全案证据审查判断形成梯次递进的结构性事实的证明体系,通过逐次验证各项犯罪事实要素来确证整个犯罪事实。客观性证据审查应用模式避免了以口供为主导的审查模式缺陷,具有发现证据上的矛盾和事实疑点的能力,在防止错案发生上有滤错功能。在司法实践中,应建立起保证模式发挥作用的机制和办法,确立适用规则,从制度上落实疑罪从无的司法原则。     

人民法院在学位撤销案件中如何进行审查——基于司法审查强度的裁判反思

通过对1998年至2020年我国各级人民法院公开发布的学位撤销案件进行爬梳可以发现,高校撤销学位的事由主要集中在学历证明伪造和科研论文造假,兼有学术性和非学术性;法院对高校撤销学位决定的司法审查强度基于事实认定、法律适用和法律程序的不同而存在差异性的界分。为了维系学术自由与司法审查之间的平衡,并实质性地解决教育行政争议,人民法院应根据学术性事由和非学术性事由、正式程序和非正式程序的区分来建构二元化的事实认定审查标准,强化对学位撤销构成要件审查的释法说理,并审慎对待学位撤销决定的程序违法、审慎适用撤销判决,避免"程序空转"和"虚置诉讼"。     

科技法律责任的特性与制度优化

科学技术在为人类社会带来便利的同时也带来了许多科技风险.在风险社会中完善的科技法律责任对科技社会法律治理、科技法律体系化建设、传统法律责任体系突破、科技强国建设以及科学技术标准化发展都具有重要意义.通过对中国现有主要科技基本法律文本的分析,可以看出中国现行科技法律责任体现为三大传统法律责任的综合,且其中行政法律责任占据...     

论法律事实与客观事实

法律事实与客观事实的一般关系是 ,客观事实是法律事实的基础 ,法律事实是客观事实的再现或者反映 ,法律事实必须以客观事实为追求目标。法律事实对客观事实的追求是通过一系列证据法上的制度设计实现的 ,能否最大限度地确保法律事实与客观事实相一致 ,是衡量证据规则是否成功的基本标志。法律事实一般应当与客观事实相符合 ,但由于种种原因 ,也可能产生不一致的情况 ,包括无奈的不一致、错误的不一致和有意的不一致。     

Law‐Linked Justice and Existence‐Linked Justice

Abstract. Justice as a manifestation of “the just” is an evasive concept. On the one hand there is the law, an operation run by professionals. On the other hand there are the citizens the law is meant for. Generally speaking the law strives for justice. But the law has to protect many different interests and must work through legal devices. Therefore the justice that emerges from it is necessarily a legal compromise. For the citizens the legal rules are a given reality. Generally they will agree that the law is there to achieve justice but legal arguments that justify a rule or decision cannot have the same value for them. In cases that affect them personally, justice will be a personal, existential experience, which may be incompatible with legal justice. It is hard to keep these two forms of justice under one roof. In order to make this easier this paper proposes a conceptual split between “law‐linked justice” and “existence‐linked justice.” It is argued that the law cannot in truth to its rational origin ignore the citizens’ experience of justice, out of the ordinary as they may be.     

知识产权诉讼中技术调查官制度的若干问题研究——以技术调查意见为视角

技术调查官制度是审理知识产权案件中查明技术事实的重要制度.技术调查官根据法官的指令参与诉讼审理的全过程并对查明的技术事实出具技术调查意见.由于我国的现行规定存在局限性,导致技术调查意见在司法实践的适用过程中出现诸多问题,比如适用范围的界定不清、适用程序中是否公开以及具体适用方式等问题.为了有效规范技术调查意见的具体适用...     

侦查实验笔录简论

侦查实验是指侦查人员在刑事诉讼过程中按照科学的原则和方法,在模拟案件原有条件基础上所设计、实施的．旨在查明与案件有关的事实的存在、发生的可能性或其状态、过程的法科学活动。侦查实验笔录是侦查实验过程及结论的载体．是侦查人员按照法定格式制作的,用于描述和证明实验过程中发生的具有法律意义的事实状况的书面记录。在证据法学视野内...     

Legal Justification by Optimal Coherence*

This paper examines the concept of coherence and its role in legal reasoning. First, it identifies some problem areas confronting coherence theories of legal reasoning about both disputed questions of fact and disputed questions of law. Second, with a view to solving these problems, it proposes a coherence model of legal reasoning. The main tenet of this coherence model is that a belief about the law and the facts under dispute is justified if it is “optimally coherent,” that is, if it is such that an epistemically responsible legal decision‐maker would have accepted it as justified by virtue of its coherence in like circumstances. Last, looking beyond the coherence theory, the paper explores the implications of the version of legal coherentism proposed for a general theory of legal reasoning and rationality.     

论法律事实的程序保障

法律事实是指在法定的程序空间内,由多方诉讼主体依据既定的规则建构起来的一幅案件事实图景,它是某种法律裁决据以作出的事实依据。正当程序是法律事实之正当性的保障:正当程序能够为法律事实提供独立的建构空间;能够保证法律事实的建构以理性化的方式进行;能够促进事实建构过程中的人权保障;能够凸显法律事实建构的民主性特点。所以,法律事实的正当性只能通过正当程序来实现。     

Providing Interdisciplinary Services to At‐Risk Families to Prevent the Placement of Children In Foster Care

Grandparents need support to take on the responsibility of children whose parents cannot care for them due to drug addiction, mental health issues, HIV illness, or other health problems. Without support and assistance, these families and children are likely to end up enmeshed in the already overburdened child abuse and neglect system. The University of Maryland has created a model program providing social work and legal services to at‐risk grandparent families to help avoid the unnecessary placement of these children in foster care. In this new program, student attorneys and student social workers worked with the grandparent client to help stabilize the family, providing representation or advice on housing, public benefits, custody, and school‐related issues. Joint education of student attorneys and student social workers in a clinical experience enhances their understanding of their roles and those of the other profession and prepares them for a more thoughtful and informed approach to family law, child welfare cases, and at‐risk children.     

论法人的独立人格及判断标准

本文对法人的独立人格及取得条件进行了深入研究,剖析了法人责任能力的基本内涵,指出现行立法和相关理论将法人独立责任能力等同于投资人有限责任,从而使法人概念限于投资人负有限责任的团体,不能正确体现法人独立人格的内涵,并导致法人理论的混乱。因此,应当摒弃现行理论,赋予法人正确的法律定位,以适应市场体制建设的发展需要。     

中国古代证据制度的思想基础及特点分析

以中华法系为代表的中国古代法制文明在世界法律史中占有重要地位,也是中国古代文明的体现。法律制度的设计必须与其所处的经济、社会制度与环境相适应．古代中国法律体现了这点．作为法律制度一部分、对于事实的认定、纠纷的解决具有重要影响的证据制度也是如此。中国古代证据制度在设计及实施过程中受到了古代哲学、伦理观念、心理学等因素的影响,同时也与当时的生产力水平相适应。中国古代证据制度具有与西方不同的特征。这与中国古代对人的重视、以儒家为主导的哲学观念、当时的生产力水平以及家法宗族的统治密切相关。     

Scientific and legal standards of statistical evidence in toxic tort and discrimination suits

Many legal disputes turn on scientific, especially statistical, evidence. Traditionally scientists have accepted only that statistical evidence which satisfies a 95 percent (or 99 percent) rule — that is, only evidence which has less than five percent (or one percent) probability of resulting from chance.The rationale for this rule is the reluctance of scientists to accept anything less than the best-supported new knowledge. The rule reflects the internal needs of scientific practice. However, when uncritically adopted as a rule for admitting legal evidence, the seemingly innocuous 95 percent rule distorts the balance of interests historically protected by the legal system. In particular, plaintiffs in toxic tort and employment discrimination suits are effectively held to a heavier burden of proof in showing that their injuries were more probably than not caused by the defendant's actions. The result is that too many victims of toxic torts or employment discrimination cannot win legal redress for their injuries.Proposals to adopt stringent scientific rules of evidence thus implicate significant philosophical issues about the relation of evidence to belief and to practical action. The underlying objectives of the tort law system are not those of scientific practice, and each set of objectives has standards of evidence specific to it.Previous versions of this paper were read at the UCLA Law and Philosophy Discussion Group and at the Orange County Moral and Political Philosophy Discussion Group. We have benefitted from comments by Steve Munzer, Peter Aranella, Craig Ihara, Gary Watson, David Estlund, and Alex Rosenberg. A longer version of this paper is in preparation. In that paper we hope to develop some of the items merely sketched in this paper.     

《投资者示范诉讼法》:一个群体性法律保护的完美方案?

作为德国法上关于群体性法律保护的最新尝试,《投资者示范诉讼法》要旨在于:将群体性诉讼中的共同事实或法律问题交给上级法院,由后者在一种"两造诉讼"的框架内先行审理,并以审理结果作为解决所有个别纠纷的基础。立法者期望,通过这种方式,在为德国电信案这类大规模侵害案件提供解决之道的同时,又可以避开各类"代表式"诉讼在处理诉讼参加和判决效力扩张问题时经常遇到的困境。但是,这一方案不仅在法解释学上面临一系列无法解决的难题,在诉讼效率方面也没有展示出明显优势。在当事人的诉讼参加与大规模纠纷的高效解决之间,立法者终究要作出取舍。     

Withdrawal of Parental Responsibility: Lost Authority and a Lost Opportunity

This comment examines Re D (Withdrawal of Parental Responsibility), the first reported Court of Appeal decision on withdrawal of parental responsibility pursuant to section 4(2A) of the Children Act 1989. It demonstrates that the Court overlooked earlier Court of Appeal authority, resulting in tension in the Court's guidance. The comment criticises the Court of Appeal's characterisation of parental responsibility as entirely child‐centred and its uncritical acceptance that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration in applications for withdrawal of parental responsibility. It argues that such an approach may not adequately respect the parent's interests in retaining parental responsibility, especially in the context of an order which is more draconian in effect than a care order. The impact upon applications for removal of parental responsibility of the new presumption of parental involvement, which was implemented shortly after the decision in Re D, is also considered.     

关于民事诉讼证据的几个问题

民事诉讼证据是我国民事诉讼制度中的重要环节,《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》的出台对于解决司法实践中的主要矛盾,完善我国入世后的法制环境起到重要作用。本文就民事诉讼证据中的举证责任、自认及判断证据的标准等进行分析阐述,以揭示它在审判实践中的重大意义和深远影响。