提高法官地位与权威是提升司法公信的重要路径

＂法律需要被信仰,否则它形同虚设。＂在法官已成为法院、法律缩影的时代,如何让百姓相信法院、信仰法律,很大程度上表现为人民群众对法官的认同与尊重。法官不被认同和尊重的多重因素就直观因素来讲,表现为：一是＂执行难＂问题。不少群众认为法院执行不力,法官暗箱操作,或想吃拿卡要,将判决书贬称＂法律白条＂,甚至＂打折出让判决书＂,认为赢了官司输了钱的司法不如不要。二是人为放大冤假错案。     

司法透明视野下的司法与社区关系构建

如何构建司法与社区的对话机制、如何使社区更了解司法的职能活动、如何促进司法与社区的良性互动,是一个摆在各级法院面前的崭新课题.构建司法与社区的新型关系,是实践司法性质、彰显司法民主、实现司法正义的需要,同时也有利于遏制司法腐败、树立司法权威、提高司法效益、培育法官素养.在司法透明的视野下,需要重构司法与社区的关系,除了已经在实行的庭审直播、巡回审判等外,还可以着重开展法官的社区知识培训、设立社区工作日和法院开放日、为公众知悉审判信息提供方便、法院网站建设等几个方面的工作.     

乡村司法的“公正”与“秩序”

从实用主义立场出发,规范法学所谓的＂法治乱象＂,并不能简单地归因于法庭和法官的徇私枉法,而是由其固有的结构性条件决定的。而且乡村司法实践并非真如形式主义法治论所宣示的那样混乱、无序;相反,在貌似＂混乱＂的乡村司法背后隐藏着有序与正义的契机。但由于缺乏底线的程序规制,乡村司法的此种＂公正＂和＂秩序＂并非一种稳定和普遍的司法产品,而是因案件结构、法官个人因素等的差异而表现出一定的任意性和偶然性,因而是一种＂个人化＂的公正和秩序。     

中国司法鼻祖——皋陶

皋陶,后人也称其为＂咎陶＂或＂咎由＂,是我国历史上第一位有姓名记载的法官。皋陶生活在舜帝时代,被现代史学界和司法界公认为＂司法鼻祖＂,与尧、舜、禹同被称为“上古四圣”。     

审判权厘定后审判业务机构改革的新进路

司法责任制改革旨在“让审理者裁判,由裁判者负责”,即一方面尊重司法规律,防止审判权运行的行政化及受到不当干扰;另一方面,健全完善法官惩戒制度,防止法官滥用权力或怠于行使权力。在实践中,这些问题则体现在:如何具体把握扁平化管理的尺度,厘清审判监督与“让审理者裁判”之间的关系,以及如何健全完善法官惩戒制度等方面。本期策划将展示实践者们对上述问题的思考,以期对司法责任制改革有所裨益。     

司法认知:概念界定与制度构建

在我国司法实践中,一直存在着法官自觉或者不自觉地运用司法认知进行事实认定的情形,但由于缺乏明确的法律规范,同时理论研究也不够深入,导致法官在司法认知的使用中出现了种种问题。一方面,法官不愿进行司法认知或者不敢进行司法认知,另一方面又存在着任意进行司法认知的情形,司法认知这一有用工具并未发挥应有的作用。因此,针对当下形势的发展变化,结合我国的司法实践,准确界定司法认知的含义,并确立科学的使用规则,对于提升法官裁判水平,保证案件公正审判具有重要意义。一、司法认知的概念界定在诉讼活动中,根据证据裁判主义的基本原则,对     

判例规则与法官职业--兼论法官判案的创造

判例规则是由法官所创造的、在判例中所蕴含的对其后的类似案件具有类似拘束力的规则和原则,它不仅是法律的重要渊源,而且在英美法系国家以之为中心构成了独特的判例法体系。判例规则之所以能够成为法律,在于司法活动的典范性、人类交往行为的可重复性和类似性。该规则具有开放、进化、不确定和借助个别正义达致普遍正义等特征。判例规则与法官职业之间形成明显互动的关系:一方面,法官职业缔造了判例规则;另一方面,判例规则完善了法官职业。     

能动与协同:社区法官制度的东莞模式

社区法官制度是人民法庭在辖区内的社区(村或居委会)设立法官工作室,指定法官驻点社区、就地化解纠纷的制度。社区法官解决的主要是民生纠纷、群体性纠纷和简单经济纠纷;社区法官主动处理非诉纠纷,法官与社区调解人协同解决诉讼纠纷。社区法官制度有利于提高纠纷解决效率、增强司法的的权威性和有效性。社区法官制度的发展进路是:建立社区法官助理"网格化"制度,以社区法官助理为平台整合基层解纷资源,完善联动机制,建立社区法官助理系统激励制度。     

立信持疑：法官视角下司法信任的生产逻辑

司法信任是司法公信力产生的微观和具体化的过程，司法公信力是司法信任累积的结果。对司法信任生产逻辑的研究，通过聚焦于主体面对面的直接互动，可以提供对司法公信力形成的过程性认知。基于以上逻辑预设，在对Y市基层人民法院的田野调查中发现，面对当事人，法官一方面需要努力建立当事人对自己的信任，另一方面则需要时刻保持对当事人的不信任，并充分利用这种不信任来开展工作。“立信持疑”是法官生产司法信任的独特逻辑。法院组织合法性的日常实践、法官对风险的把控、程序性权力的行使是这一逻辑形成的核心因素。上述结论进一步拓展了关于司法场域中信任问题的讨论，亦即研究法官等司法主体之信任行动的意义不容忽视，个体行动的“双面性”和“不信任”行动有着丰富的背景与意涵。     

重庆五中院：短信助力文化建设提档升级

近年来,重庆市第五中级人民法院确立了＂德正法公,民本业精＂院训,坚持＂以文教化＂,从物质文化、精神文化、制度文化、廉政文化四个层面探索创新,培育法官忠诚、为民、公正、廉洁的核心价值观。2012年起,该院启用＂司法公开服务短信平台＂,逐步探索出了一条＂以短信助力司法公信＂的特色文化建设之路,于2013年12月被最高人民法院表彰为全国法院文化建设特色项目。     

非政府组织介入WTO争端解决机制的实证分析及其利弊考量

WTO争端解决机制正式运作以来,许多非政府组织不断以向争端解决机构提交“法庭之友”陈述的方式介入到争端解决程序中来。一方面,非政府组织的介入可以提请法官注意到争端当事方可能忽略的法律、环保、人权等问题,提高裁决的质量并增强WTO的透明度;另一方面,这种介入也可能会给当事方造成额外的诉讼负担,影响裁决的效率等等。因此,如何在允许非政府组织以“法庭之友”身份介入争端解决机制的情况下做到公平与效率的平衡才是我们所要解决的根本问题。     

法律语言的模糊性及准确运用

根据传统的范畴理论,法律表达应符合准确性这一基本要求,故追求准确为立法语言和司法语言的目标之一。但是,由于对事物的界定模糊不清以及人类的认知能力有限,法律语言尤其是立法语言中常使用模糊词语,有助于增强语言表达的效率及保护当事人权利,但也会带来诸如过分扩大法官自由裁量权等不利后果。对于法律语言的模糊性,可借助内外部指导、司法判决以及相关语境而使之明确化,从而有效地限制法官的自由裁量权过分膨胀。     

Overview of the Faith,Law, and Morality Project of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and Forum Presentations

On Monday, November 27, 1995, twenty-five judges, faith leaders, and community representatives converged on Lake Tahoe for the start of a bold experiment. Each of the participants had been formally invited to participate in a forum to discuss the important moral and ethical issues facing society today. Set in a retreat environment at Incline Village, Nevada, this forum would open a dialogue between judges, members of the faith community, and others about common issues and concerns. The participants' mission was to work in groups to draft a joint resolution – a call to action for judges, faith leaders and the community. Their work would be inspired by short reflections on faith, law and morality offered by fellow participants. The discussion format would alternate between small groups of six to seven each and the group as a whole. Most important would be the opportunity to listen; the diversity of individual viewpoints would enrich the participants' thinking on the fundamental yet complex interrelation between law and morality. How did it work? Exceedingly well.     

Assessing the influence of the Columbine shooting on federal sentencing outcomes

School shootings are not a new phenomenon in the United States or internationally. In comparison to other acts of violence experienced by youth, such tragedies are uncommon but garner extensive media attention. The Columbine High School shooting received more attention across a broader range of issues than any other school shooting, with only the Sandy Hook tragedy rivaling it for media attention. In the aftermath of the Columbine shooting, public sentiment regarding violence in schools became a central point of contention that bred fear and panic. Given the embeddedness of judges within the larger community context and the effects of community characteristics on sentencing outcomes, we wondered if the Columbine shooting – via moral panic and community upheaval – might have had an impact on judges imposing criminal sentences. To assess the effect of the Columbine shooting on judicial decision-making outcomes, the current study uses United States Sentencing Commission data from 1998 through 2001. In doing so, it contributes to the extant literature concerning the embeddedness of judges within communities and answers recent call for more research on the temporal context of sentencing disparities.     

Cross-Jurisdictional Differences in Punitive Public Attitudes?

With more information the Dutch public becomes less punitive. However, recent studies showed a remaining punitiveness gap between the general public and judges, despite the provision of detailed case information. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that the Dutch public overestimates the courts’ punitiveness. This is not in line with studies abroad. These contradictions raise questions, on the one hand, about the possibility of actual cross jurisdictional differences, on the other hand, about methodological explanations. A limited set of survey questions from studies abroad was therefore replicated with a new Dutch public sample. It focused on questions and methodologies that produced findings most directly at odds with earlier studies in the Netherlands. Using the same measurement approach, findings abroad were reproduced with the new Dutch sample for perceptions of punitiveness of judges and the courts. Thus using a different methodology new findings support conclusions that are opposite to our earlier conclusions. On the other hand, also with methodologies that have produced opposite conclusions abroad, the Dutch public does remain more punitive than judges. In the discussion it is argued that some of the remaining contradictions may be perfectly reconcilable, as long as conclusions are stated in a qualified manner.     

民间法与裁判规范

裁判规范是法官在司法中援引或运用一定规则以直接适用于个案的规范。裁判规范分为两种：一种是法官援引一定规范所直接形成的裁判规范；另一种是法官运用一定规范而构造的裁判规范。民间法作为法律渊源，既可以被法官直接援引作为裁判规范，也可以被法官作为构造裁判规范的“原材料”加以运用。民间法作为法律渊源有一些制约性条件，需要法官识别民间法，也给法官增加了论证义务，以便使民间法作为裁判规范或者以民间法为据构造裁判规范时，获得当事人及其他社会主体的接受。     

司法政策与监管政策的竞争——基于信用卡纠纷裁判的观察

政策对司法裁判产生实然的影响,当司法政策与监管政策发生竞争时,作为裁判者的地方法院面临选择困境。信用卡民事纠纷实证研究表明,法院对"费率限定"的司法政策与"费率约定"监管政策的认同基本抗衡并受到政策解释路径的影响。改进政策在技术层面的适用,应发挥抽象规则的威慑力,关注政策可能的不利后果,加强个案裁判说理论证。而从根本上化解政策竞争,需要建立司法权与监管权协调机制。一方面,加强职能履行过程的协调,适用法律对政策竞争予以解释,运用消极司法审查发挥个案裁判灵活性;另一方面,加强政策制定程序的协调,横向上明确规范性文件征求意见程序,纵向上完善规范性文件备案审查程序,从而超越政策竞争,实现协同治理。     

Can feminist judges make a difference?

Many of the expectations and aspirations about the ‘difference’ that women judges would make have proved unrealistic, given the inevitable diversity and often conservatism of women appointed as judges. On the other hand, we might reasonably expect feminist judges to ‘make a difference’. This essay focuses on feminist judges, and seeks to identify what it is that we might reasonably expect of them. This in turn requires consideration of who counts as a feminist judge, what might be included in a feminist approach to judging, and what institutional norms inherent within the judicial role might constrain the adoption of a feminist approach. The essay concludes that feminist judges both can and ought to make a difference across a wide range of judicial activities.     

美国司法语境下法律解释的宪政困境及其消解

分权的政治逻辑要求法官在司法过程中保持克制与谦抑以维护多数主义的民主价值,然而解释学的本体论转向使法官解释的能动性成为既成事实,通过司法实现正义又成为美国宪政制度的法治追求。分权逻辑与解释学逻辑在话语上的对立构成民主与法治的张力,形成法律解释的宪政困境,这从根本上缘于西方宪政民主制度内在的结构矛盾。在美国司法语境下,对于法律解释的宪政困境存在着司法积极主义和司法消极主义两种司法哲学的对立,温和的司法积极主义对于法律解释宪政困境的缓解是可行的理论进路。     

Judges who drive under the influence of alcohol: ethical implications and the role of restorative justice measures to balance judicial duty and societal expectations

Judges across the US have been charged or convicted of driving while intoxicated, yet many judges are allowed to continue to practice despite their criminal act(s). The issue becomes not only a societal issue, but also an ethical and professional one which impacts the individual criminal justice practitioner and criminal justice agencies. Duty to judicial and social expectations informs an argument regarding ethical theories: deontology and utilitarianism. Solutions include an examination of restorative justice measures such as: a balance of service to the community such as participating in victim-offender mediation and victim-offender panels as the offender, and completing community service where the victim chooses the judges number of hours and location of the service. While some may believe these jurists should suffer punitive punishments such as loss of judgeships, long-term treatment, and extensive probation coupled with individual psychiatric therapy, consideration of all factors with restoration in mind, might be more appropriate for these judicial offenders.