浅议刑事再审程序的价值理念

刑事再审程序作为法律救济的一种特别程序,其设立的目的是为了纠正错误的裁判,实现司法的公正。但再审程序的启动必然涉及到诉讼效率问题。目前我国现行刑事再审程序的设计以追求实体公正为理念,轻视了程序公正,忽视了效率价值。这也导致目前我国司法实践中刑事再审程序的实施效果未能尽如人意。本文首先具体分析了我国刑事再审程序价值理念之不足,接着进一步从理论上阐明再审程序与司法公正和诉讼效率的关系,进而提出了实体公正与程序公正并重,兼顾公正与效率,在公正的前提下实现最大的诉讼效益的价值理念。     

追求司法效率的误区分析

我国的司法改革把效率作为重要价值目标,在追求效率价值过程中,必须清醒认识到效率和公正相背离的一面,避免以“司法万能”的观念误导民众。在程序改革方面,我国司法改革的主要方向应当是程序的正规化而非简化,不能以效率为由拒绝程序的细致和正当化。最后,程序效率的受益人应当定位于当事人,不能单纯关注国家安全利益而忽视当事人对效率的需求。     

律师与程序公正

律师与程序公正似乎是两个毫无关联的问题，在我国如火如荼的司法改革潮流中，程序公正作为司法改革的一个重要的价值目标，牵涉的基本上是司法独立、法官中立、审判公开等诸多涉及审判制度本身的问题，诉讼法学理论及司法实践都是围绕法官的作用和司法体制来讨论程序公正的实现，而完全忽略了作为辨论主角的律师。如果要从保持法官中立、尊重当事人的主体地位角度来分析诉讼程序，意图达到程序公正则无论如何也不能离开律师的作用。无论从理论上还是司法实践中律师以当事人的代理人身份成为诉讼参加人在很大程度上影响着司法公正的实现。笔…     

设立刑事预审程序的思考与设想

公正、高效是刑事诉讼程序追求的两大主题,也是法治国家普遍追求的司法价值取向。司法公正包括实体公正和程序公正,而任何程序设计在考虑公正的前提下还应考虑效率,因为迟来的公正就是不公正。而从当前进行的刑事审判方式改革的实践来看,程序特别是庭前程序设计的滞后已经成为深化     

论司法改革与司法公正

司法公正涵括了程序公正和实体公正两层涵义。程序公正指在整个司法过程中公正地对待作为当事人的冲突主体 ,保证冲突主体能足够和充分地表述自己的愿望、主张和请求的手段及其行为的空间。而实体公正则是指判决结果对案件真实情况的准确再现以及法律适用的正确无误。程序公正与实体公正两者是辩证统一的。我国现行司法体制的结构性缺陷正在于公正的缺失。而正在进行的司法改革的目标定位正是为了重塑司法公正。为此 ,在改革的动力资源上 ,必须依赖国家与社会的双向互动 ,在改革的路径选择上 ,需要在本土化的基础上走创新型制度移植的道路。     

我国司法精神病鉴定启动制度浅析

随着我国法制社会进程的日益发展和健全,司法精神病鉴定制度受到全社会的极大的关注,但其中的不足也不断凸现。司法精神病鉴定制度的启动直接关系和影响到作为证据的鉴定结论的证据能力和司法鉴定的严肃性及司法的公正与效率。因此,以法定的或规范化的形式完善我国的司法精神病鉴定启动程序应是我国司法鉴定制度改革的重要内容。     

司法改革与程序意识

由于司法是以程序为核心的，又由于司法改革所追求的不只是司法结果的公正，更是司法过程本身的公正，因而，司法改革在实质上是程序的改革。然而，如果支配着程序的设计和运作的程序价值观是有待批判、变革的话，则程序的改革就不只是细节性安排或技术性变化。该文通过对三大诉讼法程序设计的分析，指出程序意识变革的先导性意义，并在目的与手段、权利与权力、法治与人治、共性与个性等关涉程序的一系列关系中，对要变革和塑造的程序价值观作了分析     

刑事案件速裁程序与刑事简易程序之比较

正十二届全国人大常委会第九次会议表决通过了《关于授权最高人民法院、最高人民检察院在部分地区开展刑事案件速裁程序试点工作的决定》。这就意味着在原有的刑事普通程序、刑事简易程序的基础之上新增加了刑事案件速裁程序。本文就刑事简易程序与速裁程序的异同进行比较研究。一、刑事简易程序与速裁程序的共同点(一)均体现了公正和效率并重的理念公正是司法工作的底线,一切司法程序都是为了司法公正而设计。没有了司法公正,一切都无从谈起。     

论司法认同:危机与重建

司法认同是社会对司法基于价值认可而形成的心理归属感。制度自信之源在于社会认同。当代中国司法认同模式正在经历从身份认同向制度认同转型,因社会和司法制度双向不适应而出现认同危机。作为制度认同,司法认同形成的首要条件是制度的有效性,即满足社会对司法公正解决纠纷的期待的程度。符合司法规律的"公正"可以简化为依法裁判和程序正当两个要素。其次,社会关于司法公正的价值共识是司法认同的观念要件。深化司法改革就是革除干扰依法裁判和导致程序失灵的体制、机制问题,提高司法沟通能力,促成关于司法公正的社会共识。从影响司法认同的要素入手,有助于改革处理好治标与治本的关系。     

论司法公正与司法效率

司法公正主要指的是司法机关适用法律、解决纷争的公正。司法效率是指通过充分、合理运用司法资源,降低司法成本,以最小的司法成本获得最大的成果。不讲效率的司法不是公正的司法;不公正的司法是一个没有效率的司法;公正与效率是相辅相成的。司法公正与司法效率的实现从以下几方面着手:树立程序公正的意识;确立既判效力理念;完善法官制度,建立一支高素质的职业化法官队伍。     

Contract Law as Fairness

This article examines the implications for contract law of Rawls' theory of justice as fairness. It argues that contract law as an institution is part of the basic structure of society and as such subject to the principles of justice. Discussing the basic structure in relation to contract law is particularly interesting because it is instructive for both contract law and Rawlsian theory. On the one hand, justice as fairness has clear normative implications for the institution of contract law. On the other hand, this discussion forces us to critically assess the meaning and appeal of the concept of a basic structure in justice as fairness.     

社会分配法的价值范畴分析

分配正义作为社会分配法的基本价值范畴,是一个由平等、自由、公平、效率等要素性价值目标构成价值体系。但是,在不同国家的特定社会经济条件下,分配法律制度的主导价值追求和目标排序是有明显差异的。在分配法律制度中,分配正义将通过基本原则这一价值载体来确认和指导法律调整分配关系的目标定位和路径选择。     

公诉的价值

公诉的价值目标是国家与社会通过公诉活动所追求的结果。公诉在客观属性上具有众多功效 ,但国家与社会自觉追求的是其中最有意义的功效。公诉的价值目标主要表现在三个方面 ,一是实现法律正义 ,这是公诉的外在价值 ,保证公诉结果的正确性 ;二是体现程序公正 ,这是公诉的内在价值 (独立价值 ) ,突出公诉过程的公平性 ;三是注意诉讼效益 ,这是公诉的功利价值 ,强调公诉制度的社会性。     

辩诉交易公正价值之重新审视

公正是司法的最高价值,司法公正具有相对性和多元性。辩诉交易构建于控辩对等的诉讼模式之上,众多相关制度确保了其客观与公正。同时,辩诉交易凸显了诉讼民主、体现了解纷中的效率价值、实现了公正与效率的均衡、确保了公正的最大化,内含着巨大的公正价值,具有旺盛的生命力,因此,借鉴国外先进的司法制度,构建中国的辩诉交易制度当无理念上之障碍。     

Toward Understanding the Psychology of Reactions to Perceived Fairness: The Role of Affect Intensity

In social psychology it has been argued that the importance of justice cannot be overstated. In the present paper, we ask whether this indeed is the case and, more precisely, examine when fairness is an important determinant of human reactions and when it is less significant. To this end we explore what drives people's reactions to perceived fairness and argue that although social justice research has reported effects of fairness perceptions on people's affective feelings, a close examination of the literature shows that these reactions appear less frequently and less strong than one would expect. It is proposed here that this has to do with the neglect in the social psychology of justice of an important determinant of affective reactions: individuals' propensity to react strongly or mildly toward affect-related events. As hypothesized, findings of two empirical studies show that especially people high in affect intensity show strong affective reactions following the experience of outcome fairness (Study1) and procedural fairness (Study2). When affect intensity is low, however, weak or no fairness effects were found, suggesting that then fairness may not be an important issue. In the discussion it is thus argued that incorporating affect intensity into the justice literature may further insights into the psychology of reactions toward fairness.     

试论高校内部管理法治化

高校内部管理法治化是依法治国方略在高等教育领域的具体体现,现代高校的管理权力的法治化要求实现对管理权力的法律治理。高校管理权力运作越来越依赖于一个理性化的运行机制,其过程和结果要充分表达制度理性、程序公平、结果正义。如果说在以往高校内部管理的功能的最初指向是秩序,而后逐渐地转向了公正并通过更多的公正来实现秩序的话,那么在现代社会,高校内部管理法治化的内涵成为公正的一个重要渊源进而也成为现实秩序的价值基础。     

Culture,values, and beliefs about economic justice

We examine the relationship between values and beliefs about economic justice by conducting a cross-cultural analysis. Social values of Americans and West Germans are compared and the relationships between values and beliefs about the fairness of the distribution of business profits are examined. Data are from the 1984 General Social Survey and its West German counterpart, the 1984 ALLBUS; both surveys contain identical value and economic justice items. We find that among citizens in both countries beliefs about the fairness of the distribution of business profits are related to values even when income and education are held constant, but the relationship is stronger in West Germany. For Americans, beliefs about the fairness of the distribution of business profits are related primarily to conservative values (beliefs that greater efforts lead to greater rewards). In addition, the positive influence of conservative values and of income level on fairness judgments is greater for Americans with higher levels of education. For West Germans, beliefs about the fairness of business profits are related both to conservative and to liberal values (beliefs that class divisions persist). In general, economic fairness judgments of West Germans have a strong ideological basis, but polarization associated with differing ideologies is found. Economic fairness judgments of Americans showed both a simpler ideological basis and some relationship to self-interest. The influence of both factors on Americans' fairness judgments seemed to be affected by socialization due to education. Results are discussed in terms of the prevailing economic ideologies in both countries.     

Unfamiliarity and Procedural Justice: Litigants' Attitudes Toward Civil Justice in Southern China

While procedural justice has been regarded as a distinct and essential factor shaping litigants' views on civil justice, few studies have focused on China, a country with a unique legal tradition and frequent legal reforms. Drawing on surveys and interviews with litigants in a basic‐level court in Southern China, this study examines attitudes toward the civil justice system. Echoing several existing studies from China, our mixed methods analysis confirms that their views are dominated by outcomes—litigants with favorable outcomes are more likely to be satisfied, while those with unfavorable outcomes are more likely to be dissatisfied. Their unfamiliarity with the operation of the system constitutes a major reason for the dominance of substantive outcomes in their evaluations of the system. Many cannot distinguish between process and outcomes, nor do they feel control over the process. Moreover, they are dissatisfied with the process because it fails to meet their often‐erroneous expectations. Our results do not necessarily challenge the importance of procedural justice, but they do suggest that China may be different. Litigants' perceptions of justice and fairness are situated and shaped by specific contexts.     

Cross-Disciplinary Conversations: A Psychological Perspective on Justice Research with Non-human Animals

Social Justice Research has devoted two recent issues to the topic of inequity responses in non-human animals. The goal of this paper is to provide some commentary from the perspective of psychological theory and research on justice and fairness in humans. In an attempt to build greater cross-disciplinary sharing of ideas and insights, I briefly review the major insights from (a) contemporary research on questions of fairness and justice with non-human primates and how this corpus of knowledge can inform the on-going study of these issues in psychology and related disciplines, and (b) 50-plus years of research on justice and fairness in psychology and related disciplines, and how it can inform contemporary research efforts with non-human animals going forward. The spotlight behavioral economists and justice research with non-human animals places on the primary role of distributive justice is suggestive that it may be time for a renaissance of interest in this topic in psychology and related disciplines. The focus of psychological research on topics such as boundary conditions on equity as key justice concern (e.g., alternative distributive norms such as equality and need), as a well as attention given to procedural, interactional, retributive, and restorative justice, is suggestive that research with non-human animals should broaden its horizons to study alternative conceptions of justice and fairness.     

分割法:涉外侵权法律适用中的二元价值追求

“正义”与“公平”紧密联系在一起,构成判断实在法适当性的二元价值坐标.涉外侵权法律适用立法也应当以“正义”和“公平”作为确定法律选择方法或规则的价值追求.“行为地法”只能反应“正义”的诉求,不一定能满足“公平”的需要.“公平”的满足还应当考虑与受害人的居所和损害修复地有密切联系的法律.“正义”标准要求判断行为是非主要适用“行为地法”,而“公平”标准要求对侵权行为的处理还应当结合“受害人居所地法”、“法院地法”等其它标准.由此,涉外侵权法律适用被分割为两个方面:行为正当性和救济的公平性,二者应当兼顾.单一采用“行为地法”背离了二元价值追求.