The role of criminal record in the federal sentencing guidelines

In this paper my concern is with the collective moral responsibility of criminal investigators for the outcomes of their investigations, bearing in mind that it is important to distinguish collective moral responsibility from, and relate it to, individual moral responsibility. In what sense, if any, are police detectives individually and collectively morally responsible for their success (or, for that matter, their failure) in gathering sufficient evidence to identify, arrest, and charge an offender who has committed a serious crime? Alternatively, in what sense are they morally responsible in cases where they identify, arrest, and charge an innocent person? And in what sense, if any, are police detectives individually and collectively morally responsible for the ultimate outcome of the trial, the finding by the courts of someone they have investigated and charged with a serious crime to be guilty or innocent?     

Command Responsibility: Mode of Liability for the Crimes of Subordinates or Separate Offence of the Superior?

The nature of command responsibility is still open to debatein international criminal law: is a superior to be held criminallyresponsible for the crimes committed by his subordinates ‘asan accomplice’, for having participated in the commissionof the crime by omission, or as a perpetrator of a separateoffence of dereliction of duty? This article surveys the post-WW2case law and the first international instruments on this point,and then analyses the jurisprudence of the International CriminalTribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The judges appearto have recently adopted a new approach to Article 7(3) ICTYSt.in that the superior is held responsible ‘for failureto prevent or punish with regard to the crimes of the subordinate’and no longer ‘for the crimes of his subordinates’.It is a responsibility ‘sui generis’ indeed, wherethe crime of the subordinate plays a central role in the attributionof responsibility to the superior. It is, therefore, necessaryto carefully consider the relationship between the superior'sfailure to act and the subordinate's crime, both with regardto objective and subjective elements. The same question finallyarises in relation to Article 28 of the Rome Statute, the literalinterpretation of which implies that a superior shall be punishedfor the same crime committed by his subordinates. In order toavoid the risk of holding a person guilty of an offence committedby others in violation of the principle of personal and culpablecriminal responsibility, it is crucial to consider separatelythe different cases of command responsibility, which are basedon distinct objective and subjective requirements.     

智能障碍者凶杀伤害案例的司法鉴定分析

智能障碍的犯罪行为，在司法精神疾病鉴定中占有重要的地位。本文通过对３２例智能障碍者凶杀伤害犯罪鉴定案例的回顾性研究，对其特征性因素进行分析，发现在多个因素中，作案动机、有否预谋、智能障碍程度、社会适应能力以及自我保护能力是法定能力评定的主要参考因素。职业特点、性格特征、既往病史、伴随疾病是次要参考因素。提示其犯罪行为的实施不是单一因素形成的，而是多方面因素作用的结果。     

论共同过失犯罪的立法完善

我国刑法明文规定:“共同犯罪是指二人以上的共同故意犯罪;共同过失犯罪,不以共同犯罪论处。”这一方面在立法上承认有共同过失犯罪行为,另一方面又不确认其为共同犯罪,这与现实情况及共同犯罪的法理极不相称。因此,我国刑法在立法上确认共同过失犯罪为共同犯罪,并完善共同犯罪人和刑事责任的规定,确属十分必要。     

论单位犯罪的形态结构——兼论单位与单位成员责任分离论

现行单位刑事责任的立法规定是以单位犯罪是一个犯罪行为为理论前提的,因而存在诸多理不断、剪还乱的理论死结。为此,有必要重新审视单位犯罪的形态结构,理顺犯罪单位与犯罪单位成员之间的罪责关系。通常所说的"单位犯罪"实是一种特殊的犯罪聚合体,具体包括两个犯罪行为:一个是客观实在的由单位成员实施的自然人犯罪;另一个是法律拟制的单位犯罪。即源初意义上的"单位犯罪"。这两个犯罪行为因"为单位谋利"的单位成员行为在法律评价上的双重性而被立法者人为地聚合在一起,但单位责任和单位成员责任在构成和追诉上应当是各自独立和分离的,二者并不牵涉或互为前提。     

私分国有资产罪主体的定性分析

私分国有资产罪不具备"为了单位的利益"这一单位犯罪的必要要件."单罚制"不符合单位犯罪刑事责任的发展趋势.私分国有资产罪的主体是且应当是自然人,而不是单位.     

严格责任的中国命运

严格责任是在某些特殊案件中没有主观过错或起诉定罪不问主观过错的刑事责任制度,但它的内容不断在司法实践中得到修正。严格责任与我国的罪刑法定原则、主客观相统一原则、刑罚目的、刑法谦抑这些制度是能够相容的。在我国刑法中引入严格责任是现代刑法机能的内在要求,是发展罪过理论的需要,是司法实践的现实需要。     

论单位犯罪的直接责任人员

单位犯罪直接负责的主管人员,应当同时符合直接责任条件和主管人员身份条件。单位犯罪其他直接责任人员,是指积极地直接实施单位犯罪行为并对单位犯罪起主要作用的单位成员。《刑法》第31条实际上是否定所有单位犯罪部分行为人承担刑事责任的排除规则。     

肖志军案中的刑法难题和价值取向——不作为、因果关系与间接故意之新界

丈夫拒绝签字导致妻子死亡的行为属于间接故意杀人。肖志军因具有法定的救助义务而成立不作为;刑法应偏向患者利益,在医疗领域中采用风险增高理论来判断因果关系;在拒签时,肖志军认识到了妻子死亡的具体危险性,这决定了他属于间接故意的杀人。在社会救助体制缺失时,刑法期待通过强化个人责任而确立"全力救助患者生命"的价值导向。     

身份犯及其相关概念辨析

身份犯是指刑法规定的以行为人所具有的特定身份作为犯罪构成要件或量刑情节的犯罪。身份犯不同于亲手犯和不作为犯,身份犯是以犯罪主体是否具有特定身份为标准对犯罪进行分类的结果,亲手犯是根据实行行为是否可以和主体相分离而对犯罪所作的一种分类,不作为犯则是以实行行为的表现形式为标准划分的一类犯罪,三者既有区别,又有联系。     

The descriptive epidemiology of unnatural deaths in Oregon's state institutions: a 25-year (1963-1987) study. II. Analysis of the incidence rate and its many variations.

We have analyzed suicide data of the Forensic Psychiatric Program of the Oregon State Hospital in terms of the various ways of expressing occurrence rates that are found in the literature. All of these rates are ultimately based upon either (a) the average daily population, computed from occupancy rates of institutional beds, or (b) a measure of the total number of individuals at risk (that is, all who were in the study population during the time frame of the study). We discuss reasons for the use of these different rates. We have also calculated the risk of suicide for each of two factors: (a) the primary psychiatric diagnosis and (b) the type of legal commitment under which these patients were admitted to the Forensic Psychiatric Program. We discovered that virtually the entire risk of suicide in this program was borne by patients whose primary diagnosis was that of chronic schizophrenia and who were committed there because of diminished criminal responsibility for a crime of which they were found guilty in a court of law.     

Diffusion of responsibility in crime,punishment, and other adversity

Three studies tested the hypothesis that an individual acting alone, compared with an individual group member, would be held more responsible for behavior leading to a negative consequence. In one study, 240 subjects read scenarios of an event with a negative outcome involving one, two, three, or four individuals. As predicted, there was a significant inverse relationship between the number of participants and the degree of attributed responsibility. The second study investigated subjects' attributions of responsibility for criminals committing a crime alone or with a partner. Single perpetrators were considered more responsible than those acting with a partner, although there was no difference in sentence length assigned. In the third, archival-type study, prison sentences for criminals who had actually committed a robbery alone or with others were examined. Again, there was diffusion of responsibility: criminals acting alone received significantly longer sentences than perpetrators who had committed a similar crime, but who had acted with others.     

不能犯判断标准之我见

近年国内一些学者开始对传统刑法学将不能犯作为未遂的类型之一的观点进行质疑,使不能犯成为理论界关注的问题。而笔者亦认为有严格区分未遂犯和不能犯的必要,故试图采用比较分析法,结合国内外关于不能犯的理论进行比较研究,建议我国采用具体危险说为标准区分不能犯和能犯未遂的界限,以实现刑法的社会保护机能和社会保障机能。     

现行刑法体系下遗弃罪内涵的重新建构

遗弃罪是传统型的犯罪,随着社会观念与人际关系的变迁,如果将遗弃罪的行为对象仅限定在家庭成员之间,并不利于对公民人身法益的保护.遗弃罪在刑法体系中位置的变化为重新建构遗弃罪的内涵提供了契机.正确理解刑法上的"扶养义务"是合理确定遗弃罪行为对象外延的关键."紧密生活共同体"是认定遗弃罪中"扶养义务"的现实基础."扶养义务"的来源受事实上扶养关系的制约.义务的扶养性、义务程度的紧迫性是遗弃罪与以遗弃方式实施的不作为的故意杀人罪的主要区别.     

被告人不认罪案件量刑程序的理想模式

被告人不认罪案件的量刑程序如何设计是当前量刑规范化改革试点过程中一个争议较大的问题,在司法理论和实践中有两种不同的模式——相对独立的量刑程序模式和隔离的量刑程序模式。量刑规范化改革的目的在于使量刑过程程序化、公开化,从而实现量刑公正,达到罪责刑相适应的要求。针对被告人不认罪案件,建立理想的量刑程序模式,将定罪程序与量刑程序有效地分隔开来,有利于达到量刑规范化改革的目的。     

指挥官刑事责任基本理论

指挥官刑事责任是指挥官因为其下级实施了犯罪而应当承担的一种共犯责任。该理论在20世纪随着一系列重要的国际刑事司法实践而逐渐形成,并在当前主要的国际刑事法律中得到了体现。要追究指挥官的刑事责任,必须证明三点:具有上下级关系;上级知道或者应当知道下级的罪行;上级指挥官未能采取合理、必要的措施阻止犯罪或者惩罚罪犯。但是,无论是在司法实践中,还是在理论研究上,人们对这个原则还有不同的认识与做法,一个科学、合理的指挥官刑事责任理论体系还有待建立。     

Skepticism and Sanction: The Benefits of Rejecting Moral Responsibility

It is sometimes objected that we cannot adopt skepticism about moral responsibility, because the criminal justice system plays an indispensable social function. In this paper, I examine the implications of moral responsibility skepticism for the punishment of those convicted of crime, with special attention to recent arguments by Saul Smilansky. Smilansky claims that the skeptic is committed to fully compensating the incarcerated for their detention, and that this compensation would both be too costly to be practical and would remove the deterrent function from incarceration. I argue that the skeptic is not committed to full compensation of the offender, and that the costs of such compensation would in any case be far smaller than Smilansky thinks. In fact, I claim, the costs of the criminal justice system to which the skeptic is committed might be very much lower than the costs ?C economic, social and moral ?C we currently pay as a consequence of our system of punishment.     

Superior Responsibility under Article 28 ICC Statute: For What Exactly is the Superior Held Responsible?

Superior responsibility is a concept for attributing criminalliability to military commanders and other superiors that isemployed with some frequency in the ad hoc international criminaltribunals. Nevertheless, it remains unclear for what the superioris actually blamed. The author argues that with respect to superiorresponsibility as construed in Article 28 ICC Statute the answerto this question depends on the form of superior responsibilityfor which the accused is found guilty. If the superior is heldresponsible for not having prevented or repressed the subordinate'scrime even though the superior knew of the crime, he or shecan be blamed for both, the criminal conduct of the subordinateand the wrongful consequence caused by it. For all other formsof superior responsibility, the superior can only be blamedfor his or her failure to exercise control properly, which resultedin a wrongful consequence, but not for the criminal conductof the subordinate.     

Increasing the ERP signal in the detection of guilty knowledge

The N400 and P300, two event-related potentials (ERPs), were tested using a modified Guilty Knowledge Test for their effectiveness in discriminating people possessing guilty knowledge from those who did not. In the study phase, participants read different passages that detailed either a crime in a specific location (Guilty), some location, without a crime (Innocent but Knowledgeable) or an unrelated location without a crime (Naive). During EEG collection, participants viewed context phrases, some of which were relevant to the crime scene, and test words that were either congruent or incongruent to the context phrases. In Experiment 1, both Guilty and Innocent but Knowledgeable participants were originally classified as guilty because both produced large P300 amplitudes to the crimerelevant stimuli. However, few Innocent but Knowledgeable participants produced significant N400 amplitudes and thus were rejected as guilty in the final analysis. In Experiment 2, participants were assigned to either the Guilty or Innocent but Knowledgeable condition. Seventy-two hours after reading the appropriate passage, participants were divided into two groups: those reminded of the passage read earlier and those who were not. There was not effect of reminding Guilty participants on the discrimination but a strong effect on the Innocent but Knowledgeable participants suggesting a possible technique for discriminating guilty knowledge from other knowledge formats.