Court Procedures

It has been said that “the court is the second trauma.” It might be better to say the system, rather than the court. The President's Task Force (page 51) recommends a federal study “to evaluate the juvenile justice system from the perspective of the victim.” The system may interview the child time and again, each time making her relive the experience, keeping the wound open. It may force her down to court waiting rooms where she sits uncomfortably without even the accoutrements of a dentist's office for hours and then often to be told that the case was continued and to come back next week. She may be put on a witness stand, in a big formal room, with what seems like a thousand eyes staring at her, and a bailiff in full uniform ready to lock her up, and a judge in a black robe towering above her. She may find that the newspapers and television are full of her name and pictures and stories about what happened to her which they obtained from the official records. And this may make her the focus of her classmates with all the brutal teasing that can involve. The system may also suddenly arrest her father and just as suddenly release him. It may plea bargain away her future hope of rehabilitation without even talking to her, in the name of speedy justice. The system is always more concerned with the well-being of the criminals than of the victims. When children are the victims, surely change can be made. Recommended by the President's Task Force (page 73), a starting point is to require “that judges at both the trial and appellate level(s) participate in a training program addressing the needs and legal interests of crime victims.”     

当事人主义刑事诉讼中的法庭调查程序评析

当事人主义刑事诉讼中的庭审调查对犯罪事实和仅仅影响量刑的事实适用不同的程序和证据规则,并在开始调查证据之前设置专门的开头陈述程序,调查过程严格区分控方举证与辩方举证两个不同阶段,调查的范围仅限于针对两方有争议的事实和情节。这些特点集中体现了当事人主义刑事诉讼的基本理念———正当程序。     

The D. C. Juvenile Court: Social Agency Or A Court Of Law?

The D C Bar Journal sponsored a legal writing competition at Catholic University Law School. The following is an excerpt from the winning paper reprinted from the March-April 1968 issue of the D C Bar Journal of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia     

多数主义的法院:美国联邦最高法院司法审查的性质

长期以来,美国联邦最高法院的司法审查虽被视为法治和人权的捍卫者,却被作为民主的对立面.结果,它在理论上陷入难以自拔的合法性困境,或者说"反多数难题".本文结合法律和政治学者的讨论,考察美国司法审查的现实图景,指出它具有很强的"多数主义"性质.具体表现为,多数司法判决符合当下多数公众的意见,最高法院这一机构和司法审查这一制度获得多数民众的持久认同;不但如此,司法审查能够在一定程度上回应公众意见,从而在较长时段与主流意见的变迁保持一致.这种"多数主义"的性质,是由法官自身对公众意见的关注和尊重、其他部门和公众对宪法含义的争夺以及法官任命体制等外在制衡,共同促成和保障的.美国联邦最高法院在与其他机构的竞争合作中动态地表达民意,它受制于民主过程,也塑造民主过程.在此意义上,司法审查是美国民主体制的一部分,具有民主合法性.对于"反多数难题"的讨论而言,真正的问题不是司法审查是否符合"民主",而是现有的民主理论是否符合政治现实.     

事后监督与当庭监督应当兼容并施

任何监督的目的均在于给被监督者施以一种约束力量,以促使被监督者向着监督者指引的方向运行。法律监督就是在解决监督者所要达到的依法状态与被监督者的立法、执法内容或行为是否合乎这种状态的矛盾,从而保证国家的法律能够正确、统一地实施。庭审监督是检察机关作为监督主体为了维护国家的利益和法律不受侵害,保护当事人的合法权益,依据刑诉法规定而对庭审活动的违法情况予以及时纠正,保证审判活动的正常进行。这就是庭审法律监督的价值取向。