被害人权利救济视野下的传统司法与恢复性司法模式之比较

恢复性司法的一个重要的价值取向就是对被害人的尊重和保护。我国传统刑事司法是报应性司法,是以犯罪人为中心的,漠视了被害人的权利救济问题,不利于被害人的权利保护。应结合我国实际,构建具有中国特色的恢复性司法模式。     

被害人权利救济视野下的传统司法与恢复性司法模式之比较

恢复性司法的一个重要的价值取向就是对被害人的尊重和保护。我国传统刑事司法是报应性司法,是以犯罪人为中心的,漠视了被害人的权利救济问题,不利于被害人的权利保护。应结合我国实际,构建具有中国特色的恢复性司法模式。     

恢复性司法视野下的社区矫正制度

恢复性司法是相对于传统的报应性司法的刑事司法模式,其注重个人价值、社会利益的平衡并使犯罪人重新回归社会,从而达到一种＂无害的正义＂。由恢复性司法理念倡导的社区矫正制度已经成为一项重要的司法制度,在全世界范围内迅速发展,成为目前很多国家应用最广泛的矫正方式。自2003年开展试点以来,我国社区矫正试点工作取得了显著成绩,在维护社会和谐稳定、提高教育改造质量、探索完善我国非监禁刑罚执行制度、降低刑罚执行成本等方面发挥了重要作用。     

恢复性司法述议

恢复性司法以恢复原有社会秩序为目的,着重于对被害人所受伤害的补偿以及对犯罪行为人的改造,是对犯罪行为作出的系统性反应。本文结合中外司法实践,探索恢复性司法的模式问题。     

政治哲学视野下恢复性司法论的中国诉求

恢复性司法论在国际上已成为一种较为流行的理论观点,并在一定程度上影响着我国的司法改革导向。作为一种理念和制度的创新,恢复性司法的基本路径是通过实施程序化的刑事和解,以恢复被犯罪破坏的社会秩序,并以西方的自由主义为其理论基础。如果从恢复性司法的政治哲学基础出发进行仔细考量,不难发现恢复性司法与我国司法职能之间的矛盾性,我国在司法改革中并不具备实行恢复性司法的历史前提和制度基础。     

刍议恢复性司法与未成年人司法保护

本文介绍了恢复性司法的由来和概念,并根据未成年人犯罪的原因和特点,阐述了未成年人司法保护中引入恢复性司法的必要性,论述了未成年人恢复性司法的适用条件和适用范围,希望通过对话,调解,协商的方式来处理未成年人的犯罪问题,以修复受损的社会关系,使未成年犯罪人早日回归社会。     

恢复性司法视角下的“赔钱减刑”现象

近年来随着宽严相济刑事政策和刑事和解制度的推行,一些地方的司法机关扩大了先行赔偿的适用范围,加大了赔偿减刑的力度,社会各界对此议论纷纷,公众视赔偿从宽的做法为"赔钱减刑""花钱买命",并对由此可能加剧的司法不公深表担忧。"赔钱减刑"契合恢复性司法理念,有助于保护被害人权益,但"赔钱减刑"的适用必须要有相应的制度基础、规范依据。     

恢复性司法理念视野下的社区矫正制度初探

随着恢复性司法理念的产生与发展,其对刑法各项制度都有一定的影响,社区矫正制度也不例外。如何从恢复性司法理念中寻找到我国社区矫正制度完善的思路、措施、规则,这是值得思考的。     

民事赔偿与量刑问题探究

在刑事司法实践中，民事赔偿与量刑之间的关系一直饱受争议。在各地人民法院对于刑事案件中被告人一方进行积极赔偿往往予以从轻乃至减轻处罚已成通例的情况下，怎样正确处理民事赔偿对刑事审判的影响并以此统一司法实践，就成了当务之急。本文试将其中涉及的几个具体问题进行一番探讨。     

恢复性司法初探

恢复性司法究竟是指什么？它对正在构建和谐社会的我国将会有着怎样的影响？本文拟通过对恢复性司法的概念、特点进行阐述,来回答这两个问题。     

Restorative Justice,Consistency and Proportionality: Examining the Trade-off

Abstract

Restorative justice conferences that operate as sentencing mechanisms involve the making of a trade-off between empowering lay participants to make their own decisions, and the requirements of consistency and proportionality, which are established principles of sentencing. In current restorative justice practice, this trade-off tends to be made more in favour of consistency and proportionality, at the expense of the empowerment of lay participants.

Empowerment is central to key benefits of restorative justice, such as reducing recidivism and increasing victim satisfaction. However, its importance to the effectiveness of restorative justice is not always properly acknowledged. In addition to this lack of acknowledgment, there are both conceptual and practical problems with the principles of consistency and proportionality (particularly in the way that they are presented when considered in relation to restorative justice) that are often overlooked. As a result, the tendency is for assumptions to be made about the necessary supremacy of these principles over empowerment. This paper urges more acknowledgement of the importance of empowerment in restorative justice, together with a greater appreciation of the problems with consistency and proportionality, with a view to challenging assumptions about the way that the trade-off must be made.     

论修复性司法

与传统刑事司法相比,修复性司法在满足各方当事人需要、吸引社会公众参与、预防和减少犯罪、降低成本、提高成效等方面具有优势,但也有过度依赖当事人、适合处理的案件有限、社会控制的不当扩大和对弱势群体及当事人权利保护不力等局限。修复性司法在国家在刑事司法中的地位、刑事司法的功能、对正义的理解和犯罪解决机制多元化等方面对我们有重要启示。改革我国刑事司法,应跨越单纯改革刑事诉讼程序的狭隘思路,对刑事司法机制进行重塑,逐步建立统一协调、良性互动、功能互补、程序衔接、彼此支持的双轨制,以更好地解决犯罪问题。     

Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public

Within the past decade, restorative justice has emerged as a truly global phenomenon. Although retributive justice has dominated the penal landscape, more recently, restorative principles at sentencing have attracted increased attention. Restorative sentencing emphasizes the importance of compensation and reconciliation between victims and offenders and pays less attention to establishing proportionality between the seriousness of the offense and the severity of the sentence imposed. Although voluminous (and proliferating), the scholarly literature on restorative justice has to date neglected one critical issue: public opinion with respect to this justice paradigm. Public opinion researchers too, have generally overlooked this topic. The goal of this paper is to determine which elements of the new paradigm generate public approval, and which features are likely to encounter or provoke public opposition, drawing upon related international research published in English over the past 20 years (1982–2002). The review reveals widespread support for restorative sentencing options, such as community service, compensation, and restitution, particularly when applied to young offenders. However, it also seems clear that public support for these alternatives to punitive sentencing options declines as the seriousness of the offence increases, suggesting strong public adherence to the retributive principle of proportionality in sentencing.     

Mediation and Restorative Justice in Belgium

In this article we present, discuss and try to evaluate initiatives which were recently introduced into the Belgian criminal justice system, aimed at the development of creative answers to crime that avoid the use of traditional prison sentences. We decided to focus this analysis on the practice of mediation as it is actually considered the most innovative approach to the crime problem. Mediation as a problem-solving intervention has to be considered in direct relation to the discussion of the purpose of the criminal justice system. By putting the emphasis on the dialogue between the victim and the offender, a common solution is worked out with the help of a mediator. In this way reparation, redress and sometimes even reconciliation become core values of the penal action.     

恢复性司法程序之思考

本文对恢复性司法程序的内容、制度基础以及历史渊源进行考察,并对恢复性司法程序的利弊加以分析,最后论述在我国构建恢复性司法程序的障碍及有利因素的基础上,提出了构建该程序的初步设想。     

Female Delinquents and Restorative Justice

As imprisonment rates increase in America, women are being adversely affected. Although women are still a minority in terms of the total number of persons incarcerated, their numbers are rising faster than those of men. This article looks at this disheartening trend and makes the case the restorative justice can be used as gender-specific programming for female delinquents.     

恢复性司法及其本土制度化危机

凭借伦理和宗教规范作为肯统刑事解纷方式的恢复性司法属于非国家正式刑事司法机制。从类型学上分析，可以把恢复性司法划分为不同的模式和类型。概括地看，恢复性司法存在于当代社会的法理基础是政治多元合法化和刑事司法制度民主化。从传统文化和现实的国家权力与公民权利的关系看，我们缺乏借鉴和实施恢复性司法本土制度化的资源。     

恢复性司法与中国传统社会关系考证

虽然中国传统社会与恢复性司法两者都倡导仁爱待人、和谐相处,提倡采用调解等非正式的手段化解矛盾冲突,但却有本质的不同:恢复性司法建立于平等、尊重的基础之上,以权利为本位,以法为据,保障当事人的合法权益;而中国传统社会却建立于“爱有差等”的等级观念之上,以义务为本位,侵蚀权利,维护封建统治。