Towards Good Practice in Juvenile Justice Policy in the Commonwealth

Any witness who is not able to testify due to lack of support or protection is a loss to the proper functioning of a criminal justice system. In this context it is generally accepted that creating a climate for witnesses to testify truthfully and without fear of reprisals is essential to fulfilling the goals of truth and justice. Accordingly, addressing the issues of witness protection and support is a central aspect of a well-functioning criminal justice system; one that contributes not only to the rule of law through more effective investigations and trials, but also ensures that witnesses are treated with the recognition and care they deserve for their contribution to finding the truth. The principle that victims in the criminal justice system must be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their personal dignity entails a responsibility on the part of national authorities to realise this basic principle through the development of appropriate mechanisms designed to provide assistance to the victims. However, building effective national victims/witness support and protection is challenging for any state, and especially so for small Commonwealth jurisdictions due to capacity and other constraints. The Commonwealth seeks to provide technical assistance and capacity building to support its members in promoting the rule of law and has developed and disseminated a best practice guide for the protection of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. This article seeks to highlight the valuable findings of the Commonwealth guide and to provide guidance to policy-makers, legislators, police, prosecutors and other stakeholders in criminal justice practice.     

Justice Sensitivity and Cooperation Dynamics in Repeated Public Good Games

It is frequently observed that despite individual incentives to free ride, humans decide to cooperate with each other to increase social payoffs. In the current research, we address the effects of individual differences in justice sensitivity on cooperation. Using incentivized repeated public good games, we find that individual differences in justice sensitivity—the ease of perceiving, remembering, and reacting to injustice from the perspectives of an observer, beneficiary, or perpetrator, but not victim—substantially predicts cooperation in the absence of a punishment option. In contrast, when costly punishment is allowed for, cooperation becomes strategic as it also aims at avoiding subsequent punishment. If such a sanctioning mechanism is in place, justice sensitivity no longer predicts cooperation. The results regarding the degree of cooperation as reaction to initial non-cooperation of one’s counterparts highlight the role of justice-concerning personality traits for the sufficient provision of public goods, as sanctioning institutions are not always possible, effective, or suitable.     

Two Types of Justice Reasoning About Good Fortune and Misfortune: A Replication and Beyond

While research into justice reasoning has progressed extensively, the findings and implications have been mainly limited to Western cultures. This study investigated the relationship between immanent and ultimate justice reasoning about others’ misfortune and good fortune in Japanese participants. The effects of goal focus and religiosity, which previously have been found to foster justice reasoning, were also tested. Participants were randomly assigned to one condition of a 2 (goal focus: long term or short term) × 2 (target person’s moral value: respected or thief) × 2 (type of luck: misfortune or good fortune) design. For immanent justice reasoning, the results revealed that a “bad” person’s misfortune was attributed to their past misdeeds, while a “good” person’s good fortune was attributed to their past good deeds. Regarding ultimate justice reasoning, it was found that a good person’s misfortune was connected more to future compensation than their good fortune, whereas a bad person’s misfortune was not reasoned about using ultimate justice. There was no significant effect of religiosity or goal focus on justice reasoning, which is inconsistent with the findings of previous studies. The necessity of directly examining cultural differences is discussed in relation to extending and strengthening the theory of justice reasoning.     

程序公正的价值——兼议实体公正与程序公正冲突的解决

实现公正是法哲学的核心问题。在我国推进法治建设的今天,尤其是目前正处在转型时期,各种利益纠缠在一起,在这样一个价值观剧烈冲突、客观标准剧烈变动,对于实体是否公正不好判断的情况下,程序上的公正就尤为重要了。实体公正与程序公正发生冲突时,应有正确的价值选择以期实现司法公正,实现我国社会主义法治。     

论协商性司法的理论基础

协商性司法是一种新的程序主义,它强调通过对话、协商、妥协实现纠纷的有效解决。在协商性司法中,正义被重新解释,即当事人所追求的是自己需要的正义,称之为"互利正义"或者"协商正义"。对话与妥协是协商性司法的基本作用机理,而程序保障则是协商性司法的制度框架。     

从程序正义到摆平“正义”:法官的多重角色分析

法院如何建构其主体性?是当下中国社会面临的时代之问。在规则之治、程序正义的逻辑下展开运作的司法因其制度刚性有余而操作柔性不足,难以有效回应中国社会仍停留在传统的具体情境,从而遭到实用主义的解构。但是,在调审合一制度路径下游刃有余的实用主义司法哲学实际上亦并不足以构成对法院主体性的命题支撑,甚至可能是更加错误的道路。作为法院主体性的命题表达,能够体现法院明确的司法功能并与其他权力部门相区分的主体特质始终只在于独立的审判。     

联邦德国司法部简介

<正> (一)联邦司法部的任务 联邦司法部(BMJ)首先是立法和顾问部。它从分配给它主管的法律内容范围拟订法律和法规草案,例如民法、刑法以及诉讼法。联邦司法部的顾问任务包括,在准备立法计划时注意它在总体上是否与宪法一致以及拟订工作是否遵守统一的形式。 而对各司法管理机构,即对法院和检察机构的管辖权则主要归联邦各州的司法部掌握。这同基本法第30条普遍的,也是对行政管理领域有效的准则是一致的。根据这一条的规定,原则上联邦各州负责行使国家的权限和完成国家的任务,联邦只是在基本法明确允许时,才完成这些任务。 因此,除了联邦独立的宪法机构联邦宪法法院外,在联邦一级只设立了联邦最高法院(基本法第95     

Justice Between Sites of Justice

Michael Blake argues that states are the primary sites of justice for persons and that the function of international justice is to ensure that states interact with each other in ways that preserve the capacity of each to realize justice for their own members. This paper will argue that justice among states requires more of states than that they preserve and maintain each other's capacity as primary sites of justice. Justice among states will require some justification, as well, of the claims of states over resources and territory within their borders. Such a justification, I suggest, must presume a global institutional order, and this will introduce the problem of coercion in the international domain. International coercion will have implications for Blake's understanding of international economic justice since it is premised on the claim that the domestic context is coercive in a way that the international arena is not.     

司法的政治力学——民众、媒体、为政者、当事人与司法官的关系分析

本文着重考察"公案"这类特定案件的司法过程,从中观察和分析中国司法的政治力学现象。文章分析了民众、媒体、为政者和司法官四个主体及其相互间的角力关系,分析了民意对司法的影响,分析了司法与媒体的关系。认为司法与民意、媒体的角力,不能仅仅基于司法独立原则,而应当强调被告公平受审权。总之,司法的政治力学现象是不可避免的,但是司法的政治角力应当加以规制;通过制度设计,有的关系可以回归到权利与义务的关系,不仅会有更好的法律效果,还会有更好的社会效果。     

量刑公正之程序进路

作为刑事审判所追求的重要目标,量刑公正在实践中面临着极大的挑战。对此,从实体上限制个罪的量刑幅度的实体进路,无论在理论上还是在实践中都存在着诸多的局限。而量刑公正的程序进路,对于实现量刑公正的目标却有着非常重要的意义。因此。我们应该在量刑公正程序进路的载体和量刑公正程序进路的核心两方面共同着力,在促使量刑阶段相对独立化的同时,使量刑程序正当化,以达致量刑公正的目标。     

The Juvenile Justice Assessment Instrument

Abstract This article presents the development of a new assessment instrument for use with juvenile delinquents: The Juvenile Justice Assessment Instrument (JJAI). The term “juvenile delinquency” covers a multitude of antisocial behaviors engaged in by adolescents. Research indicates that certain intrinsic vulnerabilities may combine with environmental stressors to engender maladaptive behaviors. Unfortunately, these potentially treatable vulnerabilities often remain unrecognized in the delinquent population. Because of the sheer numbers of children entering the juvenile justice system each year, it is impossible to ensure that each child will receive a full evaluation from a trained clinician. The JJAI offers those who work with juvenile delinquents an economical, yet sophisticated, assessment tool for evaluating youngsters and recommending appropriate treatment and disposition. This paper also presents the results of two field trials with the JJAI. In a juvenile justice setting, data elicited by the JJAI was compared to data gathered by the court. In a residential treatment setting, data elicited by the JJAI was compared with information gathered by staff at the treatment facility. A discussion of the obstacles faced by those who interview delinquents, and strategies within the JJAI to overcome them, are discussed.     

程序正义的哲学基础

一 "程序"一词,顾名思义,指的是:事情发展的过程和次序.但是过程和次序有主观和客观之分.所谓主观的过程和次序指的是人为安排的过程和次序,如会议程序、缔约手续、办事仪式等,都是根据人们的主观需要、方便和习惯自主安排的;而客观的过程和次序……     

The Double Paradox of Juvenile Justice

This article considers the history of a century of juvenile justice. Illinois 'invented' the separate 'children's court' in 1899 and this concept was spearheaded in Northern America, Great Britain and continental Europe in the first decades of the new century. However, a century after its foundation the future of the juvenile court is in doubt everywhere in the Western world. Some conclude that there is a cyclical pattern in juvenile justice policies. That proposition is rejected in this article. The proposition of a cyclical pattern also presupposes that there is no real problem at stake in treating juvenile offenders. The main point of this article, however, is that juvenile justice cannot escape trying to solve a very complicated foundational issue. This issue is a double paradox, that is, juvenile justice has to solve two philosophical questions: the justification of punishment and the justification of punishment for non-adults. This diagnosis presents a new conceptual framework for an analysis of the history of juvenile justice.     

The Salvadoran Criminal Justice System

This research analyzes comparative data on offenders, offenses, sentences, and dispositions for El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and the United States. This paper is based upon a larger research project examining political death and homicide in El Salvador through 1984. The analysis examines the effectiveness of the Salvadoran criminal justice system before and after initiation of Its civil war.

The statistics showed that El Salvador's capacity to investigate homicides and detect murder suspects had improved over the last 10 years or so, whereas its ability and length of time to prosecute, try, sentence, and commit offenders had deteriorated over this same period. Substantial numbers of Salvadoran criminals were apprehended, arrested, tried, sentenced, and incarcerated for routine crimes of violence and property. On the other hand virtually none of the perpetrators of thousands of political murders were apprehended by the Salvadoran Government despite the increase in arrest and sentencing for routine homicides. This may be indicative of a lack of commitment by the Salvadoran Government to deal with political killings by death squads.