可持续发展法律思想初探

近代的法律思想以个人主义、自由主义和法治主义三大思想为基本特色,这三大思想都以权利本位为理论基石;现代的法律思想以团体主义、干涉主义和积极法治三大思想为基本特色,发生了由个人主义权利本位观向团体主义权利本位观的转变;当代的可持续发展法律思想以生态主义思想为基本特色,拓展了法学的研究视野、权利主体的范围、法律的社会功能。     

预防和惩治恐怖主义:外国刑法立法的新趋势

2001年"9·11"事件后.恐怖主义在世界范围内迅速泛滥,犯罪形式也呈现新的发展特点.为加大预防和惩治恐怖主义的力度,世界各国纷纷加强刑法立法工作.随着反恐怖斗争的深入开展,外国刑法立法体现了由偏重经验立法向偏重超前立法的转变;由偏重客观主义向偏重主观主义的转变;由偏重政治刑法观向偏重社会刑法观的转变;由偏重人权保障向偏重社会保护的转变.     

从特殊主义到普遍主义——社会信任的变迁分析

随着传统社会向现代社会的转型,社会信任也由特殊主义向普遍主义转变,在此过程中会产生信任危机。     

论犯罪的相对性——从绝对理性到相对理性

犯罪具有两面性:从本质上讲,犯罪是一种严重危害社会的行为;但作为一种普遍的社会现象,犯罪也有其生成与存在的合理性,而且犯罪作为整体也以自身特有的方式推动社会的进步与发展。这就要求人们在认识犯罪时要避免绝对主义的犯罪观,克服重刑主义和泛刑论思想,树立辨证的、理性的犯罪观和刑法谦抑性理念,并以此为基础培育与现代刑事法治精神相一致的刑法文化。     

民权主义刑法观的本体化探讨

社会结构的转型与变迁,计划经济向市场经济的过渡、发展,导致了我国刑法观念的更新,由过去的国家本位的国权主义刑法观逐渐向以权利为本位的民权主义刑法观的转变。民权主义刑法观是以人权保障观、刑法谦抑观理念为支撑。本文通过对民权主义刑法观上述理论内涵及合理性进行探讨,在此基础上初步提出了在我国确立民权主义刑法观的基本要求。     

从社会分层研究当前我国的犯罪问题

本文分析了当代中国犯罪的现状及其特点,从社会分层分析了当代中国犯罪变化,提出了通过优化社会分层的犯罪控制模式。     

保释制度建构的观念定位和制度保障

要建构我国保释制度保障机制，在观念上要强化被追诉人权利保障机制，诉讼观念由犯罪控制观向人权保障观的转变，全面贯彻无罪推定原则，确立非法证据排除规则；在制度上要改造检警关系模式，扩大检察机关的制约、监督范围，增加对“严重违法行为无效原则”的规定，以及对违法行为人法律责任的追究原则。     

社会正义观理论下的警察权职能分析

社会正义是指在一个社会内分担责任、安排社会地位、及社会资源分配上符合正义的原则。社会正义观理论要求政府公平对待每一位社会成员。新型的社会正义观要求政府职能由过去注重政治统治职能向社会管理职能转变。警察权的职能也必然随着政府的职能转变而转变，弱化政治镇压职能、强化社会管理职能和公共服务职能，由监管者走向服务者。这种职能的转变将对警察维护社会秩序，进行公共管理，提供公共服务并最终保障公民个人的合法权益起到有效的促进作用。     

新时代法理：从冲突走向合作——建立法理型社会的法律社会学思考

以法律社会学的三大研究范式即功能主义、自由多元主义和马克思主义的社会观-国家观-法律观之间的主要差异——合作、竞争和冲突——为立论基础,论证了当代中国由马克思主义的冲突观转向功能主义的合作观的必需。依据这种＂从冲突走向合作＂的新时代法理,结合当代中国国家治理的六个基本法律问题,阐述了如何在关键转型上遵循新法律理性,从基调伦理与宪政改革上建立法理型社会秩序。     

论刑法的从轻适用与人权保障

长期以来,我国刑法典一直保持着重刑结构,只重视控制犯罪的单一功能,而忽视人权保障机能。当今世界刑法趋向轻缓化,刑法的人权保障机能不断得到加强,我国刑法应当相应地做出转变,从重刑主义向轻刑主义转变。本文从刑事政策、犯罪、刑罚三个角度来论述刑法的从轻适用途径。     

Transformation of the view on crimes in modern China

The view on crimes has progressed from the past monism to the present pluralism. In modern China, the concept of crime is in pluralism. The so-called pluralism here means the many concepts of crime not only co-exist macroscopically within a society, but also microcosmically within a single social member. The pluralism of the concept of crime provides us with a multiangular cognition for the complicated phenomena of crime. As a process of the transformation of the view on crime, it has developed from absolutism to relativism, from scientism to humanism, from conservatism to liberalism, from structuralism to progressivism, and from the pattern of state control to the pattern of social control.     

当代中国犯罪观的转变

The view on crimes has progressed from the past monism to the present pluralism. In modern China, the concept of crime is in pluralism. The so-called pluralism here means the many concepts of crime not only co-exist macroscopically within a society, but also microcosmically within a single social member. The pluralism of the concept of crime provides us with a multiangular cognition for the complicated phenomena of crime. As a process of the transformation of the view on crime, it has developed from absolutism to relativism, from scientism to humanism, from conservatism to liberalism, from structuralism to progressivism, and from the pattern of state control to the pattern of social control. Li Weihong is an associate professor of law in China Youth University for Political Sciences, whose research covers science of criminal law, criminal policy and criminology. She published her monograph, named Studies on the Hot Issues of Economic Crime; and co-authored a book, ie. Essentials on Criminal Liability. Moreover, she has released over 40 research articles in Chinese journals, the best of which are titled as On the Crime by Taking Advantage of Credit Cards, The Transformation of the Concept of Crime in Modern China, on the Research Object of Science of Criminal Policy.     

论社会危害性的地位

近年来 ,社会危害性的概念一再受到质疑 ,甚至有人主张将社会危害性的概念逐出注释刑法学领域。在罪刑法定原则下 ,社会危害性概念固然暴露出一些缺陷 ,但是 ,承认社会危害性的地位 ,并不是对罪刑法定原则的破坏 ,相反 ,社会危害性理论和罪刑法定原则一起成为保障人权、限制随意发动刑罚权的两道防线 ;因而 ,不应简单地将这一概念完全抛弃 ,而应重新科学地确定其地位 ,发挥其应有的价值。     

Social harm future(s): exploring the potential of the social harm approach

The notion of social harm has sporadically interested critical criminologists as an alternative to the concept of crime. In particular, it has been viewed as a means to widen the rather narrow approach to harm that criminology offers. More recently, the publication of Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm Seriously has renewed interest in the notion of social harm. The book asserted a number of very valid reasons for a social harm approach that provoked a number of interesting critical responses. The article seeks to respond to five recurring questions: Should the social harm perspective move beyond criminology? If so, where should the perspective locate itself? From this position, how will the perspective continue to engage within ‘law and order’ debates and address the concerns of those affected by crime? If the notion of crime is problematic, how will the perspective form an alternative definition of harm? Moreover, without a notion of crime and the accompanying concept of criminal intent, how would the perspective allocate responsibility for harm? The article is not offering definitive answers to these questions, but possible directions for the perspective’s future development.     

Social integration,individual perceptions of collective efficacy,and fear of crime in three cities

Several rival explanations have been advanced to account for fear of crime among neighborhood residents. Social integration is the least developed concept in this regard. We assess the mediating role that perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy, defined as the trustworthiness of neighbors and their willingness to intervene as informal social control agents, have in the relationship between social integration and fear of crime. Our data were obtained from random sample surveys of residents conducted in three cities. Structural equation models indicate that social integration operates through perceptions of collective efficacy in predicting fear of crime, and similar results appear across three cities.     

POVERTY, INCOME INEQUALITY, AND COMMUNITY CRIME RATES

This paper examines the relationship between crime rates and aggregate economic conditions for 57 small social areas. The principal analyses address a continuing controversy—are community crime rates associated with absolute poverty, relative poverty (i.e., income inequality), or both. Using victimization data from 57 small residential neighborhoods, the analyses examine the association between absolute and relative poverty and rates of violent crime and burglary. The findings indicate that absolute poverty is more strongly associated with neighborhood crime rates, although the relationship is conditional on the type of crime considered. The implications of the findings are discussed within a perspective of community social control.     

Private Military Contractors,Crime, and the Terrain of Unaccountability

Criminological research has traditionally attempted to explain the etiological factors of crime and then suggest appropriate controls. More often than not, the foci of this kind of work have remained on “street crime.” Since the 1990s, however, some scholars have turned their attention to the causal factors of corporate crime, state crime, crimes of globalization, supranational crimes, and their various permutations and interconnections. Clearly missing from this literature is the growing phenomenon of private military contractors (PMCs) and the crimogenic culture of and atmosphere within which they operate. Specifically, while the use of PMCs is rapidly growing, the increasing propensity for PMC's crimogenic culture and the unregulated nature of what has become a global industry is rarely studied by social scientists. Further, few criminologists have examined this area of research by applying criminological theory to explain the growth and emergence of PMCs. Our goal is to help fill this gap. Through the process of theory building and refinement we identify factors that facilitate the criminogenic environment within which PMCs operate. Additionally, without attempting to expand explanatory and causal mechanisms, policies aimed at reducing PMC criminality and social justice for their victims cannot be developed. As such, we draw from theoretical developments in state and state‐corporate crime, social disorganization, and anomie literature to shed light on key factors associated with PMCs, namely, the crimogenic atmosphere within which they operate.     

犯罪概念的哲学思考

犯罪概念理论经历了从形式的概念到实质的概念,又从实质的概念到形式与实质相统一的概念,再从统一的概念到形式与实质相分裂的概念这样一个发展过程,成为刑法学的一大困惑。在这个问题上,外国刑法学最终走向了不可知论,而中国刑法学则滑向了形而上学唯物论。之所以出现这种局面,其原因在于到目前为止,中外刑法学都只是孤立、片面、静止地研究犯罪概念,不了解概念的相互联系和运动发展。犯罪概念是由先于刑法的社会物质生活条件所决定的,刑法的任务不在于解决犯罪概念问题,而在于运用已先于自己而存在的犯罪概念来作出判断。刑事司法的任务是在刑法判断的基础上作进一步的推理。犯罪概念的形成、运用犯罪概念所进行的刑法判断、以及运用犯罪概念和刑法判断所进行的刑事司法推理,是犯罪概念运动的一个完整过程,在这个过程中,犯罪作为一个概念它是统一的,不存在形式概念与实质概念之分,也不存在立法概念与司法概念之分。     

The Sisyphean Pursuit of Media Pluralism: European Efforts to Establish Policy and Measurable Evidence

Media pluralism has been continually debated among European policymakers for the past four decades, but the activity has failed to produce consensus, clear policy, and significant implementing legislation, laws, and rules. The efforts provide lessons for policymakers and media reform movements elsewhere. The European failure derives from debates over whether pluralism should be sought at the national or European level, and whether it should focus only upon media ownership concerns or upon broader issues involving minorities, geography and culture. European policymakers, however, have progressed in clarifying pluralism concepts and means for measuring them. This policy review argues that European efforts to promote media pluralism fall within expected patterns of policy process theories, but have nevertheless been unable to produce significant movement because policymakers weigh competition, industrial and domestic cultural policy objectives against media pluralism goals and because the expanded concept of pluralism is complex and amorphous and has resulted in policy drift.     

Power-seeking crime? The professional thief versus the professional launderer

Relating the concept of power to motives and objectives for criminal activities results in different images of criminals and their motivations. In this article, we aim to reflect on two different forms of crime (burglary versus money laundering) starting from a power perspective. We describe how the pursuit of power may or may not be related to crime, perpetrators and the policies that have been developed to prevent or repress these types of crime. By examining the motives behind both burglary and money laundering, we try to make clear how the concept of power and power pursuit leads to different rationales in criminal conduct. We try to determine to what extent ‘rational choice’ plays a role in this respect. As a conclusion, we argue that ‘power’ as such influences patterns of crime, victimisation and societal reactions (by means of criminal policy). The extent to which power accumulation is an outcome of crime, will in part determine the social reaction to crime and as a result, the perceived threat of crime.