Causal attribution and judicial discretion

An important need of the criminal justice system is to better understand and structure discretionary decisions, thereby minimizing their adverse effects. The present study explored the relevance of models of attribution processes to these goals by analysing judges' verbal statements in real courtroom settings. Results reveal that these models are useful in studying discretion and that the method is a fruitful component of a multimethodological approach to studying both attribution and discretion. The importance of both developing and testing models in real life contexts was stressed.The authors thank Janice Bryan and Patsi Roberts for their help in data collection.     

刑事诉讼中的司法证明规则

尽管刑事诉讼法在 1996年进行了较大规模的修订 ,对抗制开始引入中国刑事司法制度 ,但是司法证明机制并没有在这一制度中确立起来。结果 ,不仅控辩双方的诉讼对抗容易出现混乱 ,而且法官对于诉讼进程似乎拥有无限的自由裁量权。因此 ,在未来的刑事证据法中 ,必须重新构建证明对象、证明责任、证明标准规则 ,使得法庭审判真正保持最基本的诉讼形态。     

Sentencing disparity: An analysis of judicial consistency

This paper reports the results of an analysis of judicial disparity in the sentencing of persons represented by legal-aid lawyers. Because the socioeconomic characteristics of legal-aid clients are fairly uniform, the analysis of such cases made it possible to explore the influence of case facts, system factors, and the judicial disparity of the sentences given in relatively similar situations. The analysis finds that case facts and offender characteristics, particularly prior record, are good predictors of sentence type and excellent predictors of sentence length. While there was some indication of judicial inconsistency in sentence-type decisions, that is, unexplained variation from case to case, there was little indication of strong individual judicial bias across the cases used in the analysis.     

Psychiatric history,due procedural safeguards,and the use of discretion in the criminal justice process

Using a stratified random sample of all male inmates released from one state's correctional facilities during a 13-month period (N = 550), this research investigates the impact of an extralegal variable (history of psychiatric hospitalization) on decisionmaking in stages in the criminal justice system at which defendants are granted more and fewer due procedural safeguards. On the basis of the work of Goffman and Green, it is hypothesized that this variable will not equally affect decisions made at various points in the criminal justice process. Instead, psychiatric history will have less impact at points in the process where the defendant is granted more due procedural safeguards (e.g., sentencing), with its significance increasing where the defendant receives fewer due procedural safeguards (e.g., parole). The results are consistent with the hypothesis: A history of psychiatric hospitalization was not significant in the decision regarding sentence length, though it became highly critical in the decision to parole, even after other legal and extralegal variables were controlled. The context in which these decisions are made may also be relevant to a fuller understanding.     

Sources of judicial attitudes toward criminal sanctioning

Through a 1979 survey of 89 Illinois judges, the present study attempts to assess how various social, political, and occupational factors influence judicial attitudes toward criminal sanctioning. Specifically, our analysis examined the relative impact of background characteristics (e.g. age, community context) versus occupational variables (e.g., years on the bench, former prosecutor and/or defense attorney) on five sanctioning scales: rehabilitation, punishment, capital punishment, punishing white-collar offenders, and the treatment of juvenile delinquents. The analysis revealed that political orientation was the most important variable examined. Political ideology was found to be related to all but one of the sanctioning scales (punishing white-collar offenders). In contrast, the social and occupational variables generally were not significantly related to judicial attitudes on the purposes of sentencing.     

Judicial discretion and sentencing disparity in adult felony courts in Israel

This study focuses on a series of legal, extralegal, and systemic variables presumed to affect the workings of criminal-justice systems. These variables are employed first to analyze the decision of the court to refer defendants for presentence investigation when such a referral is not mandatory, then to examine how these referrals, once made, influence disposition. The relationship of legal representation to disposition is also explored.The findings contradict conventional wisdom regarding the advantages to defendants of legal representation and of presentence reports. Lawyers do not appear to influence either referral or sentencing. The presentence reports are requested by judges seeking to individualize their sentencing decisions, but this process of individualization is as likely to result in harsher sentences as in greater leniency.     

论我国刑事司法鉴定权配置的困境与突破

我国刑事司法鉴定权由公检法机关主导,当事人仅有申请补充鉴定和重新鉴定的权利。这种鉴定权配置方式导致刑事司法公正性不足、效率低下以及权威性缺失的困境。与我国刑事诉讼模式的转型格格不入。借鉴域外经验,我国刑事司法鉴定权配置应以公正高效权威为目标,赋予辩方司法鉴定启动权、保留侦控机关自行启动鉴定权、限制法官的鉴定启动权以及建立鉴定处分的司法审查制度,逐步形成与我国刑事诉讼模式相契合的刑事司法鉴定权配置方式。     

论医疗事故罪立法及司法解释的缺陷

本文通过对医疗事故罪称谓、定罪和量刑立法规定的分析,指出了 "两高"对本罪罪名确定的不准确性、本罪在立法上存在的定罪严而量刑宽的矛盾性及由此带来的不良影响,提出了对刑法第335条作适度修改的建议.     

论医疗事故罪立法及司法解释的缺陷

本文通过对医疗事故罪称谓、定罪和量刑立法规定的分析 ,指出了“两高”对本罪罪名确定的不准确性、本罪在立法上存在的定罪严而量刑宽的矛盾性及由此带来的不良影响 ,提出了对刑法第 335条作适度修改的建议。     

浅析司法会针的侦查与鉴定在诉讼活动中的作用

司法机关在经济案件侦查阶段,由于案件的需要对有些案件涉及财务凭证,会计资料的检查和鉴定时就必须要有专门知识的侦查人员或有专门资格的鉴定人员对案件的某些证据进行司法会计侦查和司法会计鉴定,这是案件诉讼过程中的部分程序,但是司法会计侦查及司法会计鉴定具有各自不同作用及其职能,在我们实践过程中往往要混淆其职能和作用,因此作者通过几年的工作经验在此阐述司法会计侦查及司法会计鉴定的作用.     

浅析司法会计的侦查与鉴定在诉讼活动中的作用

司法机关在经济案件侦查阶段,由于案件的需要对有些案件涉及财务凭证,会计资料的检查和鉴定时就必须要有专门知识的侦查人员或有专门资格的鉴定人员对案件的某些证据进行司法会计侦查和司法会计鉴定,这是案件诉讼过程中的部分程序,但是司法会计侦查及司法会计鉴定具有各自不同作用及其职能,在我们实践过程中往往要混淆其职能和作用,因此作者通过几年的工作经验在此阐述司法会计侦查及司法会计鉴定的作用。     

行政裁量的本质论与运行论

行政裁量是现代行政任务和行政功能变化的产物,其目的在于追求个案的正当性,减少立法成本,促进行政效能。从本质上看,行政裁量是一种行政机关的单方意思表示,是行政机关对法律效果的自由选择行为,从而与作为判断权范畴的不确定性概念相区别。由于行政裁量所包含的“主观意志性”的非理性因素极容易导致行政裁量权被滥用,为此,现代国家设计了各种规则和制度将其纳入到一定的框架之中,以实现行政法治理性。     

从理念到践行:未成年人犯罪轻缓刑事政策的司法实现途径

无论是对未成年人犯罪的轻缓刑事政策,还是对未成年人的"特殊保护",实际上都是指处理未成年人的刑事案件,应以未成年人保护为主要目标,向未成年人倾斜,以宽为主,以宽优先.这既是一种理念,更应该是一种实践;既有赖于立法的支撑,更有赖于司法的践行.     

The judicial response to crime and the criminal: A utilitarian perspective

This paper examines the hypothesis that the sentencing decision of the criminal court is consistent with utilitarian principles and that the judiciary uses the length of incarceration as an instrument for the maximization of societal well-being. A theoretical model is developed, whose principal arguments are offender and offense attributes, resource costs, the availability of alternative sanctions, and the general crime rate. Four questions are considered: (i) How does a utilitarian court respond to a general increase in crime? (ii) How does the availability of alternative sanctions affect the length of incarceration ? (iii) How does a utilitarian court respond to offenders who are more likely to recidivate? (iv) How does the court respond to offenders who commit more serious offenses? The model is empirically evaluated, using cross-sectional data for the state of Georgia for individuals sentenced to prison in 1978 for a UCR index offense. The theoretical model provides few specific behavioral rules for the court to follow. Answers to the foregoing four questions are shown to depend upon both the efficacy of sanctions and the cost of the administration of those sanctions. It is not possible to predict, for example, how a utilitarian court should respond to a rise in crime or how it should respond to offenders who are likely to commit more serious offenses. The empirical analysis shows that, in fact, the sentence length varied inversely with the general offense rate, with the likelihood of imprisonment, and with the length of postprison probation. The evidence also indicates that sentences vary with the individual's original record but not with the offender's age or race. With the exception of possible gender bias, the court's sentencing behavior was consistent with utilitarian principles.