论刑事司法错误的发生机理与现实危害——基于诉讼运行的分析

从诉讼运行的角度讲,"不枉不纵/程序合法"仅是一种具有理想色彩的迷思,相反,刑事司法错误在诉讼现实中无可难免。这主要是因为,主观上,刑事司法制度的构建与运行受制于人类的有限理性;客观上,刑事司法活动的开启与完成也受到认知规律和物证技术的限制,难以保障不枉不纵和程序合法。而刑事司法错误的现实危害却极大,微观上造成本案权益的损失与司法成本的耗费,宏观上则导致程序刚性的式微与国家信用的流失。     

刑事司法公众认同现状分析

结合社会中产生的真实案例,分析刑事司法公众认同的现状,并分析刑事司法公众认同较低的原因,为提高刑事司法公众认同实现可能,为刑事司法公众认同全方面研究奠定基础。     

重复性刑事司法错误的三大原因

在刑事诉讼中完全避免刑事司法错误难以办到,但是,在随后的司法程序上连续重复前面程序上所犯的错误,却是值得深思的问题。本文指出并分析了刑事司法重复性错误的主要原因是司法人员的司法伦理水平低下;刑事追究对象的程序权利特别是辩护权被压抑或削弱;程序制约机制弱化。     

刑事司法资源配置的经济学分析

现实中不存在刑事司法资源配置的帕累托最优,只能寻找较优的刑事司法资源配置目标;在刑事司法资源的边界上存在着有效率的刑事司法活动,也就是刑事司法资源功能的最大化和理想状态;在刑事诉讼中,各方总要考虑和比较获取刑事司法资源所花费的对价中包括的各种机会成本,这表明刑事司法资源配置中也存在着替代效应。刑事司法资源配置经济学分析的目的,是提高刑事司法效率和减少刑事司法成本,可以从节约刑事司法成本、简化刑事司法程序、建立刑事诉讼成本分担制度、减少国家成本支出入手。     

我国刑事司法二元机制的建构——一个基于恢复性司法的语境视角

传统司法模式在预防、控制犯罪、弥补被害人损失方面暴露出缺陷,已经不能满足现代社会对矫正犯罪的预期。而恢复性司法引入了补偿性的积极惩罚、非正式的争议解决程序等新思路,试图纠正传统司法在防治犯罪效果上的不足。恢复性司法要求在重新思考司法的惩罚、康复和公众安全的功能的基础上改革我国传统的司法模式,构建刑事司法运行机制的二元模式。     

刑事司法的国民基础之实证研究——一项基于城市问卷调查的分析

刑事司法体系需要国民的信任乃至信仰,从而形成真正的司法权威,才能赢得正当性基础,刑事司法改革也才能顺利开展。调查显示,我国城市普通民众对于公安司法机关及其工作人员的信任度有所下滑,认为司法不公和司法腐败并非个别现象,同时,民众的刑事诉讼人权保障意识大为增强,具备了参与刑事司法和监督刑事司法的意愿与能力。     

程序正义之维度——基于中国刑事司法语境的分析

一个国家的发展阶段决定了该国的“也许正在发生的问题”。我国正处在社会转型期，面临着现代化进程中传统社会控制模式的失效、犯罪率高和社会公众安全感下降的严峻现实。在我国刑事司法语境下，程序正义的维度包括以下几个方面：程序的内在价值是程序正义的应然维度；秩序的安定性是程序正义的现实维度；尊重人的尊严是程序正义的实质维度；诉讼效率是程序正义的效益维度。     

西方恢复性司法与我国刑事和解的关系

近年来刑事和解制度在中国广泛兴起,对此制度,不少法学研究者都从＂恢复性司法＂的角度进行分析和解读。刑事和解制度尽管从理念上或是制度设定上看,都可以从＂恢复性司法＂中找到一些相似的方面,但是二者在本质上仍属于两种不同的司法模式。本文从渊源、参与者范围、改革动因以及处理方式等方面进行论证,以期对我国刑事和解制度的完善有所裨益。     

司法权的性质——以刑事司法为范例的分析

司法是与裁判有关的国家活动 ,司法权也就是裁判权 ;司法权存在的目的 ,一方面是给那些受到损害的个人权利提供一种最终的、权威的救济 ,另一方面也对那些颇具侵犯性和扩张性的国家权力实施一种中立的审查和控制。相对于行政权而言 ,司法权在程序上具有其特性及独立性 ;在组织方面则体现为裁判者的职业化、社会公众的参与、合议制以及上下级司法机构的特殊关系等方面的特征。     

Scholarly Influence in Criminology and Criminal Justice of China

Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) is not a new topic. However, in terms of international scholarly influence in Chinese criminology, there still exists no relevant literature, though emphasis on studying China has been increasingly recognized by the international criminological academy. The current study conducts a comprehensive analysis of 191 CCJ articles on China from 20 mainstream CCJ journals and locates those who have done work on Chinese criminology. By productivity and citation analysis, we obtain several rankings of the scholarly influence in Chinese criminology. The most prolific individual identified by the current study is Jianhong Liu; the most productive institution is the City University of Hong Kong; the most-cited scholar is Steven Messner, and the most-cited work is Policing and Punishment in China: From Patriarchy to ‘The People’ by Michael Dutton. Though the current study focuses on Chinese criminology, few local mainland Chinese scholars and publications in Chinese are among the dominant contributions.

     

论刑事司法实践中的民意影响

本文结合典型案例从刑事司法实践中的案件事实认定、法律适用以及裁判执行三个方面,详细探讨民意的影响,并剖析其中原因,认为民意的感性化和情绪化并不一定构成司法警惕民意的理由。但是为了维护法律的权威、促进司法的公平正义,司法绝不能仅仅为了获取社会公众的认同而盲目顺从民意,必须始终坚持法律至上原则,与民意保持适当距离,对民意的考量只能在法官的自由裁量权范围内进行。     

论西部大开发的刑事司法政策

在国家实施的西部大开发战略中,刑事司法机关担负着打击和预防犯罪,建设和维护西部地区法制环境的历史使命.西部地区的刑事司法机关的工作思路是以改革开路,因地制宜,打击与预防犯罪并举,依法行使职权.西部刑事司法机关的工作重点应确立为严厉打击破坏市场经济秩序犯罪,营造良好的投资环境;维护民族团结,国家安全和社会秩序;惩治腐败,注重打击基础建设行业中的贪污贿赂犯罪;严格保护西部地区生态环境和国有资源;加强法律监督;积极开展犯罪预防工作.西部地区的刑事司法机关应加强队伍建设和基础设施建设,积极开展法制宣传教育,正确处理各种刑事司法关系,正确处理刑事司法与少数民族风俗习惯的关系,以确保完成这一历史任务.     

Fatal unintentional intoxications with tramadol during 1995-2005

Tramadol is an extensively used centrally acting analgesic and is considered a safe drug devoid of many serious adverse effects of traditional opioids. However, recently, toxicity and an abuse potential of tramadol have been reported. This study examined fatal unintentional tramadol intoxications among Swedish forensic autopsy cases between 1995 and 2005. All fatal intoxications were selected, in which toxic concentrations of tramadol (>1 microg/g femoral blood) had been detected, and where the forensic pathologist considered the intoxication unintentional and the fatal outcome at least partly explained by tramadol. Toxicology analyses, police reports, autopsy protocols and medical records were scrutinized. A total of 17 cases (eleven men and six women) of fatal unintentional tramadol intoxications were identified. For these cases the median age was 44 years (range 18-78 years) and the median tramadol concentration was 2.0 microg/g (range 1.1-12.0 microg/g). Other pharmaceutical substances, illicit drugs or ethanol were detected in addition to tramadol in all of these cases. In fact, intoxication with multiple drugs was considered the cause of death in 10 (59%) cases. However, in seven cases tramadol was the only substance present in toxic concentrations. A history of substance abuse was identified in 14 (82%) subjects and a present tramadol abuse in 8 (47%). These results suggest that fatal intoxications with tramadol may occur unintentionally and that subjects with a history of substance abuse may be at certain risk. Precaution is therefore warranted when prescribing tramadol in such patients.     

解读刑事法治

刑事法治是法治的根本标志之一 ,而刑事法治就意味着以刑法限制国家的刑罚权 ,罪刑法定原则也就成为了刑事法治的必然首选。而我国传统的法律文化认为 ,刑法是阶级统治的工具 ,是无产阶级专政的“刀把子”。因此 ,要把我国建设成为一个现代的社会主义的法治国家 ,除了健全法律制度之外 ,更重要的是 ,我们必须更新观念 ,正确认识刑法的功能 :刑法不仅保护国家的利益、维护社会的稳定 ,也保护公民个人的合法权益。刑法是人权保障的“大宪章”。     

Criminal Justice in Soviet Russia

Compared to American criminal justice, the fabric of Russia's system is a tightly woven structure operating under centralized co-ordination. During recent history, the goals of Russia's criminal justice system have shifted from repression by terrorism to crime prevention through education and an emphasis on individual duty in peace-keeping matters.

The militia (police), created in 1917, has been mandated to prevent crime through intelligence activities, direct intervention, and citizen education. In 1966, it was given the responsibility for the supervision of offenders newly released from correctional institutions. Peoples Volunteer Brigades and the DRUZHINNIKS aid the militia in crime prevention.

The courts also make use of non-professionals in the persons of lay assessors to insure that the accused is judged by his “peers.” The court system itself is inquisitorial in nature as opposed to the American accusational model. As the accused person moves through pre-trial and trial procedures, one can see how his “rights” may be legally abridged at every step.

Russian courts have a variety of sentences from which to choose, ranging in harshness from public censure to death by shooting. Deprivation of liberty may be applied by degree from “education” to compulsory labor to strict incarceration. The Soviets are attempting an organized plan of diversionary sentencing, in order to reduce prison populations to all but the most dangerous offenders.

Correctional facilities depend on inmate commissions to keep order and motivate good behavior through group influence and peer pressure. Inmates as well as civilians have “a national duty to mind other people's business.”

In the United States, justice is fragmented into a variety of jurisdictions: municipal, county, state, and federal, each with its own law enforcement agencies, courts, and correctional agencies. Further, there is only limited coordination among the various segments of the system. There is little argument to the proposition that the American “system” of criminal justice is inefficient.

Unlike America's disjointed system, the Russian Criminal justice system is unified; militia (police), procurators (prosecutors), courts, and correctional facilities operate under a centralized coordinating body. This body is characterized by a unity of purpose and a high degree of systemic integration (Juviler, 1979, p. 1).