刑罚与行政处罚在税收违法行为中的适用关系探析

刑罚和行政处罚虽属于不同的责任形式，但二者的功能具有同质性，对同一行为同时适用刑罚和行政处罚会混淆同一行为的法律性质，因此原则上不能并用。税收违法行为在适用刑罚和行政处罚时同样应遵循这一原则，只有停止出口退税权这一税收行政处罚所特有的措施才能和刑罚并用。为了弥补刑罚在处罚税收犯罪上的局限性，应当适当增加资格刑。     

强人工智能体的刑罚体系构建

当前刑罚体系针对强人工智能体具有局限性,生命刑、自由刑、财产刑、权利刑均无法适用于强人工智能.应当适当调整刑罚体系,增设删除数据、修改程序和永久销毁的刑罚处罚方式.在适用相应刑罚时,应坚持罪刑相适应原则,遵循报应与预防相结合的二元论思想,根据社会危害性和再犯可能性的大小设置刑罚梯度.只有在强人工智能体的罪行极其严重时,...     

行贿犯罪非刑罚处罚措施的规范与完善

由于刑法规定的非刑罚处罚措施在适用方式与内容上均有一定的局限性,因而司法实践中在对行贿犯罪人免于刑事处罚时较少采用非刑罚处罚措施,由此导致免于刑事处罚的行贿犯罪人实际上未受到任何处罚和教训。虽然《刑法修正案(九)》在一定程度上缩小了对行贿罪免除处罚的范围,但基于查处与打击受贿犯罪的需要,司法实践中仍不可避免因"辩诉交易"而对行贿犯罪免除处罚。因此,为有效惩治与预防行贿犯罪进而有效遏制受贿犯罪,有必要对行贿犯罪非刑罚处罚措施的适用进行一定程度的规范与完善。对于行贿犯罪人能够产生预防犯罪作用的训诫、责令具结悔过、建议主管部门予以行政处罚或者行政处分这三种非刑罚处罚措施,无论在形式上抑或内容上,均因或多或少存在一定的局限性而应当进行规范。此外,对行贿犯罪非刑罚处罚措施的规范适用,还必须辅之以相对完备的基础制度,因此,应当夯实行贿犯罪非刑罚处罚的司法基础,完善信息及时披露制度和相应的监督机制,以及构建行贿单位强制性检察监管制度等。     

论诽谤罪的真实性证明

"真实性证明"在诽谤罪的认定中处于核心地位。真实性证明,是对已经具有违法性的行为的一种程序上的自我救济,当真实性证明能够完成时,仅仅是阻却刑罚的处罚,真实性证明应当属于刑罚处罚阻却事由。通过举证责任的改变,被告人承担的证明责任有所降低,并因此可以获得更多的免责机会。     

罪责刑相适应原则下我国刑罚立法的完善

罪责刑相适应原则指导下我国刑罚种类的立法完善,应当着重对死刑进行改革,严格死刑案件的适用条件,废除绝对法定刑为死刑的规定;修改无期徒刑的规定,适当延长有期徒刑刑期,完善资格刑,以更好地实现刑罚价值与目的.     

论我国刑事和解制度的建立及其运行

刑事和解制度在英美及欧洲大陆国家已广泛适用，其具有刑罚所无法达到的社会效果。寻求被害人、加害人合法权益的双向保护是当代刑事诉讼发展的必然趋势。根据目前的司法实践，直接适用刑罚已不能完全适应处理刑事案件的需要。故在刑事政策和刑事制度的设计中应该充分考虑其犯罪特征，用非刑罚的方法，调和被害人与加害人之间的关系，调和被破坏的社会关系，     

对我国毒品犯罪刑罚适用问题的反思北大核心CSSCI

毒品犯罪刑罚适用的重刑化趋势,与毒品犯罪高涨不下的现状形成了鲜明对比。寄希望通过"以刑抗罪"的传统模式来防范毒品犯罪的实践路径,并未收到预期效果,反而导致了重刑适用的诸多弊端,也与刑罚的整体发展趋势不相合拍。应当改变当前过于倚重刑罚防控毒品犯罪的窘境,重构毒品犯罪的刑罚结构及其内容,从禁毒策略体系入手进行一体化构建,这理当成为法治化语境下理论界与实务界为之不懈共同努力的前行路标。     

对我国毒品犯罪刑罚适用问题的反思

毒品犯罪刑罚适用的重刑化趋势,与毒品犯罪高涨不下的现状形成了鲜明对比。寄希望通过"以刑抗罪"的传统模式来防范毒品犯罪的实践路径,并未收到预期效果,反而导致了重刑适用的诸多弊端,也与刑罚的整体发展趋势不相合拍。应当改变当前过于倚重刑罚防控毒品犯罪的窘境,重构毒品犯罪的刑罚结构及其内容,从禁毒策略体系入手进行一体化构建,这理当成为法治化语境下理论界与实务界为之不懈共同努力的前行路标。     

病态型罪犯的刑罚适用问题

对一般罪犯而言,刑罚的适用是一种痛苦,但对病态型罪犯而言,刑罚的适用则意味着一种幸福。坚持对病态型罪犯适用刑罚,是对刑罚报应和一般预防目的的追求。从期待可能性理论看,病态型罪犯的犯罪"情有可原",刑罚应降低对其行为的可责性。     

减刑制度的适用条件若干问题探讨

减刑的适用对象是被判处管制、拘役、有期徒刑、无期徒刑的犯罪分子。＂可以减刑＂的实质条件是犯罪分子在刑罚执行期间,认真遵守监规,接受教育改造,确有悔改表现,或者有立功表现;＂应当减刑＂的实质条件是犯罪分子在刑罚执行期间,有重大立功表现。减刑的限度主要表现在：原判刑罚实际执行的刑期、减刑的幅度与减刑的起始时间、间隔时间等方面有限制。     

关于盗窃罪司法解释的思考

新近公布的盗窃罪司法解释全面贯彻了宽严相济的基本刑事政策。盗窃是否意味着"秘密窃取",旧司法解释将其定义为秘密窃取,而新司法解释则适应犯罪形势变化的需求取消了该规定。在盗窃罪牵连犯的处罚原则上,新司法解释确定为从一重从重处罚,更符合罪责刑相适应原则。单位相关人员犯非法定单位犯罪是否构成盗窃罪应以自然人的盗窃罪犯罪构成要件为判断标准,符合盗窃罪构成要件的应依法追究相关人员的刑事责任。     

Missed Opportunities and New Risks: Penal Policy in England and Wales in the Past Twenty‐Five Years

This paper discusses trends in criminal justice and penal policy over the past twenty‐five years. This period has been characterised as a time of penal populism, which originated in the failure of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act, and the competition between the main political parties to be ‘tough on crime’. However, this is not the only trend to be found in penal policy. There has continued to be a strong undertow of support for rehabilitation and community penalties, including restorative justice. There has been pressure from the left as much as the right to take domestic violence, sexual offences against women and children, and hate crimes more seriously. There have been pressures to meet performance targets—which gradually transformed into calls to build the legitimacy of the justice system. Finally, there have been pressures to privatise criminal justice agencies. These various impulses have sometimes amplified and sometimes counteracted the pressures towards tough penal policy. If the period of intense penal populism ran from 1993 to 2007, inertia in the system has ensured that there have been no significant attempts to row back from tough policies, and to reassert the values of penal parsimony. Given that money has been tight since 2007 and crime has continued to fall, this must amount to a lost opportunity of significant proportions.     

公正和效率的两难选择——评刑事诉讼法有关侦查程序的修改

我国侦查活动中公正和效率价值的双重缺失一直受到诟病。“宽严相济”刑事司法政策的确立以及司法体制和工作机制改革决策助推了刑事诉讼法再修改。立足于公正和效率价值的平衡,本次刑事诉讼法修改对有关侦查活动的证据制度、强制措施、辩护程序、讯问程序、侦查措施、侦查行为的监督等进行了完善。但基于我国国情,在人权保障、诉讼构造、侦查构造、侦查程序的科学性、侦查程序自治、侦查程序借鉴等方面．理想与现实之间仍存在一定差距。     

赔偿能力高低与交通肇事罪成立的关系——由最高人民法院司法解释的规定所引出理论上的看法

最高人民法院《关于审理交通肇事刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》将交通事故责任人有无财产赔偿能力以及赔偿能力的高低作为定罪量刑的因素之一，并不是以钱买罪。恰恰相反，它体现了是刑法谦抑性、宽严相济的刑事政策以及和谐社会的要求，符合当代法律的发展趋势。     

Does justice stand alone?

A common feature of leading liberal-egalitarian political theories is the sharp priority they attribute to justice, and to distributive justice in particular. In this article, I argue that liberal egalitarians have yet to offer a persuasive argument for prioritizing justice, and distributive justice in particular, in this way. I focus on assessing arguments advanced in the seminal work of John Rawls and employ the pluralist liberalism of Isaiah Berlin to illustrate that Rawls’ arguments are not even persuasive for reasonable liberals like Berlin, let alone for non-liberals. The upshot of my argument is not that liberals should abandon the pursuit of greater equality of wealth and income, but only that such goals should still be balanced against the claims of other fundamental values, such as individual liberty and the common good (contrary to those who want to give sharp priority to distributive justice).     

Global Justice and the Distribution of Natural Resources

What should a political theorist say about the justice of the global distribution of natural resources? One issue is whether principles of distributive justice should be applied globally, and this has been debated between nationalists and cosmopolitans. A second, though, is how the category of 'natural resources' should be conceived in relation to other distributable goods. This has not adequately been addressed even by theorists of global justice who expressly focus on natural resources. In particular, neither Charles Beitz's argument for a natural resources redistribution principle nor David Miller's argument against works with a satisfactory account of how the physical distribution of resources relates to the distribution of their economic value. A more satisfactory account can be developed from the perspective of ecological economics as inspired by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. From this perspective, global inequalities in the command of natural resources can be viewed with the clarity that a normative theory of their justice requires. If natural resources are re-conceptualised in terms of 'ecological space', Beitz's argument can be recast and vindicated. The re-conceptualisation is necessary to overcome the problems with the original version, as is shown by reference to the existing alternative formulations of Hillel Steiner and Thomas Pogge.     

Justice,Efficiency, and the New Public Management

In this article I aim to explore the link between two normative values, namely justice and efficiency, and the New Public Management approach. In pursuing this task I offer several critical arguments against some of the recent justice‐based objections levied against New Public Management by David Arellano‐Gault. I claim that Arellano‐Gault's account of the relation between justice and the New Public Management is seriously undermined by two conceptual flaws: (1) a conflation of right‐libertarianism, utilitarianism, and desert theories of justice and (2) a conflation of the technical/productive sense of efficiency with the social/distributive sense. Furthermore, I maintain that even when the different theories of justice and the different senses of efficiency are properly delineated, the case for necessarily linking NPM to a particular theory of justice is markedly unconvincing.     

Falling into the justice gap? Between duties of social and global justice

The literature on cosmopolitan justice has yet to address what principles to adopt when duties of global justice and duties of social justice are in conflict. In this paper, I address David Miller’s contention that some may fall into the justice gap since we need to prioritize duties of social justice in cases of conflict. I argue that Miller’s analysis depends on three stipulations: the incommensurability of the values underlying duties of social justice and those of global justice; the need to justify duties of justice to their holders; and the need to consider the necessary institutions to realize and implement justice obligations. I argue against the incommensurability clause by showing that both conceptions of justice pursue moral equality as the underlying and commensurate value. Instead, I propose that the currencies of justice we employ in the two contexts of justice are different. Discussing the justifiability clause I agree with the stipulation that we have to justify decisions that affect the realization of justice to those who have to carry the burden of realizing them. This implies, however, that we may have to accept that some prioritize duties of global justice over duties of social justice. If this is the case, it seems as though the state has little recourse to prioritize duties of social justice. Finally, discussing Miller’s institutional clause I ask why the justice relevant institutions can only be those of the state. It is plausible to say that in our current world, institutions of humanitarian aid are effective means to satisfy duties of global justice.     

智慧司法中的忧虑:想象、剖析与展望

智慧司法建设如火如荼的同时,学术界对智慧司法可能带来的负面效应过分忧虑:担忧对诉讼参与人贴标签会出现主观偏见、担心裁判算法黑箱可能会产生歧视、忧心人工智能代替法官思考甚至取代法官。上述忧虑乃是基于对智慧司法的想象。事实上,贴标签并不会产生偏见;智慧司法确实充满了黑箱,但并不构成逻辑困扰;智慧司法并没有增加裁判过程中的歧视,而是限制了本就存在的歧视行为;算法没有能力代替法官思考,更不可能取代法官。未来在讨论智慧司法建设时应当破除对新鲜事物的恐惧,摘除针对算法的有色眼镜,关注算法对司法带来的各种冲击。     

THE USE OF MANDATORY SENTENCING LEGISLATION AS SYMBOLIC STATEMENTS

Mandatory sentencing legislation often results in laws which use provisions and set penalties in order to make strong symbolic and political statements. Thus, in addition to protecting society, they are powerful vehicles for expressing moral outrage. This is especially evident in mandatory sentencing for drug and alcohol offenses. The present research examines the consequences of that practice on one state's criminal justice system. Interviews with key actors along with examinations of official documents, newspaper publicity and media campaigns illustrate the political decisions and symbolic statements which pervade driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) legislation. The process is studied from before the lawls enactment through its subsequent outcome.