关于调整中国刑法结构的思考

There are two problems with regard to the structure of Chinese criminal law. Firstly, the crimes that are defined in the Chinese criminal code are approximately equal to the felonies that are defined in the western criminal codes, while re-education through labor and penalty for administration of public security similar to the misdemeanors and violations in western countries respectively are not included in the Chinese criminal code, and meanwhile the security measures have not been systematized. Secondly, crimes and penalties, except in criminal law, can not be prescribed in administrative laws and economic laws, and such single track system of conviction and sentencing fails to satisfy the current social situation in which the number of mala prohibia has increased so much. The way to reform Chinese criminal law structure: Firstly, it is to establish a double track system, where mala prohibia should be prescribed in the related administrative laws or economic laws; secondly, a comprehensive criminal code should be reformulated in which felonies, misdemeanors, violations and security measures are all included. Liu Renwen, Ph.D, is a senior research fellow at the Law Institute of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. His major works include: A Preliminary Study of Criminal Policy (2004), Economic Analysis in the Integration of Criminal Law (2007), Crimes of Environment and National Resources (2004); and research articles, such as: Reform of the re-education through labor (Criminal Law Review, 2001), Enhance the quality of death penalty cases through the procedure (New Reports in Criminal Law, 2006).     

试论刑事政策与国际刑法的关系

刑事政策是对犯罪有组织的反应,国际刑法以研讨国际犯罪为己任,对国际犯罪的研究需要以刑事政策为视角。本文通过分析刑事政策的含义及其国际化特征与国际刑法的发展方向,在刑事政策的视野下,揭示国际刑法的发展趋势——刑事政策的国际刑法化与国际刑法的刑事政策化,进而把握刑事政策与国际刑法两者的契合性。     

江泽民刑事立法思想研讨

江泽民的刑事立法思想内容较为丰富，涉及面广，为完善和健全中国的刑事法制尤其是刑事立法提供了重要的思想源泉。其内容主要包括积极健全刑事立法和努力提高刑事立法质量两个重要方面。在新世纪新阶段，建设中国现代刑事法治，需要深刻领会和准确把握江泽民刑事立法思想的丰富内涵与精神实质，以更好地促进中国刑事法治的科学化与现代化。     

刑事政策执行方式研究——兼论宽严相济刑事政策的贯彻

中国刑事政策源远流长，因时因地不同而产生了不同的刑事政策，而各个刑事政策的执行方式也大相径庭，而其直接后果则是刑事政策执行的失败与成功。学界历来不缺对刑事政策本身的研究，但对刑事政策的执行方式却鲜有论述，本文分析了现存刑事政策执行方式的不足，提出了刑事政策执行在理论上存在的三种可能方式，并认为综合式执行方式是中国目前刑事政策执行方式的首选。     

The basic concepts of re-modifying the criminal procedure law

Re-modifying China’s Criminal Procedure Law has become an important topic within theoretical circles. Many scholars discuss the question of how to modify Criminal Procedure Law. The author considers re-modifying Criminal Procedure Law based on basic scientific ideas; if these ideas contain paying equal attention to fighting crime and protecting human rights, initially setting up a procedural idea and a view of legal truthfulness, giving priority to justice with due consideration to efficiency, and obeying and consulting the international criminal judiciary justness guidelines that will be followed in re-modifying Criminal Procedure Law, then this re-modifying will be successful. __________ Translated from People Justice, 2005, (5) (in Chinese)     

罪刑法定视域中的刑法适用解释

The judicial interpretation of criminal law should be an application interpretation to individual cases that is guided by judges and participated by the prosecutor and the accused, for which the judicial judgment should be combined with the application of criminal law of specific cases, and the criminal precedents should be as a carrier. The Supreme People’s Court should change from the previous practices of issuing normative and abstract interpretation to the dual approaches of the interpretation of criminal law application through direct creation and indirect acknowledgement. Liang Genlin, Professor and Vice Dean of Law School of Peking University and as a visiting professor of University of Tuebingen (2001–2002). His main research focuses on criminal law and criminal policy, and his important publications include “On the Structure of Punishment”, “Liang Genlin’s Review on Criminal Policy, Volume I, Criminal Policy: Standpoint and Category”, “Liang Genlin’s Review on Criminal Policy, Volume II, the Arm of the Law: Expand and Limit”, “Liang Genlin’s Review on Criminal Policy, Volume III, Criminal Sanction: Manner and Choice”. Besides, he has also published over 40 discourses on criminal law and criminal policy since 1996.     

Attitudes toward the criminal legal system: Scale development and predictors

The purpose of this study was to assess attitudes toward the criminal legal system and determine how they are related to rule-violating behaviors and experiences with the criminal legal system. To this end, the Attitudes Toward the Criminal Legal System Scale (ATCLS) was developed and five studies were conducted with participants from New England, including college students, high school students, and the community. Studies 1 and 2 found support for the reliability and validity of the ATCLS, and a relation between the ATCLS and authoritarianism and belief in a just world. Study 3 examined the test–retest reliability of the ATCLS. Studies 4 and 5 were conducted primarily to uncover the relation between the ATCLS and law- or rule-related behaviors with a community and high school sample, respectively. Generally, results suggested that there were no sex differences on the ATCLS, but attitudes toward the criminal legal system might function differently for men and women with regards to authoritarianism and behavior.     

Ten tendencies of criminal justice

A study of the global tendencies of criminal justice will help us design a more scientific and rational pathway for the reformation of existing criminal justice system of China. In the forthcoming several hundred years to come, the world’s criminal justice is to take on ten tendencies, that is, the tendency toward unity, civilization, science, rule of law, human rights, justice, efficiency, specialization, standardization and harmony. __________ Translated from Yanshan Daxue Xuebao (Zhexue Shehui Kexueban) 燕山大学学报 (哲学社会科学版) (Journal of Yanshan University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition)), 2005, (1): 1–11     

European criminal law and European identity

This contribution aims to explain how European Criminal Law can be understood as constitutive of European identity. Instead of starting from European identity as a given, it provides a philosophical analysis of the construction of self-identity in relation to criminal law and legal tradition. The argument will be that the self-identity of those that share jurisdiction depends on and nourishes the legal tradition they adhere to and develop, while criminal jurisdiction is of crucial importance in this process of mutual constitution. This analysis will be complemented with a discussion of the integration of the first and the third pillar as aimed for by the Constitutional Treaty (TE), which would bring criminal law under majority rule and European democratic control. Attention will be paid to two ground breaking judgements of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that seem to boil down to the fact that the Court actually manages to achieve some of the objectives of the CT even if this is not in force. This gives rise to a discussion of how the CT (and related judgements of the ECJ) may transform European criminal law in the Union to EU criminal law of the Union, thus producing an identity of the Union next to the identities prevalent in the Union. The contribution concludes with some normative questions about the kind of European identity we should aim to establish, given the fact that such identity will arise with further integration of criminal law into the first pillar.

美国联邦刑法法典化述评

美国联邦尚无刑法典,然自建国后,联邦一直致力于刑法法典化,从1790年《治罪法》至1948年《联邦法典》第18主题,到1982年《联邦刑法典草案》,长达200多年的刑法法典化事业至今未竟。联邦刑法法典化呈现独有品性,即启于内外因素双重驱动、历经形式编纂到实质编纂、本体即权力扩张与限制、价值思维系理想主义与实用主义之统合。联邦刑法法典化目的理性,其搁浅缘于工具不善。基于现有刑法不力、刑法治危机以及刑法典的天然优势之事实,结合刑法有效、公正、人道之目的,得以推导出刑法法典化仍需继续之应然结论。未来,联邦刑法法典化之路仍旧遍地荆棘,而联邦刑法典能否问世,取决于美国所动用的实践理性。     

刑事政策与刑事立法关系的动态分析

正确认识刑事政策与刑事立法的关系对刑事法制建设具有重要意义。正确认识政策与法的关系是其前提。对二者关系的分析需要从静态和动态两个角度进行。静态考察是为了认识政策与法的区别。动态考察是为了认识二者的联系。刑事政策对刑事立法的动态影响表现在对刑事立法需要的影响 ,对刑事立法内容的影响 ,对刑事立法解释的影响。刑事立法对刑事政策的动态影响表现为 :刑事立法本身的局限性 ,决定了刑事政策存在的价值 ;刑事立法具有规范性和稳定性 ,促使某些刑事政策向立法转化 ;刑事立法具有的国家意志性 ,可以抵制不符合立法基本原则的不适当的刑事政策。     

我国刑事赔偿制度之改革

In reference to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to “the Covenants”), the state compensation system of China in criminal justice shall be reformed as such: Compensation for a miscarriage of justice should not be determined by the results of first instance or second instance, but no guilty through retrial in the final trial upon finding of new evidences. If policemen, prosecutors and judiciaries take lawful measures, causing loss to the suspected due to arrest, detention or other enforcement in the criminal proceedings, the suspected should not get the state compensation for that even if he is decided no guilty in the final trial. If the suspected is cooped up illegally, he should get the state compensation even if being decided guilty finally. The measures of search and seizure should be included in coercive measures, hence differentiating the lawful search and seizure and the unlawful infringement of the property rights. Yang Yuguan, Professor of the Procedure Law Institute in China University of Political Science and Law, whose research mainly covers procedure law and human rights law. He wrote many books and essays, for instance, “Computer and Crime” (1986), “On Plea Bargaining” (1986), “Basic Education in Prisons in China” (1995), “The United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Policy” (1996), “On the Ratification and Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (2000), “On Hearsay” (2001), “On Exclusionary Rule” (2002), “Human Rights Law: Study On International Covenant on Civil and Political Right” (2003), “The International Criminal Court: Idea, reality and Prospective” (2007), “Death Penalty Control with Procedural Law” (2006), “On Due Process of Law and Human Rights Protection” (2005). He was once a researcher fellow of Ministry of Justice of China, a member of the Crime Prevention Branch of the United Nations Office at Vienna, and an editor-in-chief in some books, such as “The United Nations Criminal Justice Norms and Standards”, “The United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies and their Comments”, “A Study On UN Convention of Anti-corruption”.     

精神病人限定刑事责任能力评定量表在强奸案件中的运用

目的探讨《精神病人限定责任能力评定量表》在强奸案件中的运用。方法用《精神病人限定责任能力评定量表》评定为限定刑事责任能力的77例强奸案例,完成了量表评定,同时将限定刑事责任能力进行三级划分。结果小部分组、部分组、大部分组量表评定分逐渐升高,且具有显著性差异,量表共16个条目与评定分相关,相关系数从0.265至0.611不等,因子分析得到7个因子,解释75.784%的变异。结论精神病人限定责任能力量表内部构建合理,在强奸案件中其评定总分能有效反映三级限定刑事责任能力之间差异。     

制定我国罪犯DNA数据库管理规范的探讨

在司法鉴定领域,基因遗传分析技术已广泛地应用于个体识别和亲权鉴定检案之中,特别是利用DNA分型技术建立罪犯DNA数据库作为刑事案件侦破手段的设想,就其技术而言已逐步走向成熟和现实.近几年来美国和西欧一些国家相继建立了以PCR-STR分型技术为基础的罪犯DNA数据库,并且也已制定了相关的法律法规以此规范数据库的整个运作过程.1999年我国司法部司法鉴定科学技术研究所开展和完成了"中国罪犯DNA数据库模式库"的研究工作,可以预计正式建立我国国家罪犯DNA数据库只是个时间问题,因此进行有关罪犯DNA数据库法律法规制定的研究工作是必须的,它是我国国家罪犯DNA数据库得以顺利建立和高效运作的重要保障之一.     

刑法关怀与刑法解释

刑法应体现法律之公平善良的特质 ,刑法关怀是指刑法对自然人、社会组织及社会所给予的刑法关注、刑法抵御和刑法保护 ,刑法解释即有权解释 ,是指有权机关依据一定原则使用法定方法对法律文本所作的阐释 ,是连结刑事立法与刑法适用的纽带和中介 ,是折射和反映刑法关怀的最佳视角。欠缺刑法关怀的刑法解释在一定程度上说可能是合法的但未必是合理的。从刑法关怀的维度审视我国现有的刑法解释 ,一方面在于把刑法关怀坚持到底 ,另一方面在于反思刑法解释的真正科学的定位 ,由此建立合法合理的刑法解释体系。     

Italian criminal trials: Lost in transition? Differing degrees of criminal justice convergence in Italy and Australia

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure underwent extraordinary reform in 1988, from an established inquisitorial system to incorporate key elements of adversarialism. This reform sought to create greater separation of powers and efficiency of the trial system. Two decades on, Italian criminal trials continue to be overly protracted, and struggle with maintaining independence of the judiciary (particularly a distinct separation from the prosecutorial arm). This paper primarily examines the philosophical foundations of inquisitorial and adversarial systems, and theories of the policy making process. It develops a theoretical framework for understanding the transformation of the Italian trial system, and the challenges that have resulted from combining two divergent approaches to criminal justice. Various important lessons are drawn for criminal justice community, as many jurisdictions are engaging in similar convergence of these systems as a result of global influence and change.     

Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in US criminal law: an empirical analysis

The goal of this study was to examine the growing use of neurological and behavioral genetic evidence by criminal defendants in US criminal law. Judicial opinions issued between 2005–12 that discussed the use of neuroscience or behavioral genetics by criminal defendants were identified, coded and analysed. Criminal defendants are increasingly introducing such evidence to challenge defendants’ competency, the effectiveness of defense counsel at trial, and to mitigate punishment.     

Recidivist criminal behaviour and executive functions: a comparative study

This study sought to analyse the relation between executive functions and criminal recidivism. We assessed a set of cognitive abilities associated with executive functioning in a group of recidivist offenders (n = 19), primary offenders (n = 25) and non-offenders (n = 30). Our results, tested with nonparametric statistics and Monte Carlo method, revealed that there were no executive differences between both groups of offenders but, when compared with non-offenders, the recidivists showed a worse performance in Trail Making Test part B, and the primary offenders presented a significant lower score on Porteus Maze Test Age score. This study suggests that there can be a different pattern of executive functioning deficits associated with the offenders’ criminal record: recidivism may be more related to mental flexibility impairments and primary offenders’ antisocial behaviour may be aggravated by planning deficits.     

精神病人限定刑事责任能力评定量表在精神分裂症违法者中的运用

目的探讨《精神病人限定刑事责任能力评定量表》在精神分裂症违法者犯罪案件中的运用。方法多中心收集被评定为限定刑事责任能力的精神分裂症犯罪嫌疑人,完成量表评定,同时将限定刑事责任能力进行三级划分。结果小部分组、部分组、大部分组量表评定总分的平均分依次升高且存在显著性差异,分别为21.16±4.17、25.87±5.43、29.35±4.60;量表共18个条目均与评定分显著相关,相关系数从0.154至0.590不等;因子分析得到6个因子,能解释68.485%变异。结论精神病人限定刑事责任能力评定量表内部构建合理,在精神分裂症违法者犯罪案件中,其评定总分能有效反映三级限定刑事责任能力之间差异。     

大陆法系间接正犯研究思路透析--质疑间接正犯概念之"替补性"观点

传统思路认为,研究间接正犯,应当先从弥补法律漏洞出发证明间接正犯概念之存在,然后证明其正犯性,从而将间接正犯置于“替补”之地位。这是一种颠倒的逻辑,不仅如此,“替补”理论存在之理论基础,共犯极端从属理论本身亦为非科学,因此,传统的研究思路在根本上存在问题,“替补”理论不能证明间接正犯之存在。尽管如此,它对于开辟研究间接正犯之正确的思维却颇具启发意义,从而可以逆推出,共犯概念与间接正犯概念应当具有共同的理论渊源——正犯理论。正是正犯的界限出了问题,才派生出间接正犯和共犯概念。因此,从正犯概念检讨, 才是探明间接正犯之正犯性存在的根本思路。