Botched Executions and the Struggle to End Capital Punishment: A Twentieth‐Century Story

Why have accounts of botched executions not played a larger role in the struggle to end capital punishment in the United States? In the twentieth century, when methods of execution became increasingly controlled and sterilized, botched executions would seem to have had real abolitionist potential. This article examines newspaper coverage of botched executions to determine and describe the way they were presented to the public and why they have contributed little to the abolitionist cause. Although botched executions reveal pain, violence, and inhumanity associated with state killing, newspaper coverage of these events neutralizes the impact of that revelation. Throughout the last century, newspapers presented botched executions as misfortunes rather than injustices. We identify three distinct modes by which newspaper coverage neutralized the impact of botched executions and presented them as misfortunes rather than as systemic injustices: (1) the dual narratives of sensationalism and recuperation in the early years of the twentieth century, (2) the decline of sensationalism and the rise of “professionalism” in the middle of the century, and (3) the emphasis on “balanced” reporting toward the end of the century.     

我国在死刑适用上的人权保障分析

死刑与人权问题,在一定意义上反映着一个国家对生命权的尊重程度和社会文明程度.近些年来,死刑问题已成为我国刑法理论界和司法实际工作上的一个热点问题.无论是主存派还是主废派当前能达成的共识是,我国现阶段仍不能废除死刑,只能是逐步减少死刑.因此,就如何在保留死刑的前提下,保障死刑适用上的人权问题进行分析阐述.     

有关量刑问题的理论思考

随着新刑法的实施 ,司法实践向理论界提出了更新更高的要求 ,从而推动着刑法基础理论研究向纵深发展 ,本文就刑法学中的量刑及其理论体系作粗浅探讨。     

公共惩罚与私人惩罚的互动——一个解读法律制度的新视角

公共惩罚与私人惩罚既相互排斥又相互补充,公共惩罚与私人惩罚的互动可以作为一个解读法律制度的视角。国家为维持法律实施的垄断,通常会对私人惩罚手段(尤其是私人暴力)进行限制,但为节省公共惩罚资源的支出,法律又必须在某些场合容忍甚至利用私人之间的监控与惩罚,公共惩罚资源的有限性迫使国家把私人之间的监控和惩罚视为一项重要的社会控制资源。法律制度的设计应当充分发挥公共惩罚和私人惩罚的比较优势,合理划分公共控制区域和私人控制区域,并努力追求社会控制总成本(即公共控制成本和私人控制成本之和)的最小化。西方近代政治的古典自由主义、中国古代政治的消极无为主义以及公法与私法的区分都在一定程度上体现了这一原则。     

论执行罚的数额及其法律规范

以＂天价滞纳金＂为主要表现形式的＂天价执行罚＂在行政强制法制化的进程中广受诟病,＂天价执行罚＂的产生主要源于法律对执行罚的数额规范不够明确甚至缺失。国家用规章尤其是用人大立法的形式对执行罚的数额作出明确规范具有积极意义。     

论村规民约规定与实施处罚的法理正当性

作为村民自治的产物,村规民约实践中较为普遍地存在规定和实施处罚的情形,这一直是一个令许多学者倍感疑惑的问题。就村民自治的内在逻辑而言,村规民约规定和实施处罚,具有法理上的正当性,尽管这并不意味着其可以任意地规定或实施处罚。其一,村民自治是一种民主的实践,而强制则是民主政治实践的内在的构成性因素之一。其二,村民自治固然是村民公民权利的运用,但权利并不是单纯消极性的,它在一定条件下就是权力,即,村民自治权力,它是管辖村级公共事务并能够作出强制性安排的一种公共权力。其三,观察和思考权力时,不能有意识地区分权力的存有与权力的运用两个层面,这是我们常常不能接受村规民约规定和实施处罚现象的重要原因。当然,这种区分的视角也提醒我们,接受处罚权力的存在正当性,并不是问题的完结,而恰恰是我们进一步深思明辨权力运用规则的开始。     

论商鞅法律思想之刑罚目的

商鞅刑罚目的是以威慑儆戒为主的一般预防论,即靠对犯罪人实施刑罚来威慑儆戒其他人使其不敢犯罪,达到预防社会犯罪的目的。商鞅的刑罚目的理论,以人性恶的犯罪理论为基础,以重刑、必得、明法为基本内容,通过三者的有机结合来实现预防犯罪。这一刑罚理论虽然曾取得明显的成效,但仍存在着众多的不足和缺陷。     

Penal Excess and Surplus Meaning: Public Torture Lynchings in Twentieth-Century America

The most notorious lynchings that occurred in the United States between 1890 and 1940 involved publicity, crowds, ritual, and abnormal cruelty. Several hundred of these "public torture lynchings" took place, most of them in the Deep South. The author develops an interpretation that takes seriously the specific forms and discourses that lynchers and their supporters used to describe and justify these events—characterizing them as criminal punishments, albeit summary, informal ones that were shaped by a white supremacist culture and a politics of racial domination. An interpretation of the penal context and meanings of these public torture lynchings helps us understand their specific forms and their claims to legitimacy. The penal character of these lynchings increased the probability that they would be tolerated by local (and even national) audiences and thus made them a strategic form of violence in struggles to maintain racial supremacy. The author argues that a consideration of these events should lead us to revise our standard narratives about the evolution of modern punishments.     

“以刑制罪”视阈下财产罪保护法益的再认识

对81个非法取回本人所有而被他人合法占有的财物样本案例的定罪、量刑、犯罪数额认定的考察发现,原则上只有造成占有人财产损失的才会以财产罪定罪,而若判处财产罪会导致量刑畸重,所以,样本判决限制财产罪的适用和犯罪数额的认定以实现量刑轻缓。本文认为,优先考虑量刑合理的以刑制罪忽略了定罪的准确性,易消弥财产罪之间、财产罪与其他罪之间的界限;部分判决量刑畸轻、犯罪数额认定混乱、判决书说理不一;样本判决以刑制罪有其实践理性,但缺乏必要的规范约束易导致乱象。由此反思我国刑法对财产罪的定量立法模式,较重的法定刑是导致以刑制罪的根本原因。立法赋予量刑更大的裁量空间将有助于缓解司法上的以刑制罪,也有助于对包括占有权在内的财产法益的全面保护并实现罪刑均衡。     

The Role Of Legal Consciousness and Public Opinion in Fixing Punishment

The Principles of Criminal Legislation of the USSR and the Union Republics provide that the court shall designate punishment for a guilty person within the limits provided in the article of the law stipulating responsibility for the crime committed, taking into account the nature and degree of social danger of the crime committed, the personality of the guilty individual and the circumstances of the case, ameliorating or exacerbating responsibility, being guided therein by a socialist legal consciousness (Art. 32).     

自首心理与量刑——关于自首制度的法律心理学沉思

自首制度的意义在于感召犯罪分子在悔罪的基础上主动投案,如实交代罪行,从而有效惩治犯罪,降低法治成本,并促进他们改过自新.自首行为应当具备悔罪自责心理和主动受罚心理两个心理要件,怀有压力情势下的被迫心理、逃避惩罚的自保心理和毫无悔意的绝望心理的投案者并不符合自首的本质规定,应当将此类投案与自首行为区别对待.     

失信惩戒与传统法律责任体系的衔接

失信惩戒与传统法律责任体系的衔接是社会信用体系融入中国特色社会主义法律体系的重大命题。各类失信惩戒与民事责任、行政责任、刑事责任的衔接逻辑迥异。其中,行政性惩戒联合网络呈主导地位,司法性惩戒的定位逐渐流变为信息供给者,市场性惩戒、行业性惩戒、社会性惩戒自发地发挥能动作用以形成共治格局。在实践中存在的脱节现象主要有失信惩戒与刑事处罚不相协调、失信惩戒与行政处罚交互紊乱、失信惩戒行政裁量权范围过于宽泛。对此,应当在谦抑性原则统摄下把握传统法律责任体系和失信惩戒的调整顺序、法律责任系统论视角下重塑一事不再罚原则和禁止重复评价原则、行政处罚法定原则下强化中央和地方失信惩戒行政处罚设定权的立法完善以及比例原则指导下审慎控制行政权以矫正失信惩戒道德泛化趋势。     

法院执行中的暴力抗法:1983-2009

暴力抗法是国家与社会的短兵相接。以司法能力为线索,从国家与社会两个层面,结合自上而下、自下而上两种视角对暴力抗法进行分析,可以发现,暴力抗法的产生主要源于国家能力的不足,体现在司法领域即司法能力的不足。治理暴力抗法的主要思路为加强司法能力建设,应从惩罚与激励两个方向入手,努力提升司法的强制能力、救济能力及合法性能力。     

论罪刑法定原则的立法表述

罪刑法定原则的价值取向应当是限制国家刑罚权,维护市民社会的自由,这也就要求对罪刑法定原则的立法表述应当采取消极的表述形式。我国刑法典第3条对此的表述是从消极和积极两个方面进行的,这不利于罪刑法定原则机能的发挥。对此,在理论上应当进行反思,在立法上应当予以完善。