现代中国走向法治的必然选择——程序正义优先于实体正义

中国要实现法治,建设社会主义法治国家,首先必须彻底扭转程序工具主义的理念,建立程序正义的理念。程序正义是法治国家的标志,是从人治到法治、从传统法文化到法治现代化、从计划经济到市场经济的转变过程中至关重要的一种观念。只有确立程序正义的观念并以此作为审判方式和司法制度改革的基本理念,才能最终实现法治国的理想。     

建构程序法治之路——解析《程序正义的中国语境》

程序正义作为英美法系的一种法治理念,又称为"看得见的正义",是司法实践应当具有的最基本的要素,更是社会主义法治建设题中之意。笔者在《程序正义的中国语境》的基础上谈了自己的浅见。     

程序正义与中国语境——读孙洪坤教授的《程序与法治》

本文对孙洪坤教授的《程序与法治》做了简要的介绍,通过对该书的学习,分析了程序争议与中国语境的关系。     

现代法律秩序生长的综合性程序正义评析

程序正义有两条分歧的经验,一是相对程序工具主义,二是程序内在独立价值论。对此不应择一而用,而应建立综合性程序正义理念,就是在分析各种理论局限性的前提下,撷取各种理论优长进行更高层次的融合,进而型构一个综合性程序正义的理论框架。其核心意义在于提供一个多重价值选择体系,针对变革社会中各种不同的区域、时域、对象,在多重价值体系中作出最优的价值抉择,推动现代法律秩序生长。     

浅析程序正义

程序正义理念蕴含着人类对自身命运的关怀和对正义理想的追求,但长期以来我国法学理论界将法律程序仅仅视为实施实体法的工具。本文主要论述了程序正义的价值,并提出了判断程序公正的标准。     

浅析实体正义和程序正义

正义是法律所追求的重要价值目标之一,对正义之分以及其相互关系也是法学界历来所探究的热点问题。程序定义与实体正义具有必然因果联系。也就是说,没有程序正义就没有实体正义,程序正义是维护并验证实体正义的必要条件。本文认为不管程序正义和实体正义何者为先,法律建立的目标是为了达致整个社会的正义,那么为了达到社会正义有时应牺牲个体正义。     

浅议实体正义与程序正义

在中国,一贯就有重实体正义而轻程序正义的传统,认为这两者是内容与形式、目的与手段的关系。实际上,程序正义自身却具有独立的价值。无论程序正义还是实体正义,其终极指向都是社会实质正义,法的正义价值是实体正义和程序正义的统一,两者是对立统一的,决不能偏废一方。     

论程序正义

长期以来,我国占主导的法学理论对于法律程序的价值的问题基本上坚持了程序工具主义的观点,即将法律程序仅仅视为实施实体法的工具。本文分别从程序正义观念的起源、程序正义的价值以及程序正义的现实与社会实现的几个方面进行了探讨。     

浅谈程序正义

程序正义最早起源于13世纪的英国,在我国传统法律文化中,并没有受到重视。但作为形成适当的实体规范前提的公正程序,对于当今司法判决有着不可替代的作用,促进程序正义的实现会使得我国的法制建设更为完善。     

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。     

对程序正义与实体正义之冲突关系的质疑

正义本身就是一个标表各种相互冲突的利益被合理平衡的概念,这种平衡可能动态地体现在某种程序中,也可能静态地体现在某一结果中,因此只存在程序是否合乎正义,结果是否合乎正义的问题,并不存在程序合乎“程序正义”,结果合乎“实体正义”的分别。人权保障和真实发现都是程序所必须平衡的利益要求,它们之间的冲突不应被理解为程序正义与实体正义的冲突。程序正义是结果正义的根据,它们之间也不存在冲突。     

立法公正的实现与保障机制

立法公正不仅包括立法程序上的公正 ,还包括立法的实体公正 ,而立法实体的公正则是经由程序公正而获得的。立法程序公正的基本要件是程序公开、程序参与、程序自治、程序中立、程序效率等。实现立法公正要进一步完善公众立法的直接参与制度、立法公开制度、立法回避制度以及立法听证制度等     

程序正义及其局限性

程序正义是现代法的程序结构派生出的一种伦理形态 ,其本质为程序之中的伦理、非人格化的伦理、相对化和形式化的伦理、程序化的制度伦理。现实当中的程序正义是选举、司法以及立法、行政管理正当化的观念基础 ,宪政民主体制的伦理内涵。然而 ,程序正义之不幸在于其代表的乃是强者的正义 ,因而对弱者的权利保障是宪政民主体制不可缺少的组成部分。     

公正立法与立法公开

公正立法在本质上是一种现代立法理念,在追求立法价值公正的同时,也追求立法程序的公正和立法结果的公正。公正的立法是在公正价值的指导下通过公正的程序而实现的。立法公开不仅是程序公正的组成部分,也是走向公正立法的重要途径。     

惩罚性赔偿适用中的实体正义与程序正义

不同于一般损害赔偿旨在实现救济正义,惩罚性赔偿更侧重实现惩罚正义。在实现实体正义方面,惩罚性赔偿的适用需要法官基于权利保障的理念对私人自治理念的运用加以限制,法官在进行司法裁量时,应贯彻惩罚均衡原则,重点运用比例原则的分析方法确定惩罚性赔偿的数额。在实现程序正义方面,基于保障当事人诉讼权利的目的,法官在审理惩罚性赔偿案件时,应当变通适用民事诉讼制度中的处分原则,采用排除合理怀疑的证明标准。同时,在合议庭组成上,应适当限制依据常识作出判断的人民陪审员的数量。     

Procedural Justice and Affect Intensity: Understanding Reactions to Regulatory Authorities

Why is it that some people respond in a more negative way to procedural injustice than do others, and why is it that some people go on to defy authority while others in the same situation do not? Personality theorists suggest that the psychological effect of a situation depends on how a person interprets the situation and that such differences in interpretation can vary as a function of individual difference factors. For example, affect intensity—one’s predisposition to react more or less emotionally to an event—is one such individual difference factor that has been shown to influence people’s reactions to events. Cross-sectional survey data collected from (a) 652 tax offenders who have been through a serious law enforcement experience (Study 1), and (b) 672 citizens with recent personal contact with a police officer (Study 2), showed that individual differences in ‘affect intensity’ moderate the effect of procedural justice on both affective reactions and compliance behavior. Specifically, perceptions of procedural justice had a greater effect in reducing anger and reports of non-compliance among those lower in affect intensity than those higher in affect intensity. Both methodological and theoretical explanations are offered to explain the results, including the suggestion that emotions of shame may play a role in the observed interaction.     

Towards an Integration of Distributive Justice,Procedural Justice,and Social Resource Theories

The aim of this paper is to formulate new and more precise predictions regarding behavioral reactions to distributive and procedural injustice via insights from resource theory. The three theories share focus on discrepancies between actual and ideal states of existence as well as on psychological and behavioral reactions to discrepancy. But they also differ from each other in their conceptualizations and theorizing about these matters. Equity theory conceptualizes discrepancy as a perceived mismatch between inputs and outcomes; multiprinciple distributive justice and procedural justice theories view discrepancy as a mismatch between expected and applied distribution and procedural rules, respectively. Resulting feelings of inequity/injustice may trigger attempts to restore justice. Within the framework of resource theory, discrepancy concerns an inappropriate match between the nature of the provided and received resources. This leads to frustration which, in turn, may trigger attempts at retaliation. Limitations of the theories are discussed, with particular focus on their inability to match specific discrepancies with appropriate behavioral reactions. Behavioral predictions are based upon established congruence between behavioral reactions and violated procedural rules as well as type of inequity, as determined via their respective resource isomorphism. Limitations of the present integration attempt are discussed.     

通过程序制裁遏制刑事程序违法

在中国的刑事诉讼中,程序违法现象极为普遍,这在很大程度上是因为,现行的刑事诉讼法是一部缺乏制裁机制即违反之后没有法律后果的"软"法。刑事诉讼法基本上已经丧失了作为法律所应当具有的约束力,甚至沦落为规则的宣示或告诫。欲使刑事诉讼法成为"真正"的法律,就必须为其注入"制裁"这一法律规范的应有要素。而为刑事诉讼法注入"制裁"要素,应走"以程序制裁为中心"的道路,这是由程序制裁的独特优势所决定的。     

Moral Convictions Often Override Concerns About Procedural Fairness: A Reply to Napier and Tyler

Napier and Tyler (this issue) question whether moral convictions about outcomes really override the influence of procedural fairness (PF) on fairness judgments and decision acceptance. The empirical answer to this question is “yes.” When people have strong moral convictions about outcomes, perceptions of outcome fairness and decision acceptance are primarily shaped by whether the morally “correct” outcomes are achieved. Pre-decision perceptions of PF have surprisingly little or no effect on these judgments. That said, pre-outcome perceptions of PF sometimes predict post-outcome perceptions of PF, even when people have morally vested outcome preferences. We provide further details supporting the validity and superiority of our data analytic approach and argue that our original conclusions were justified.

Procedural Justice and Identification with Virtual Teams: The Moderating Role of Face-to-Face Meetings and Geographical Dispersion

We investigated the previously unstudied relationship between procedural justice and identification within virtual teams, with a particular focus on how two features of virtual teams, namely frequency of face-to-face meetings and geographical dispersion, moderate that relationship. We argue that these two variables are sources of uncertainty, which in turn makes virtual team members more sensitive to perceptions of procedural fairness as essential cues in the identification process. In this study, we used cross-sectional survey methodology and data aggregated to the team level (N = 39). As predicted, our results showed that the link between procedural justice and identification was stronger when there were few face-to-face meetings and when teams were highly dispersed.