论宽严相济刑事政策的定位

宽严相济的刑事政策是惩办与宽大相结合刑事政策的继承和发展。刑事政策根据其指导功能的不同,可分为刑事立法政策、刑事司法政策、刑事执行政策。宽严相济对司法领域而言,可以说是刑事司法政策;但它也指导刑事立法、刑事执行,因而也是刑事立法政策、刑事执行政策。刑事政策根据其所处层次的不同,可分为基本刑事政策和具体刑事政策。宽严相济是基本刑事政策,"严打"、"少杀、慎杀"等是具体刑事政策,后者都是前者的组成部分。说宽严相济是刑事司法政策,并不否定宽严相济是基本刑事政策。     

Of Normal Human Sympathies and Clear Consciences: Comments on Hyman Gross’s <Emphasis Type="Italic">Crime and Punishment: A Concise Moral Critique</Emphasis>

Contemporary criminal justice systems are extraordinarily unfair. Focusing on Hyman Gross’s Crimes and Punishment: A Concise Moral Critique, however, I identify ways in which scholarly criticisms of these criminal justice systems tend to miss their target. In particular, I argue against the assumption that in order to criticize these criminal justice systems we need to cast doubt on the very practice of blaming people and on the notion of desert, or that we need to reject wholesale retributive rationales for punishment. Quite the contrary: an important reason why contemporary criminal justice systems are unfair is that they punish many people undeservedly.     

Wither Criminal Justice? An Argument for a Reformed Discipline

The American criminal justice system fails to achieve justice, reduce crime, and provide equal protection to Americans regardless of their social class, race, and gender. But, criminal justice as an academic area of study has become a popular and fast growing liberal arts major in the United States, churning out tens of thousands to work in the criminal justice system. Given the demonstrable harms caused by criminal justice, which are suffered disproportionately by the least powerful people, academic criminologists and criminal justicians have the obligation to promote a reformed discipline. This article briefly summarizes the evidence of bias in the criminal justice system and then turns to how these biases relate to criminal justice as an academic discipline. Using the war on drugs as an example, I argue that the practice of criminal justice as an academic endeavor runs counter to the goal of promoting social justice in America. One of the ironic conclusions of this article is that criminal justice as an academic discipline must get smaller if we are to achieve larger goals of social justice outlined here. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

醉驾:“一律入刑”还是“区别对待”

如何合理划定"醉驾"犯罪圈的大小,"一律入刑"与"区别对待"两种见解存在实质性分歧。罪刑法定原则作为刑事司法不可逾越的屏障,司法机关应该通过"一律入刑"呼应其明确性要求,同时限制司法机关的权力扩张;主观主义与客观主义作为两种不同的解释方式,在实践选择的位阶上应该以文本映射的主观主义优先适用;刑法总分体系需要刑事立法与司法进行一体化贯彻,在刑事立法已然兼顾总则要求的前提下不能通过"区别对待"再次限缩分则罪名的适用范围;"一律入刑"的主张不违背宽严相济刑事政策的内在精神,刑事政策的刑法化要求刑事司法必须坚守这一法治立场。     

Justice Matters: lifting the lid on Pandora's box

The starting point of Justice Matters is simple: criminal justice is far too big; far too costly; far too intrusive. Far from being a means of delivering social justice, it is the cause of much social injustice. The large footprint in society occupied by the combined criminal justice institutions is profoundly socially harmful.

The criminal justice process inflicts unnecessary suffering on many thousands of suspects, defendants and convictees every year. This suffering is experienced very differently depending on your position in society: for instance whether you are young or old, black or white, male or female, rich or poor.

The collateral damage of the criminal justice process is also profound. A criminal record isa life sentence for many: an ongoing obstacle to participation in work and the wider community. Families and communities whose loved ones are arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned and supervised experience deep and lasting loss. Collateral damage is also found in the stress experienced by many victims, whose traumas and distress are often left unresolved, and in the dissatisfaction of witnesses, whose experience of the criminal justice process can be so negative.

Criminal justice also crowds out other, more innovative, just and effective policy and practice solutions to the problems our society faces. It is good at punishing certain individuals and groups. It fails to prevent social problems from arising, or to resolve those that occur.

To get involved in Justice Matters visit: www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/why-justice-matters     

国际视野下的宽严相济刑事政策

近期国际刑事政策的发展趋势是实行轻轻重重的两极化刑事政策.我国宽严相济的刑事政策是在"严"占主角、"宽"为配角的重刑结构下,作为对"严打"方针的反思而提出的,当前是一项刑事司法政策.其内涵虽与两极化刑事政策有差异,但对犯罪采取区别对待的灵活精神与两极化刑事政策相符合.在"严"的重刑结构下,要发挥"宽"这个配角的作用,只能以司法努力,尽可能多地拓展"宽"的空间和份额.应以"量刑"(裁判)这个司法中心环节为基点,向"量刑"(裁判)的前、后两个阶段和领域进行扩展.     

Where Do They Belong? Giving Victims a Place in the Criminal Justice Process

Historically, victims once had an active participatory role in the criminal justice process and were responsible for not only initiating but also for prosecuting offenders. In common law countries, victims were gradually sidelined and by the 20th century, their role was reduced to that of a witness to a crime against the state. The exclusion of victims from the criminal justice process is a major source of dissatisfaction for victims as many of them want to participate in the criminal justice process. This has fuelled initiatives with restorative justice that claim to more fully include victims than conventional criminal justice. This paper examines three different approaches found in the literature on how to let victims participate. One view is that victims should leave the criminal justice system and that criminal justice should be replaced by alternative, restorative justice schemes in which victims are granted full recognition and respect for their dignity. A second approach is to integrate restorative practices such as victim-offender mediation in the criminal justice process. The third approach is to integrate victim participation and respect (so-called restorative values) in the criminal justice system. These three approaches are discussed and compared with one another. The paper closes with recommendations for criminal law reform.     

Impact of Information About Sentencing Decisions on Public Attitudes Toward the Criminal Justice System

Research reveals public dissatisfaction with perceived leniency of the criminal justice system. However, when asked to sentence hypothetical offenders, members of the public tend to choose dispositions similar to what current court practices prescribe. In two studies reported here, subjects completed a mock sentencing exercise and a general attitude survey. In an initial pilot study, they expressed general dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system but the relative punitiveness of their sentences (in terms of their perceptions of how severe various sentencing options are) was only slightly elevated above a set of reference sentences. Providing a typical judge's sentencing decisions did not decrease dissatisfaction but was associated with an anchoring effect. This effect was explored in the main study by manipulating the provided reference sentences to be either lenient, moderate, or punitive. Again, participants expressed general dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system but prescribed generally moderate sentences, anchoring their sentences to the information provided. However, only those exposed to moderate typical sentences subsequently reported reduced dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system.     

对“客观真实观”的几点批判

"客观真实说"尽管确实有一定的合理性,但它仅仅将刑事审判看做一种认识活动,抹杀了诉讼中的认识活动与哲学家、历史学家、自然科学家视野下的认识活动之间的界限,并且将这种以"重构已然事件"为目标的认识活动绝对化,不仅不符合认识的发展规律,也排除了人的主观性以及其他诉讼价值存在的可能性.因而,"客观真实说"的缺陷是极其明显的.相比而言,"法律真实说"能够较为恰当地表述刑事审判所认定事实的准确性程度,符合刑事审判的性质,能合理地解决实体公正价值与程序公正价值之间的冲突.尤其是,"法律真实说"具有可操作性,符合认识发展的规律.     

Developing a Multicenter Randomized Trial in Criminology: The Case of HIDTA

In criminal justice, as in other fields, an experimental study conducted ata single site does not offer a solid basis upon which to make strong publicpolicy recommendations. To date, criminal justice researchers have reliedupon two general approaches to overcome the limitations of single-siteexperimental research. The first, termed ``meta-analysis, seeks tocombine independent studies to identify consistent effects across criminaljustice settings or contexts. The second, sometimes termed replicationstudies, seeks to replicate investigations in multiple criminaljustice jurisdictions. In this paper we describe a related approachdeveloped in clinical studies in medicine and examine its applicabilityin criminal justice settings. Termed a multicenter clinicaltrial, this method demands the implementation ofa single experimental protocol at multiple sites. We contrast themulticenter approach with other methods and provide a substantiveexample of an ongoing multicenter criminal justice study. We begin byexamining the specific limitations of current approaches and solutionsoffered by multicenter studies to overcome these. We then turn to anapplication of the multicenter clinical trial in a criminal justicesetting. Using the example of the HIDTA (High-Intensity Drug TraffickingAreas) evaluation of drug treatment programs currently being conducted atmultiple sites, we illustrate components of the multicenter approach aswell as potential drawbacks researchers are likely to face in itsapplication in crime and justice studies.     

The Cultural Defense

Because of immigration in the West, increased cultural diversity poses a variety of problems for the criminal justice system. This paper examines whether a so-called "cultural defense" ought to be allowed as a freestanding defense to a criminal charge. Such a defense would "negate or mitigate criminal responsibility where acts are committed under a reasonable good-faith belief in their propriety, based on the actor's cultural heritage or tradition." The cultural defense, as a formal defense, and the use of cultural evidence in order to buttress one of the traditional defenses, are distinguished. Three cases are discussed to illustrate the issues. The possible similarity of the cultural defense to an ignorance or mistake of law defense is then considered. The latter is accepted by such theorists as Gunther Arzt and George P. Fletcher and also apparently in German law, but it is rejected by Jerome Hall on the ground that it undermines the objectivity of the criminal law. The similarity, however, is shown not to hold. It is concluded that a freestanding cultural defense should not be allowed.     

Corrective Justice as A Principle of Criminal Law: A Prolegomenon

This article argues that corrective justice is an adequate principle of criminalization. On my interpretation, corrective justice holds that, in order for an action to count as a crime, there needs to be a plausible normative story about an offender having violated the interests of a victim in a way that disturbs their relationship as equal persons and a subsequent story about responding to crime in a way that corrects this disturbance. More specifically, I claim that corrective justice is concerned with the protection of interests that persons have in owning private goods throughout standard interactions with other persons. The argument proceeds in three steps. First, I specify the subject-matter that principles of criminal law need to ground and provide an outline of the idea of corrective justice. Second, I show that corrective justice can account for the main cases of crime and the salient modes of criminal responsibility. I also argue that corrective justice can make sense of two prima facie recalcitrant types of cases (rape and inchoate offenses). Third, and finally, I address two objections to my corrective justice theory of criminal law. The first concerns the implications corrective justice has for locating criminal law along the private/public law divide. The second objection raises the putatively problematic consequences corrective justice has for understanding the separation between criminal and civil law.     

How Is Criminal Justice Related to the Rest of Justice?

Are principles of criminal justice derived from a broader conception of justice, or does criminal justice involve some of its own distinctive principles such that it is not—for example—an aspect of distributive justice? Examining considerations regarding luck and desert provides an illuminating approach to this issue. The notion of desert has largely been excised from a great deal of recent political theorizing, and in particular, it has been eliminated from many influential conceptions of distributive justice. It is widely held that the pervasiveness of luck renders desert inappropriate to contexts of distributive justice, and incompatible with the freedom and equality of persons in a just political community. Should considerations of desert also have a minimal role in criminal justice—where they seem to still be important? Are considerations of desert in the context of criminal justice consistent with persons being free and equal participants in a just political community? How are principles of criminal justice related to principles of distributive justice and political justice in an overall just society? Many scholars agree that criminal justice presupposes an adequately just society. Still, that leaves open just how criminal justice relates to justice overall. That is the present topic.     

The Influence of New Mental Health Legislation on the Criminal Justice System

The current trend towards the deinstitutionalization of mental patients has led some to predict a movement into the criminal justice system. This paper describes an attempt to examine this hypothesis by comparing commitment and arrest rates in Philadelphia before and after the enabling legislation.

The hypothesis of movement into the criminal justice system was not supported by the comparison of rates, nor by an examination of the careers of ninety-four selected ex-patients.

The implications of the findings are discussed, with reference to similar studies in different states; and the conclusion is reached that the results must be interpreted in the light of the changing role of the criminal justice system as well as that of the mental hospital.     

A quasi-experimental test of the effects of criminal justice involvement on later mental health

Objectives

While many criminological theories posit causal hypotheses, many studies fail to use methods that adequately address the three criteria of causality. This is particularly important when assessing the impact of criminal justice involvement on later outcomes. Due to practical and ethical concerns, it is challenging to randomize criminal sanctions, so quasi-experimental methods such as propensity score matching are often used to approximate a randomized design. Based on longitudinal data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, the current study used propensity score matching to investigate the extent to which convictions and/or incarcerations in the first two decades of life were related to adverse mental health during middle adulthood.

Methods

Propensity scores were utilized to match those with and without criminal justice involvement on a wide range of risk factors for offending.

Results

The results indicated that there were no significant differences in mental health between those involved in the criminal justice system and those without such involvement.

Conclusions

The results did not detect a relationship between justice system involvement and later mental health suggesting that the consequences of criminal justice involvement may only be limited to certain domains.

     

Criminal justice policy and the psychology of peacemaking

Psychology which once was a primary influence on the development of criminal justice policy has, in recent decades, lost much of its ability to inform how laws and policies are made that concern punishment and social control. The reason for psychology's loss of inluence can be traced to the war on crime political rhetoric adopted by politicians and criminal justice administrators. This paper argues that an emerging peacemaking perspective in the criminal justice system allows the discipline of psychology to once again inform the discourse on criminal justice policy. Issues such as drug abuse, gun control, and capital punishment are appropriate subjects for a psychological perspective in the national debate on criminal justice policy.     

宽严相济刑事政策基本问题再认识

宽严相济刑事政策对惩办与宽大相结合政策的调整与发展,应是一项基本刑事政策。宽严相济刑事政策的内涵应解释为以宽济严,区别对待,宽严审时。其他刑事政策像＂严打＂政策,死刑政策,教育、感化、挽救政策是宽严相济刑事政策的题中应有之义。它不仅是刑事司法政策,而且还是刑事立法政策与刑事执行政策,贯彻实现于刑事立法、刑事司法与刑事执行全过程。     

Literature in criminal justice education

Although generally accepted as an interdisciplinary field, criminal justice has focused on the social sciences. Criminal justice education, if it is to remain vital and growing, has to experiment with courses involving material beyond the social sciences. Using examples found in many law schools, criminal justice instructors can employ the art or humanity of literature in their classes. Fiction, especially short stories and one-act dramas, can be inserted into core courses or used as the basis for a special course on criminal justice and literature. The new approach offered by literature encourages students to reexamine various aspects of the criminal justice system.     

论社会管理创新中的刑事法治问题

社会管理创新是当今法学界讨论颇多的一个话题。对于社会管理创新与刑法的关系,要建立在法治的认识前提下,社会管理创新与刑法的基本原则并不冲突,刑法的天然属性使得其与社会管理存在紧密的互动关系,同时,刑法的保障法地位,又决定了社会管理创新需要刑法做坚强的后盾,保障秩序稳定。为了适应社会管理创新的要求,基于两者的契合,刑事法治发展需要从五个方面作出努力:关注社会情势,贯彻宽严相济刑事政策;保障公民权利,重视民生犯罪;"刚柔并济",坚持以人为本;革新纠纷解决机制,灵活、多样化解矛盾;落实行刑社会化,契合多元治理理念。     

论"罪疑唯轻"原则下刑事被告之举证负担

罪疑唯轻是刑事法中的重要裁判原则,裁判者在犯罪事实存在疑问时必须作出有利于被告的裁判.如果公诉方不履行法定的证明责任,或者刑事被告提起"有事实根据的合理怀疑"使案件事实真伪不明时,裁判者应当遵守罪疑唯轻原则作出有利于刑事被告的判决."选择确定"本质上是罪疑唯轻原则例外,但刑事被告在选择确定中仍无需承担主观的举证责任,只承担客观的证明责任.在程序性事项上,除重大的影响刑事被告权利的事项外,罪疑唯轻无适用余地.