犯罪控制视野下的刑事诉讼论纲

就国家启动刑事诉讼而言,打击犯罪是其最原始、最基本的功能,而人权保障是保证刑事诉讼不偏离既定方向的有力手段,打击犯罪与人权保障必须统一在犯罪控制的"力度"范围之内。换句话说,犯罪控制既是刑事诉讼中打击犯罪的"度",也是刑事诉讼中人权保障的"度"。本文从犯罪控制的角度出发,选择刑事诉讼总论中的目的、效率和模式等重要问题展开全新的诠释,既反对在刑事诉讼过程中过分注重打击犯罪,也反对在刑事诉讼过程中片面追求人权保障。     

刑事诉讼监督运行机制的重构

修改后刑诉法凸显了人权保障和程序公正的价值理念,进一步拓展了刑事诉讼监督职能,完善了监督程序。《人民检察院刑事诉讼规则(试行)》(以下简称《规则》)规定了"刑事诉讼监督"专章,对监督的范围、手段、方式等程序要素作了具体化的规定。基于此,刑事诉讼监督应坚持惩治犯罪和保障人权相统一的价值目标,以程序公正为指引,遵从诉讼监督规律,重构刑事诉讼监督的     

论刑事诉讼中人权保障的缺陷及完善

中国刑事诉讼人权保障在实践中存在诸多问题,刑讯逼供、超期羁押、非法取证、冤假错案等都表征了中国刑事诉讼人权保障机制之缺陷。从刑事诉讼人权保障机制之内外关系、实践中提出了机制问题性、程序正义信仰之制度基础三个方面看,在追究犯罪与保障人权相互作用的统一体中,人权保障的实现需要以一种整体的、系统的方式调控不同要素之间的相互作用关系,从而构建起有力的人权保障机制。     

价值抉择:反恐措施与刑事诉讼——以美国法为范例的检讨与反思

反恐措施对刑事诉讼领域的入侵,对程序正义和人权保障提出了前所未有之挑战。监听、搜查、羁押、司法审查、法庭审判、证据规则等刑事诉讼基本制度受到猛烈冲击并对人权保障产生直接影响。美国的反恐怖立法及其司法实践的变革,成为全球的焦点,也成为该领域的典型范例。这种变革的背后是深层价值选择,是正义和功利之间的博弈引领美国反恐怖立法和司法的走向,而尊严价值的勃兴为程序正义的重新抬头奠定了理念基础。我国刑事诉讼理念更新和立法完善应当引以为鉴,对恐怖犯罪作出合理的反应。在平衡理念之下,程序正义的内在价值决不能向打击犯罪的功利需求轻易低头。     

论我国刑事证据移送制度及完善

刑事审判因为其结果对社会生活和个人生活的强烈影响力,使得审判过程本身应当遵循最大程度上的科学性和人性关怀精神。我国在推行法治的过程中,逐渐将司法审判从过去的片面强调对犯罪的追究转向了在审判过程中实现控制犯罪与保护人权相平衡。但是在现行的刑事诉讼程序制度中,仍存在一些弊端,也不利于人权的保护,难以体现司法正义。譬如刑事证据的相关制度,证据的出示与认定是刑事诉讼程序中的关键环节,它决定了一个行为在法律上是否认定为犯罪,行为主体是否应当被追究责任,以及应承担责任的程度。一场刑事审判可以认为是一个认定证据、依靠证据还原行为事实并得出相应价值评断的过程。而我国现行的制度并不能很好的保证这个过程符合法律正义的标准。本文将针对我国的刑事证据移送制度进行分析,指出其弊端,并提出相应的改革方案。     

侦查阶段的人权保障探析

刑事诉讼是国家对犯罪追究刑事责任的制度,侦查阶段作为刑事追诉程序的基础阶段,是刑事诉讼中重要的组成部分。由于我国的刑事诉讼理念趋近于"犯罪控制观",使得国家权力和个人权利之间对比失衡,个人权利保障显得相对薄弱。事实上,侦查阶段的人权保障是有深刻的理论基础和现实必要的。应当从刑事诉讼价值取向、诉讼经济和程序正当的高度完善我国的侦查阶段,加强侦查阶段的人权保障。     

对程序正义在刑诉关系中的探寻

正义是司法的永恒追求,而保护人权也是司法必不可少的内涵之一。程序正义视为看得见的正义,这源于一句人所共知的法律格言:正义不仅应得到实现,而且要以人们看得见的方式加以实现。程序正义对于刑事诉讼法而言,是触及整个刑事诉讼法律体系的每一根神经的。而刑事诉讼法律关系是刑事诉讼法体系与实践的基石。笔者在结合实务的基础上,剖析刑事诉讼法律关系参与者间的相互关系,探寻程序正义的可能与实现,以期有所裨益。     

侦查阶段的人权保障探析

刑事诉讼是国家对犯罪追究刑事责任的制度，侦查阶段作为刑事追诉程序的基础阶段，是刑事诉讼中重要的组成部分。由于我国的刑事诉讼理念趋近于“犯罪控制观”，使得国家权力和个人权利之间对比失衡，个人权利保障显得相对薄弱。事实上，侦查阶段的人权保障是有深刻的理论基础和现实必要的。应当从刑事诉讼价值取向、诉讼经济和程序正当的高度完善我国的侦查阶段，加强侦查阶段的人权保障。     

从现代司法理念看证据在刑事诉讼中的作用——兼论我国刑事证据制度的完善

在刑事诉讼领域，应当树立以人权保障、程序正义、无罪推定为核心内容的现代司法理念；要高度重视依法收集、审查和运用证据，证据是整个刑事诉讼活动的基础与核心；在和谐社会语境下，应进一步完善刑事证据制度，以实现刑事诉讼活动在惩罚犯罪与保障人权之间的平衡，促进社会和谐。     

稳步建立我国沉默权制度的设想

沉默权的确立,有效地保护了在刑事诉讼中处于弱势地位的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的人权,平衡了诉讼双方的权利和义务,是刑事诉讼走向民主化的体现,也是人类通向文明的表现.但其弊端也不容忽视:一方面.程序正义的实现有时可能以实体正义的丧失为代价,片面地强调沉默权,极易放纵犯罪.这与刑事诉讼法的兼顾保障人权与打击犯罪的目的背道而驰.为此,也需要对沉默权做出必要的限制.在总结经验的基础上提出确立符合我国国情的沉默权制度设想,希望能够对我国未来的刑事诉讼立法和司法实践有所帮助.     

Secondary Victimization of Crime Victims by Criminal Proceedings

It is conceivable that criminal proceedings cause psychological harm to the crime victims involved, that is, cause secondary victimization. To investigate this hypothesis, negative and positive effects of criminal proceedings were investigated, as perceived by 137 victims of violent crimes who were involved in trials several years previously. Trial outcome and procedure variables were measured as potential causes of secondary victimization. Results show a high proportion of victims reporting overall negative effects. Powerful predictors were outcome satisfaction and procedural justice, but not subjective punishment severity, interactional justice, and psychological stress by criminal proceedings. The practical implications of the results pertain to whether victims should be advised to report the crime to the police or not, and to appropriate prevention and intervention measures of secondary victimization by criminal proceedings.     

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。     

中国大陆地区非法证据排除的适用范围

刑事诉讼涉及控制犯罪与保障人权、实体公正与程序公正、真实发现与程序正当等不同利益的冲突与平衡。在非法证据排除方面，价值选择的不同，体现在不同的排除标准和重点指向上。基于不同的利益衡量，对非法证据的排除，大体有以下标准：一是根据是否影响证据真实性为标准，影响证据真实性的，予以排除，反之则可以采纳；二是以违法程度和侵犯公民权益性质为标准，严重违法取得的证据予以排除，以轻微违法、     

Procedural Justice and Dutch Victim Policy

This paper opens with a brief discussion of the traditional role of the victim in the criminal justice system and the changes which have been made in the Netherlands in order to improve the position of victims of crime. In addition, the author discusses the arguments put forward by policymakers and examines the implementation of victim policy. Next, procedural justice is introduced as a theory from which one could consider the possible impact of victims' experiences in the criminal justice system on their relationship with the justice system. The author goes on to present research which examines the impact of procedural justice on victims' attitudes towards legal authorities. The paper closes with a discussion of the importance of procedural justice issues for criminal justice policymakers and legal practitioners.     

略论《刑事诉讼法》的再修改

再次修改《刑事诉讼法》既是总结司法实践经验、实现我国刑事诉讼制度协调发展的需要,也是加强人权的程序保障、促进我国刑事诉讼制度民主化、国际化和法治化的需要;在修改过程中,应当正确处理好《宪法》与《刑事诉讼法》、惩罚犯罪与保护人权、司法公正与司法效率、借鉴国外先进经验与结合我国国情之间的关系;修改的基本内容应当包括加强对追诉权力的控制、辩护权利的保护、保障公正审判的权利以及健全程序侵权的救济机制四个方面。     

恢复性司法对我国刑事诉讼制度的影响

恢复性司法是一种不同于传统司法模式的新型司法模式,它寻求尽可能利用罪犯、受害者和社区的积极和自愿参与的方式,恢复受犯罪影响的所有当事方的一切权益。我国引入恢复性司法既具有刑事司法实践、刑事观念、刑事制度和社会发展的基础,也与我国当前的刑事诉讼制度存在一定冲突。恢复性司法实践与理念对我国刑事诉讼可能产生的影响,突出表现在刑事观念、诉讼制度和检察机关法律监督方式等诸多方面。     

The interaction of criminal procedure and outcome

Procedural quality is an important aspect of crime victims' experiences in criminal proceedings and consists of different dimensions. Two of these dimensions are procedural justice (voice) and interpersonal justice (respectful treatment). Social psychological research has suggested that both voice and respectful treatment are moderated by the impact of outcomes of justice procedures on individuals' reactions. To add to this research, we extend this assertion to the criminal justice context, examining the interaction between the assessment of procedural quality and outcome favorability with victim's trust in the legal system and self-esteem. Hierarchical regression analyses reveal that voice, respectful treatment and outcome favorability are predictive of trust in the legal system and self-esteem. Further investigation reveals that being treated with respect is only related to trust in the legal system when outcome favorability is high.     

Willingness to Cooperate with the Police in Four Central European Countries

Social order and security depend on mutual cooperation between the police and the public. Since the majority of crime is not detected by the police itself, informal control is needed to ensure order in society. This article aims to describe the circumstances under which people´s willingness to cooperate with the police is enhanced. Recent studies show that public compliance and cooperation with authorities who carry out criminal proceedings are linked with the extent to which people perceive these authorities as trustworthy and legitimate. Importantly, trust in police procedural fairness leads to the perception that institutions of justice are legitimate, which in turn enhances people´s willingness to cooperate with them in order to fight crime and disorder. This normative perspective is supported in many European countries. However, evidence exists that instrumental judgements, which focus on one´s self-interest and on outcomes of the justice system, could also be important in some countries. Drawing on procedural justice theory, we examine the importance of normative and instrumental factors in eliciting people´s readiness to help the police fight crime in four Central European countries: the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, and Poland. While the procedural justice pattern, i.e. the normative perspective, holds well in the Czech Republic and Hungary, in other analysed countries trust in police effectiveness or fear of crime, i.e. instrumental judgements, are relevant too.     

The Right to Representation by Criminal Defense Counsel in Ethiopia: A Critical Analysis

This paper explores and critically reflects on the legal foundations and the practice of criminal defense in Ethiopia within the overall due process framework of a fair criminal trial. A brief review of Ethiopian constitutional history shows that the right to representation by legal counsel has been one of the fundamental due process rights granted to accused persons in criminal proceedings. The constitutional right to counsel is, however, not specified by detailed legal provisions. A logical consequence of this is that the enjoyment of this right is fraught with legal and practical problems. While the legal problems, among other things, include obscurity regarding the scope and content of the right, the practical problems include absence of public defense offices at district levels where the vast majority of criminal proceedings take place. Consequently, accused persons appear during trials without the aid of legal counsel; they are in fact deprived of their due process rights and marginalized. This has a number of legal ramifications both to the accused and the criminal justice system. In sum, the constitutional provision of the right to criminal defense counsel is undelivered and remains a hollow promise. It is therefore difficult to uphold the constitutional norms which underlie criminal trial process such as procedural justice, as well as the legitimacy of the government. The justice sectors are responsible to ensuring due process and equal protection. Substantial justice reforms are needed at all levels.