相对积极主义刑事司法观的提倡

新的十六字方针是法律体系建成之后的必然选项,其实质是追求法律的正当性与司法的公正性,提倡一种相对积极主义的司法理念,强调社会安全与司法人权保障的平衡。司法积极主义是对简单遵循文义的专属主义反思化的结果,并非意味着基于秩序安宁而造法。司法克制主义和积极主义,都有相同的出发点。二者的根本分歧在于如何理解解释法律、寻找法律和创造法律的关系。绝对的积极主义因存在明显的违背教义学和罪刑关系的痕迹而应当引以为戒,相对积极主义因包含着法律的道德价值从而更能促进公正性的实现。当前我国的司法犯罪化理论如果被不加甄别地践行,或者不进行细致化的推演,可能具有绝对积极主义色彩而走向公正的反面。因为刑法包含着规范属性和道德属性,这意味着人道精神与法定理念互为补充,意味着公正和人道成为刑事司法的目标。相对积极主义的特征是注重方法论的合刑性以及合宪性要求。     

错误的刑事羁押与国家的赔偿责任

刑事诉讼中的错误羁押与刑事错案常常相伴而生,但二者并非同一概念。错误羁押以刑事程序法为认定依据,即使没有错案发生,羁押行为违反《刑事诉讼法》的规定亦照样构成错误羁押。与错案相联系的错误羁押或合法羁押都应当导致刑事司法机关的国家赔偿责任,而未构成错案但构成错误羁押并因此导致当事人合法权益损害的,国家也应当有条件地承担赔偿责任。国家对无错案条件下错误羁押承担赔偿责任,有利于增强刑事司法机关的程序公正意识和人权保障意识,防止和减少羁押的滥用。     

What is the Criminal Law for?

The traditional distinction between retributive and distributive justice misconstrues the place of the criminal law in modern regulatory states. In the context of the regulatory state, the criminal law is a coercive rule-enforcing institution – regardless of whether it also serves the ends of retributive justice. As a rule-enforcing institution, the criminal law is deeply implicated in stabilizing the institutions and legal rules by means of which a state creates and allocates social advantage. As a coercive institution, the criminal law requires justification as an instance of legitimate state authority. The operation of criminal justice institutions should therefore not be evaluated by reference to a distinct set of criteria, but should be evaluated by the same criteria that apply to coercive public institutions generally.     

The myth of the new female offender: Some evidence from attitudes toward law and justice

This study compared the attitudes of male and female prisoners toward law and justice. Three distinct factors were examined: attitudes toward criminal justice personnel, attitudes concerning the sanctity of law, and attitudes regarding rationalizations for law violation and conditions justifying it. Female prisoners were found to exhibit more negative attitudes toward criminal justice system personnel but more positive attitudes toward the sanctity of the law, and they did not endorse rationalizations for law violation. The finding of females' positive attitudes toward the law is consistent with gender role socialization. The study findings indicate strong internalization of gender roles by the female prisoners. The women's negative attitudes toward criminal justice personnel may have resulted from differential expectations or from the fact that women experience incarceration differently than men. Further research is necessary to clarify this finding. The present study suggests that if there is a “new breed” of female offenders who are hostile to law and justice, they do not represent the majority of women who are incarcerated in American correctional institutions.     

DECISION-MAKING IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS:

This article attempts an analysis of the relationship between the guilty-plea bargaining process and presentence investigation reports. It is argued that because plea-bargaining has increasingly come to involve bargaining over sentence. probation officers, as a consequence, have increasingly come to experience encroachment upon their decision-making autonomy. In this predicament they have found little support from judges, who, committed to norms of managerial efficiency will reassert the primacy of the plea-bargain when probation officers refuse to ratify previously negotiated sentence agreements. The policy implications of this for the criminal justice system are discussed.     

美国对犯罪与违法的法理界定

本文阐述的是美国关于犯罪本质的哲学解释。刑罚既包括过错犯罪。也包括严格责任违法,这两者代表了两种不同的刑事责任类型。美国学界主张过错犯罪的要点在于其是侵害公众利益的不法行为,并非由于其危害公众利益,而是因为公众负责处罚此类行为,即它们应该得到国家的处罚。不法行为得到惩罚是因其性质严重,它们不敬重社会公认的价值;只有当行为人违反重要价值时才应得到处罚,不仅是出于对刑法实用主义的考虑,亦取决于罪刑法定原则的内涵。美国学者分析过错犯罪和不太严重的违法行为,认为后者同样存在着损害公众利益的危险。     

社区司法与刑事司法的双系耦合简

社区司法作为社区主导下的新型司法范式，因为其融法律与道德、实体与程序、惩罚与矫正、恢复与救助、协商与调解等复合功能，在完善基层民主治理方式和凝结社区核心价值方面具有独特的优势。由于社区司法与国家刑事司法在处理犯罪问题上具有不同的操作向度，彼此间互有分工又互有联系，因此构成双系耦合。作为调处社会矛盾的自治型司法机制，中国社区司法的模式和运行系统亟待适应当地文化进行创新和发展。社区司法中“社区”在司法活动中应处于基础性地位，且主导基于社区的各种司法形式的运作。     

Of Athenians and Spartans: Profiles of freedom and enlightenment in the leadership styles of criminal justice academic administrators: An essay

This essay examines the dubious relationship between the quality of criminal justice education and the kind of treatment faculty members and students receive from their academic administrators. It is based on three premises: criminal justice colleges and departments should be held to higher rational and moral standards not because they are qualitatively different from other liberal arts departments, but because they teach justice; if the virtues of criminal justice are worth teaching, then criminal justice faculty members and students should be treated in a manner consistent with these virtues; and treating criminal justice faculty members and students unfairly, disrespectfully, or irresponsibly makes them unable or disinterested in endorsing the noble nature of criminal justice. This article categorizes academic administrators as either Athenians or Spartans. The former are best suited intellectually and temperamentally to administer because they possess a talent for reasoning and act in good faith. The latter are unsuited because, regardless of how well they mask it, they practice domination, deception, favoritism, and indignity.This essay is a theoretical discourse based on the contiguity of modalities, experiences, and impressions generally shared by criminal justice educators and graduate students. Its logic is Humeian and its method is broadly ethnographic.     

立功制度若干问题研究

我国立功制度的价值观念是功利主义,虽然有其积极意义,但因其排斥刑法正义观而导致在司法实践中存在许多弊端。本文认为,在设置该制度时应以正义观为主兼顾功利主义;立功制度的本质决定了立功行为的本质是对国家和社会有益的行为。     

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。     

Corporations and the Presumption of Innocence

Corporate behaviour is often regulated through the criminal law by means of reverse onus offences. Such offences are alleged to involve violations of the Presumption of Innocence. Such allegations almost always assume natural persons as defendants. The arguments supporting reverse onus offences are typically instrumental, to do with the importance of the social goals promoted and the ease of proof. The Presumption of Innocence is taken to be an autonomy right of natural persons and so not subject to being sidelined for reasons of law enforcement expediency. Corporations, however, are not natural persons: they have no autonomy right not to be treated as means. It may well be, then, that reverse onus offences are justified in the case of corporate defendants. I argue that the Presumption is not violated by such offences in the case of corporate defendants. I develop a broad concept of the criminal justice system as an allocative system, and argue that reverse onus offences properly allocate the burden of proof for corporations. Specifically, I argue that the normative demand for legal innocence is sufficiently met by the availability of a due diligence defence; that the responsibility of corporations when prohibited harms occur is properly a form of outcome-responsibility; and that taking into account issues of reciprocity, legitimacy and power reverse onus offences justly allocate the burden of proof in the case of corporate defendants.     

Damaska and the Faces of International Criminal Justice

Mirjan Damaka 's scholarly publications provide important insightsfor the analysis of systems of criminal justice at the internationallevel. This is particularly true for his major book: The Facesof Justice and State Authority – A Comparative Approachto the Legal Process. The book develops ideal types, or models,of the structure and the function of government. As far as thestructure of government, the ideal types of hierarchical andcoordinate officialdom are contrasted with one another. Withregard to the function of government in society, two other mutuallyexclusive ideal types are developed: the ideal type of the purelyreactive state and that of the purely activist state. In thepurely reactive state all state activities are essentially aform of dispute resolution between individual citizens. Consequently,all proceedings take the shape of a contest between two parties.In the reactive state, on the other hand, all law is an expressionof state policies. This entails that all proceedings are essentiallyan official inquiry enabling the state to implement its policies.The four ideal types call for several observations, one of thembeing that, at the international level, there is no authoritythat can be compared to a state. Setting up international criminal courts requires choices withregard to the structure and function of authority. Internationalhuman rights instruments provide no guidance as to the natureof the choices to be made. In particular, they do not indicatewhether the legal process should be structured as a contestbetween two parties or as an official inquiry. The same is truefor empirical evidence. An analysis of the structures of authority in internationalcriminal courts reveal that they represent hybrids of the hierarchicaland the coordinate ideal types of officialdom. The fact thatthese courts are unitary courts has a profound effect on evidentiaryarrangements. The most important issue raised by the exposition of ideal typesof The Faces of Justice concerns the relationship between thegoals of international criminal justice and the appropriatelegal process to serve their realization. Goals of a conflict-solvingnature are best served by a legal process structured as a contestbetween two parties and goals related to the implementationof policies by a legal process structured as an official inquiry.It is therefore essential to determine what goals are beingpursed by international criminal courts. One may distinguishhere between goals that international systems of justice mayor may not have in common with national systems of criminaljustice. The pursuit of the traditional goals of criminal justicecommon to international and national systems of justice doesnot provide compelling reasons to prefer either a contest modelor an inquest model of the legal process. This is different,however, for the idiosyncratic goals of international criminaljustice that set apart international systems of criminal justicefrom national systems. The pursuit of these goals makes it desirablethat historical facts are established as accurately as is possiblein the given circumstances. They are, therefore, best servedby a legal process that takes the shape of an official inquiry.In the hybrid type of procedure adopted by the ICTY there isinsufficient clarity about the procedural status of the peculiargoals of international criminal justice as well as about theuse of procedural means to pursue them. This entails that itis not really possible to determine whether this hybrid representsa success. Hybrid types of procedure cannot truly exist withoutadopting a view with regard to the impartiality of judges thatis inspired by standards enshrined in international human rightsinstrument rather than those that are characteristic for thelegal process shaped as a contest between two parties.     

Contingent-Fee Lawyers and Their Clients: Settlement Expectations, Settlement Realities, and Issues of Control in the Lawyer-Client Relationship

One hallmark of Herb Jacob's analyses of criminal courts—extensive consideration of the interaction among actors–was less pronounced in his work on civil justice, which was more focused on institutions and the politics behind the laws that those institutions administered. In the research I report here, my emphasis is squarely on the actors in the civil justice process: the relationship between contingency-fee lawyers and clients, and how that relationship plays out in the settlement process. In Felony Justice, Herb, and his coauthor James Eisenstein, focus on the courtroom workgroup as a case-processing (and, largely, case-settling) machine; clients are relatively peripheral. In my account, clients, both current and future, are extremely important in how the lawyer works to settle cases. In the criminal court workgroup, lawyers do not worry about where future clients will come from because police secure them. In contrast, the contingency-fee lawyer has constant concerns about future clients, and I argue, this concern provides a control over lawyers that prior analyses of the contingency fee have largely missed. This dynamic also may explain why the courtroom workgroups, or court communities, found in the criminal courts do not appear to exist in the civil justice system.     

The Revolution and the Criminal Law

Egyptians had many reasons to overthrow the government of Hosni Mubarak, and to challenge the legitimacy of the interim military government. Strikingly, among the leading reasons for the uprising and for continued protest are reasons grounded in criminal justice. Reflection on this dimension of the Egyptian uprising invites a broader examination of the relationship between criminal justice and political legitimacy. While criminal justice is neither necessary nor sufficient for political legitimacy, criminal injustice substantially undermines political legitimacy and can provide independent reasons for revolution. A state may compromise its legitimacy by committing criminal acts, by perverting or subverting the criminal process, and by failing to discharge its duty to punish serious wrongdoing—a duty that then falls to individuals to discharge either directly (through vigilantism) or indirectly (through revolution). Contrary to the views of many leading criminal law theorists, the duty to punish serious wrongdoing applies to individuals and not only to states. The relevance of political legitimacy to criminal justice is more complicated. Individuals are morally obligated to follow the morally justified laws of an illegitimate state, but are not morally obligated to follow the morally unjustified laws of a legitimate state. Nor may any state punish in the absence of moral wrongdoing and moral fault. However, illegitimate states may be incapable of justly holding individuals accountable to the state, to the community, or to victims through criminal trials. This incapacity provides an additional reason to overthrow illegitimate states and replace them with legitimate states capable of justly administering a just criminal law.     

犯罪构成理论结构比较论略

在大体相当的法律结构基础上,因文化的差异,德日、英美和中俄三个不同法系的犯罪构成理论结构显著不同。三者的外在形态、逻辑结构和文化特点差异颇大,但其基本功能大体相当,各有其道理。我国的犯罪构成四要件理论经过长期的理论建构与实践检验,具有相对的合理性。我国不宜全盘移植德日三阶层要件模式或英美双层次要件模式。进一步理顺和完善犯罪构成四要件模式的内在理论结构,是我国当前相关理论争议的合理出路。推进我国刑事法治,有必要注重刑法机制之刑事一体化理论知识形态。     

重庆“打黑”行动中媒体与司法的关系

在重庆“打黑”行动中,公安、司法司法机关在处理媒体与司法关系的过程中,有很多值得推广的经验,也有一些存在的问题。“打黑”行动中重庆市公安、检察机关新闻发布的经验有：重庆公安、司法机关适度公开信息体现执法文明,及时回应媒体质疑符合公诉机关的职责。“打黑”行动中重庆市法院及法官新闻发布的经验是：推行“分区就座”和“声音直播”实现审判公开;宣判时召开新闻发布会进行审后答疑。公安、司法机关在处理媒体与司法关系的过程中应当改进的方面是：限制个人隐私和证据内容的公开;对民众特别关注的案件应当庭审直播。     

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.     

Avoiding the emperor’s prophecy: a case for the primacy of emergency management in criminal justice and human security studies

Recent events have illustrated the reciprocal nature of the relationship between emergency management actors and law enforcement agencies. Emergency management and disaster studies, as fields of practice and academic scholarship are inherently interdisciplinary. Primary among the fields impacting their development is criminal justice. This relationship is confirmed as criminal justice departments continue to include specialized Homeland Security curriculum. However, even as universities and colleges around the country are integrating emergency management into traditional criminal justice programs, there remain gaps in recognition of the unique practical skills and perspectives disaster scholars bring to criminal justice programs. In many ways, disaster scholarship complements existing law enforcement-focused programs by expanding the breadth of what is considered public or community safety. During each phase of the disaster management cycle (preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation), emergency management research highlights the assistance of volunteer community disaster response organizations that are utilized to assist victims and survivors, and to distribute necessary aid and information. This essay provides a discussion of the linkages between emergency management, disaster studies, and criminal justice, and supports a call for a broadened, integrative approach to human security that fully recognizes the role of each.     

Victims' Rights in Criminal Trials: Prospects for Participation

Victims in common law jurisdictions have traditionally been unable to participate in criminal trials for a number of structural and normative reasons. They are widely perceived as 'private parties' whose role should be confined to that of witnesses, and participatory rights for such third parties are rejected as a threat to the objective and public nature of the criminal justice system. However, recent years have witnessed both a major shift in attitude in relation to the role of victims within the criminal justice system and a breakdown in the public/ private divide in criminal justice discourse. This article considers the standing of the victim within the criminal trial against the backdrop of such changes, and examines the arguments for a more radical course of reform that would allow victims to participate actively in criminal hearings as they are able to do in many European jurisdictions.     

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.