Reclaiming Futures: A Model for Judicial Leadership in Community Responses to Juvenile Substance Abuse

Juvenile courts across the country have become the leading service delivery system for youths with substance abuse problems, not by choice, but by necessity. At 10 communities around the nation, judges and project staff are in their fifth year of pioneering changes to the way the juvenile justice system helps teens in trouble with drugs, alcohol, and crime. These judges are part of Reclaiming Futures, an initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and they are working with local leaders to re‐invent the way law enforcement, courts, probation, detention facilities, treatment providers, families, schools, and the community work together to help troubled youths succeed. Together, they have written a guide for judges, court administrators, government entities, community leaders, and interested citizens to share the knowledge and experience they have gained from the nationwide Reclaiming Futures initiative. Their goal is to encourage and motivate others to launch similar projects in their communities, and to provide a blueprint for judges and others striving to undertake this level of collaboration.     

The RWJF Reclaiming Futures Initiative: Improving Substance Abuse Interventions for Justice‐Involved Youths

Juvenile justice systems in the United States do not always respond effectively to substance abuse problems among young offenders. In 2002, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation launched a 10‐community demonstration project to address this problem. Reclaiming Futures (RF) relies on community partnerships to improve treatment quality, strengthen local leadership, expand inter‐organizational collaboration, and create systems of shared performance management. The initial findings of a cross‐site evaluation suggest that Reclaiming Futures is yielding important and positive change. Bi‐annual surveys of key informants measure the quality and integration of juvenile justice and substance abuse treatment systems in each community. Of 13 indices measured by the surveys, 11 showed significant improvements between 2003 and 2005.     

论党领导下的司法独立

共产党的领导与司法独立的相互关系,是政治体制改革与司法改革的共同难题。其难点在于如何既保证党对司法工作的绝对领导,又不致损害司法工作应有的独立性。解决这一难题依赖于两个方面的共同努力:一方面,党要改革对司法工作的领导方式;另一方面,司法机关要正确对待党的领导。为此,党需要通过党规规范对司法工作的领导,而国家也需要通过立法等措施,进一步保障司法工作应有的独立性。     

Extra-Legal Values in Judicial Interpretation of Law: A Model Reasoning and Few Examples

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique - The aim of the paper is to analyze the types of interpretative reasoning determining the content...     

Judicial Review and Deliberative Democracy: A Circular Model of Law Creation and Legitimation

In this paper the author discusses the legitimation of judicial review of legislation. He argues that such a legitimation is not just a moral matter but is to be considered more generally in terms of societal acceptability, since it is based on a wide range of reasons including moral, social and pragmatic concerns. Moreover, the paper stresses that the legitimation of judicial decisions should be properly viewed in a circular perspective, so that the relationship between legislators and judges cannot be reduced to an absolute supremacy of those who are democratically elected over those who apply the law. On the contrary, the law is constantly made, adapted and developed in legal practice and legal decisions are basically legitimated through several processes of deliberative communication.     

司法救助及其中国模式——以《关于建立完善国家司法救助制度的意见（试行）》展开

司法救助的前身是刑事被害人救助,后者与各国刑事被害人补偿具有同一性,而前者在吸收被害人救助内涵后,不再属于民事诉讼费用制度中的特定概念。社会矛盾激化、纠纷解决的司法化以及普遍存在的执行难现象,是司法救助取代刑事被害人救助的内在原因。我国司法救助以功利主义作为正当化根基,倡导保护生活模式,大幅扩张救助对象范围,实现救助决定权的多元分享,从而具有了鲜明的中国特点。明确国家在司法救助中的清偿代位人角色,多元化地理解司法救助的正当性根据,确定被救助人权利主体的地位,同时合理地对救助对象加以类型化,是我国司法救助制度完善的可行方案。     

判断余地与司法救济

一、案例事实① 简某为成功大学(以下简称成大)交通管理学系兼任副教授,参加该校1992学年度教师升等教授案,经成大初审总成绩达88分极力推荐的特优标准;复审总成绩亦达82分特别推荐的优等标准;送请校外专家审查,分别经3位专家审查结果全部获得通过(依规定以2人以上通过即属及格),且其中一位评分高达80分,评语颇佳.惟成大教评会以"无记名"且"不具理由"的投票方式作成未通过升等的决议;另依<成大教师升等办法>规定,教师升等须经成大教评会出席委员2/3以上同意始获通过,成大计算的可决额数,简某无法赞同.简某爰主张成大前开行政处分②违法,提出申诉遭驳回,嗣向原诉愿决定机关提出诉愿,③惟遭以不得提起行政救济驳回,向行政院提起再诉愿,④亦遭驳回,再向行政法院提起行政诉讼,仍遭行政法院1983年度裁字第293号裁定驳回.     

司法审查：一种动态民主的机制

从代议民主的角度看,司法审查和民主之间确实存在着矛盾,美国司法审查的几种理论路径不能解释清楚司法审查正当性的问题,伊利的程序主义理论回避司法审查合法性的实体问题即国会立法违背宪法的客观标准为何,宪法文本的不确定性使得司法审查的客观标准成为一个难题,但是如果从动态的民主参与方面看,对国会立法进行违宪审查的目的是建立一种动态的参与民主机制,在代议民主和大众之间建立沟通的桥梁,使民众的话语得到张扬,让民主运转起来,故美国确立司法审查的理论基础是动态的参与民主机制。     

Babies Can't Wait: A Judicial Response

During my career as a Family Court Judge over the past 12 years, I was faced daily with the difficult task of deciding whether or not to remove a newborn infant from the care of her mother and place the child in foster care upon discharge from the hospital. In the huge majority of cases, removal was ordered based upon the mother's history of substance abuse and the subsequent positive toxicology of the infant at birth. I could not risk the health and safety of this often premature and vulnerable infant to a mother with such an addiction to drugs that she would expose her child in utero to these toxic substances. Such a mother was incapable of caring for the basic needs of this vulnerable infant, and therefore removal was ordered. This decision saddened me because, as a mother myself, I knew of the critical bond existing between infant and mother during those critical first days and weeks of a child's life. That bond must be nurtured and strengthened and is crucial to a child's development.     

Rights-Based Judicial Review: A Democratic Justification

Law and Philosophy -     

Designing Judicial Review: A Comment on Schauer

Law and Philosophy -     

期货投资的VaR模型及实证分析——以上海期铜15年历史数据为例

VaR模型作为测量金融风险度的标尺,可用以期货投资的风险测度.根据上海期铜过去15年的历史数据,分别运用静态VaR模型、GARCH(1,1)模型和EⅥ'模型来测量其VaR水平,并在此基础上对这些模型的测量结果进行检验和比较,结果表明:静态VaR模型并不能有效地测度风险,而GARCH(1,1)模型和EvT模型的结合则可以较好地控制风险.