第三层次有罪判决证明标准的技术性构建——基于现代证明科学进路的探索

现代法治社会对案件事实进行精确认定以实现惩罚犯罪和保障无辜这一双重目标的需求,以及出于对事实裁判者的主观规制与提高证明标准可操作适用性之考量,使得第三层次有罪判决证明标准之构建成为迫切必要.现代证明科学的兴起与发展,为构建第三层次的有罪判决证明标准提供了全新的视野与路径.基于证明科学进路,通过探寻并确立庭审证据分析与证据评价之科学有效方法和规则,能够找到满足证据分析与证据评价的科学且精细化之指标,运用这些指标最终能够塑造出第三层次有罪判决证明标准这样一个"动态模具".该标准在性质上属于或然性标准,具体包含四项科学且精细化的指标.裁判者通过运用有效的方法能够合理判断庭审证明是否符合这四项指标,并据此获得精确且正当可接受的裁判事实.     

God in the Border Zones

The adaptation of the Orthodox Church to the new religious diversity is perhaps one of the most painful processes of contemporary religious life in Moldova.     

也论推定规则适用中的证明责任和证明标准——兼与何家弘教授商榷

中国现行法不仅存在转移“完整证明责任”的推定规则，也存在类似于美国法上仅转移“举证责任”的推定规则。在中国，对推定事实进行有效反驳的证明标准不应该是统一的“优势证据”标准，而应该根据诉讼类型、推定类型不同而有所区分。     

At the Court of the Strange God

This article revisits the decision of the Australian High Court in Mabo (No. 2)for the purpose of determining what, in the legal thought displayed in the judgments, makes the category of sovereignty exclusive of the sovereignty of aboriginal peoples. Having regard to the téchnē of legal thought, it locates this exclusion in the substitution of nation for property relations of class, sex and race and, more specifically to sovereignty as a category of a still colonial law, in denial of the partiality of the standpoint of legal thought. This article proposes the need in Australia to attend to, thoughtfully, a fantastic and reconciliatory moment in the idea of sovereignty. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

也论推定规则适用中的证明责任和证明标准——兼与何家弘教授商榷

中国现行法不仅存在转移完整证明责任的推定规则,也存在类似于美国法上仅转移举证责任的推定规则。在中国,对推定事实进行有效反驳的证明标准不应该是统一的优势证据标准,而应该根据诉讼类型、推定类型不同而有所区分。     

A note on burdens of proof in civil litigation

It has been widely believed that who bears the burden of proof significantly affects the incentives of the legal parties. In particular, Hay and Spier (J Legal Stud 26:413–431, 1997) argues that if legal parties have a commonly accessible body of evidence (perfectly correlated pieces of evidence), the party who bears the burden of proof will present the evidence if and only if the evidence supports his position, while the other party (without the burden) will refrain from presenting it regardless of whether the evidence supports his position. In this paper, I claim that the result will be dramatically changed if the pieces of evidence that each party possesses are not perfectly correlated. I show that each party will present the evidence that supports his position whenever available, regardless of the burden of proof assignment. This implies that allocating the burden of proof does not matter in terms of information elicitation.     

A judge's three worlds: proof, philosophy, and the prison

Tensions between the world of science and the world of law may arise because of their differing viewpoints and philosophies. Disagreements may center around such questions as what constitutes proof, around human behavior, and around the use of the insanity defense in criminal cases. The just deserts model is examined and is criticized as being harsh and possibly unrealistic in today's society.     

Continuing barriers to women's credibility: A feminist perspective on the proof process

This article is an expanded version of a paper presented at the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law Conference on Reform of Evidence Law, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, August 3–7, 1992.     

论不在犯罪现场的证明

我国2012年《刑事诉讼法》所确立的不在犯罪现场的辩方开示义务如“邯郸学步”,这是把一种可能无需法律规制的常识判断转化为一种程序规则“。不在犯罪现场的证据”具有无罪的指向性、整体的意见性以及形态的中介性,这一概念发展了证据形式和证据种类的理论。然而这个规则既无根基也无后果,一方面,在我国官方垄断取证的背景之下“,不在犯罪现场”的辩护不可能对控方造成突然袭击,还可能被认为是狡辩而不受待见,而辩护方的所有取证活动必须汇集到控方的单向证明活动之中才被看做是证据;另一方面,倘若被告人并未履行“不在犯罪现场”的证据开示义务,尽管出于辩护本能,根本没有这种可能,对被告人而言,也没有相应的惩罚后果。须知在英美法系国家为寻找真相而要求庭前开示不在犯罪现场的证据也可能事与愿违。因此,在我国“不在犯罪现场”的证明只关注了为了削弱程序抗辩的证据交换问题,而未考虑辩护方的证据收集能力的前提问题以及控诉方怠于为反对抗辩而积极取证的责任问题。在此背景下,基于无罪推定原则,不在犯罪现场的抗辩是辩护方证否的权利,及早提出可以防止追诉机关的错误积重难返;又基于举证责任分配原则,不在犯罪现场的证明反而是控诉方要承担的一个证实的义务,要求其积极核实和审查。     

论惩罚性赔偿的证明标准

不遵守填平原则的惩罚性赔偿与民事程序存在着一定的冲突。从最佳威慑与彻底威慑的角度看,惩罚性赔偿实质上处于民事责任与刑罚之间,甚至有时与罚金刑无异,故需要提高对被告人的程序保护,其证明标准应当具有中间性,适用明确而令人信服的证明标准。从诉求正确的可能性、举证成本、风险收益的角度看,反映行为人主观过错程度的侵权行为的异常性的证明负担应当分配给原告。