论侦查程序中的会见权

会见权作为辩护权的重要组成部分,是被追诉人最为重要的防御性权利之一,我国立法应以被追诉人为基点完善对会见权的设计。首先,应明确规定会见权的权属,在侦查阶段赋予在押犯罪嫌疑人会见律师的权利;其次,应确立自由会见的原则,对少数限制会见的例外情形,立法应予以明晰准确的界定;会见权的本质是交流权,应在侦查程序中赋予律师阅卷权和...     

论辩护律师核实证据的限度CSSCI

修改后的《刑事诉讼法》第37条赋予辩护律师自审查起诉之日起会见在押的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人时,有"核实有关证据"的权利,其是否允许向被告人出示同案犯供述、证言等,成为正在制定的关于律师刑事辩护若干问题的规定中的主要争议点。从我国立法意图、独立辩护理论、保障查明事实真相的角度,对辩护律师核实证据的权利进行限制很有必要。然而,对辩护律师行使核实证据的权利,不应采取证据类别的限制方式,应要求辩护律师遵守"存疑核实"的原则,将涉密信息排除在核实之外,且以口头交流的核实方式为主。     

论刑事诉讼中律师的会见权

会见权,指刑事诉讼中律师有权会见在押和不在押的被追诉人,包括侦查阶段、审查起诉阶段和审判阶段的会见。由于与不在押的被追诉人的会见并无任何限制,而在押的被追诉人人身自由受到暂时剥夺,处于侦查机关控制之下,保障律师会见权更具有意义。本文讨论的便是侦查阶段律师会见犯罪嫌疑人的权利。     

论被告人的自主性辩护权——以“被告人会见权”为切入的分析

正现行刑事诉讼法将会见权仅定位为"律师会见权",具有局限性,忽略了犯罪嫌疑人的诉讼需求。完整意义上的会见权还应包括"在押犯罪嫌疑人、被告人要求会见辩护律师"的权利。在法律已经规定"律师会见权"的情况下,确立"被告人会见权"可从以下角度进行论证:首先,确立"被告人会见权"是保障犯罪嫌疑人、被告人辩护权的应有之义。其次,"被告人会见权"是"律师会见权"的必要补充,具有不可替代的诉讼价     

在刑事案件的侦查、审查起诉阶段实行证据开示制度的必要性初探

《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第三十六条规定：辩护律师自人民检察院审查起诉之日起，可以查阅、摘抄、复制本案的诉讼文书、技术性鉴定材料，可以同在押的犯罪嫌疑人会见和通信……。     

律师会见权扩大对贿赂犯罪侦查的影响及对策

新修订的刑事诉讼法扩大了辩护律师的会见权,在会见时间、会见程序、会见内容以及会见权上都有了明确的保障.同时,这使得犯罪嫌疑人供述和证人证言等言辞证据变数增加,查办贿赂犯罪案件的难度增加.因此,查办贿赂犯罪案件应着力从工作思路、策略、效率以及制度等多方面来提升侦查工作的实效性.     

论辩护取证与侦查取证的关系

辩护取证和侦查取证构成了刑事调查的二元结构。在其相互制约中,可最大程度地接近案件事实。在研究犯罪嫌疑人辩护权与辩护律师相应权利的基础上,探讨新刑诉法实施后,辩护律师所具有的调查取证权利。律师还不能向警方申请阅卷,也不能在会见在押嫌疑人时向其核实证据;但在会见中,他们拥有不被监听的特权。而且,辩护律师有以"见证人"身份监督强制取证措施的权利。在监督侦查活动中,他们可以提出排除非法证据的要求。在侦查阶段,辩护律师的取证权,一般是外部调查取证权。辩护取证和侦查取证具有权属不同、手段多少不同、活动范围不同、活动的方向不同等特点,其体现的是控辩双方的法律制约与平衡。     

侦查程序中辩护律师在场制度的构建

建立侦查程序中的辩护律师在场制度，是诉讼主体理论、程序正义理念和无罪推定原则的必然要求。刑事诉讼法应明确规定侦查程序中律师在场的案件范围，开始时间及辩护律师的身份，明确规定律师在场权行使的具体程序．建立值班律师制度和非法证据排除规则作为该制度的保障措施。     

在押被告与律师会见通信权的保障与限制——以欧洲人权法院裁判为借镜

人在SV．Switzerland一案中．欧洲人权法院认定：被告与其辩护律师间的会见存在保密特权．仅可以监看而不可以耳闻其内容（无论是直接或间接方式）。在确立了监看而不：耳闻原则之后．欧洲人权法院要进而面对“耳闻”有无容许例外的问题。就此．该院并末概括否定容许例外．但“耳闻”的前提是存在正当化事由。     

职务犯罪侦查阶段犯罪嫌疑人会见权的含义和特点

职务犯罪侦查阶段在押犯罪嫌疑人的会见权是刑事辩护权中的重要权利,是被羁押的犯罪嫌疑人以委托辩护方式行使辩护权的基础和前提,是由犯罪嫌疑人自主处分的权利。通过对会见权含义、性质和特点的分析,笔者认为,如果将《刑事诉讼法》中关于受托的律师可以会见在押的犯罪嫌疑人的规定修改为在押的犯罪嫌疑人有权会见其委托的律师,可能更为合适。     

Building sustainable free legal advisory systems: Experiences from the history of AI & law

The enthusiasm for artificial intelligence (AI) as a source of solutions to problems is not new. In law, from the early 1980s until at least the early 2000s, considerable work was done on developing ‘legal expert systems.’ As the DataLex project, we participated in those developments, through research and publications, commercial and non-commercial systems, and teaching students application development. This paper commences with a brief account of that work to situate our perspective.The main aim of this paper is an assessment of what might be of value from the experience of the DataLex Project to contemporary use of ‘AI and law’ by free legal advice services, who must necessarily work within funding and other constraints in developing and sustaining such systems. We draw fifteen conclusions from this experience, which we consider are relevant to development of systems for free legal advice services. The desired result, we argue, is the development of integrated legal decision-support systems, not ‘expert systems’ or ‘robot lawyers’. We compare our insights with the approach of the leading recent text in the field, and with a critical review of the field over twenty-five years. We conclude that the approach taken by the DataLex Project, and now applied to free legal advice services, remains consistent with leading work in field of AI and law.The paper concludes with brief suggestions of what are the most desirable improvements to tools and platforms to enable development of free legal advice systems. The objectives of free access to legal information services have much in common with those of free legal advice services. The information resources that free access to law providers (including LIIs) can provide will often be those that free legal advice services will need to use to develop and sustain free legal advisory systems. There is therefore strong potential for valuable collaborations between these two types of services providers.     

Utilising AI in the legal assistance sector—Testing a role for legal information institutes

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in law has again become of great interest to lawyers and government. Legal Information Institutes (LIIs) have played a significant role in the provision of legal information via the web. The concept of ‘free access to law’ is not static, and the evolution of its principles now requires a response from providers of free access to legal information (‘a LII response’) to this renewed prominence of AI. This should include improving and expanding free access to legal advice. This paper proposes, and proposes to test, one approach that LIIs might take in the use of AI (specifically, ‘decision support’ or ‘intelligent assistance’ (IA) technologies), an approach that leverages the very large legal information assets that some LIIs have built over the past two decades. This approach focuses on how LIIs can assist providers of free legal advice (the ‘legal assistance sector’) to serve their clients. We consider the constraints that the requirement of ‘free’ imposes (on both the legal assistance sector and on LIIs), including on what types of free legal advice systems are sustainable, and what roles LIIs may realistically play in the development of such a ‘commons of free legal advice’. We suggest guidelines for development of such systems. The AI-related services and tools that the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) is providing (the ‘DataLex’ platform), and how they could be used to achieve these goals, are outlined.     

The Challenge of Universal Norms: Securing Effective Defence Rights Across Different Jurisdictions and Legal Cultures

This article considers the contribution of comparative empirical research in shaping best practice norms for custodial legal advice, and helping to address challenges in their implementation. It traces the role of ECtHR decisions and EU Directives in developing transnational norms to strengthen suspects’ right to legal assistance. Recognizing how these norms are translated into the national context, it considers the value of comparative empirical and socio‐legal research in helping to develop legislative and training measures; how roles and responsibilities are shared out in different legal systems and traditions; and practical arrangements that facilitate or inhibit the effectiveness of custodial legal advice in practice. There is a tension between framing transnational norms that are sufficiently universal to attract support, without being so broad as to lack any transformational force, and sufficiently detailed to ensure respect for core protections without imposing legal requirements too rigid and difficult to be absorbed into diverse processes of criminal justice.     

隐性双轨制：刑法中保安处分的教义学阐释

我国现行法律中虽无保安处分的概念,但在刑法中已实质性地存在保安处分,其与刑罚共同构成刑法所规定的法律后果,由此形成“隐性双轨制”的格局。对保安处分规范的识别,首先应从与罪责的关系上、目的与功能的差异上明晰刑罚与保安处分的基本界分,进而从法律特征上区分刑罚规范与保安处分规范,最终将现行刑法中的保安处分措施“挖掘”出来。澄清现行刑法中保安处分措施的性质和法律地位,有利于确保这类措施的正当适用,同时也有利于保障个人的基本权利免受不当干涉。     

未完全定型背景下的协商性法律监督——作为协商内容的制度改良

检察机关法律监督内容在当前世情、国情、社情下必须有新的内容。目前检察机关面临的外部环境要求检察机关以更积极的态度、方式来应对社会矛盾,依托执法办案参与政治活动。检察机关主要工作是刑事案件办理,但从延伸检察检察职能的角度看,更应关注犯罪发生的深层制度原因,并针对制度原因提出相应的政治建言。单个刑案所反映的制度原因可能是碎片式的,但将这些碎片式的制度原因结合到一起,就可能发现罪犯的产生具有必然性。因此,协商性法律监督就是要通过个案反映出的制度累积性矛盾,以对话、沟通、建议等协商性形式提出针对性的法律监督意见。在实务方面,检察机关参与制度改良既有现成的政治环境,也有相应的工作方式。今后的检察执法更应当注重点对面式的监督。     

再论刑事立案法律监督之完善

刑事立案监督是人民检察院进行法律监督的重要组成部分,也是启动刑事诉讼程序的关键环节,它对规范刑事立案权的正确行使,纠正立案活动中的违法行为具有重要的作用,但目前司法实践存在不少问题影响了检察机关实施刑事立案监督工作取得的预期法律效果。主要从我国立法关于检察机关刑事立案监督的程序规定入手,对刑事立案监督的对象、范围、标准以及具体实施中的一些问题进行了探讨,并结合我国司法实践和现实需要,从其价值实现角度提出立法必须明确刑事立案监督对象、完善刑事立案监督范围、建立专门刑事立案监督部门、完善刑事立案监督程序、完善刑事立案监督标准等。     

检察机关对派出所刑事执法监督的法理分析与制度构建

在现今中国的社会转型时期，公安机关的工作重心不断下移，公安派出所在刑事执法中的地位和作用越来越凸显。作为国家专门法律监督机关的检察机关，对公安派出所的刑事执法监督却显得软弱无力，甚至缺失。在新形势下，为了延伸监督触角，切实依法履行好法律监督职能，对公安派出所实施动态监督极为必要；我们应当借鉴成熟法治国家侦检关系的有益经验，对公安派出所刑事执法监督存在的主要问题进行剖析，以期构建起派出所刑事执法监督的新制度。     

The Effects of Legal and Extralegal Factors on Detention Decisions in US District Courts

The Bail Reform Act of 1984 changed the law dictating release and detention decisions in federal court. Since its passage, few studies have examined judicial decision-making in this context. Legal research enables us to account for the structure and interpretation of federal detention laws and to analyze previously neglected measures of legal factors in our analyses. We use US Sentencing Commission data on a sample of defendants who were sentenced in 2007 (N?=?31,043). We find that legal factors—particularly length of criminal history, having committed a violent or otherwise serious offense, and having committed the offense while under supervision of the criminal justice system—have the strongest relationships with the presentence detention outcome. A defendant’s age, race, and ethnicity have weaker relationships with detention. When we compare defendants who are similarly situated with respect to legal factors, the probability of detention is similar regardless of age, race, and ethnicity.     

“法律监督机关”的立法内涵、演进逻辑及内在机理

“法律监督机关”是我国宪法对人民检察院的性质定位。1979年《人民检察院组织法》首次将“法律监督机关”法定化,立法内涵为注重法律监督下重建法制权威,是在中国检察理论和实践中形成的机关,侧重刑事诉讼监督和打击犯罪。1982年宪法使“法律监督机关”成为了宪法规范上的国家机关,基于宪法职能和诉讼制度改革而侧重于加强诉讼监督,并在监察体制改革下进行了自我更新,成为与监察委相互配合行使法律监督职能的机关。“法律监督机关”内涵演进的内在机理是人大体制下权力分工模式的必然要求,落实宪法规定的法律监督职能的重要选择,以及参与宪制层面政治体制改革的要求。“法律监督机关”概念内涵具有延展性,会随着立法修订和制度变迁衍生出新的内涵和解释,不断凸显中国特色社会主义检察理论的特性。     

我国诉讼监督的一个难点及其破解——析“严禁”语境下的刑讯逼供

我国刑事实体法与程序法均严格禁止刑讯逼供,但在刑事诉讼中刑讯逼供却禁而难止,因刑讯逼供受到查处者为数不多,以致刑法第247条几近虚置。究其原因,一是刑讯逼供合法性的顽固观念妨碍了对刑讯逼供、暴力取证行为的查处;二是对刑讯逼供、暴力取证行为发现不及时;三是对刑讯逼供、暴力取证行为的监督尚有缺位。解决这一问题,首先需要转变司法理念,改善检察监督执法环境;其次,建立顺畅、有效的检察监督机制;再次,对刑讯逼供、暴力取证罪的刑事责任进行立法重构。