通过程序控制死刑

如何控制死刑问题已经成为中国亟待解决的重大现实课题。从各国的实践来看,控制死刑主要包括实体控制与程序控制两种路径。尽管通过宪法或者刑法可以对死刑控制起到立竿见影的效果,但是,通过实体控制死刑,存在难以克服的局限性。相比较而言,通过程序控制死刑,则具有明显的优势。在中国目前无法全面废除死刑而实体控制又存在较大难度的情况下,通过程序控制死刑应是明智之举。     

死刑案件检察环节的程序控制

死刑复核程序的特殊性决定了检察机关介入方式的特殊性．死刑案件一审、二审、复核程序中，检察机关应有针对性地履行法律监督职能。     

中国死刑制度历史和现实

死刑，又称生命刑，在刑罚体系中是最严厉的刑罚方法，是以剥夺犯罪人生命为手段的刑罚方法。死刑作为人类最古老的一种刑罚，历来都是统治阶级维护其统治秩序的重要工具，被认为具有最大威慑力的刑罚方法，其存在也被认为具有天然的合理性。直到1764年贝卡利亚《论犯罪与刑罚》中提出废除死刑的论述，人们从尊重生命权和天赋人权的角度，对废除死刑展开了广泛的讨论，引起了人们对死刑利弊的激烈争论，从而在世界范围内引发了对死刑存废之争。本文通过回顾我国死刑的历史，结合目前司法现实，特别是我国死刑核准制度的变迁，探讨死刑制度在我国的历史及现实状况。     

死刑程序为谁而设?

中美两国在死刑的程序控制方面选择了两条截然不同的路径。美国的"权利导向型"控制模式以被告人权利为核心,并以被告人行使诉讼权利的行为为驱动力构建复杂的程序救济体系。中国的"审查导向型"控制模式以高级别法院对死刑案件自上而下的审查为核心构建死刑程序控制体系。死刑程序归根结底是为死刑案件被告人而设置,因此,针对我国在死刑程序控制方面出现的问题,应当借鉴"权利导向型"控制模式的优点,强化被告人权利的保障,对一审、二审程序和死刑复核程序的功能进行合理调整。     

死刑二审案件开庭审理若干问题思考和探讨

导言 《刑事诉讼法》第一百八十七条规定：“第二审人民法院对上诉案件，应当组成合议庭，开庭审理。合议庭经过阅卷，讯问被告人、听取其他当事人、辩护人、诉讼代理人的意见，对事实清楚的，可以不开庭审理。对人民检察院抗诉的案件，第二审人民法院应当开庭审理。”根据这个规定，在现行司法实践中，各地法院对人民检察院抗诉的案件，都一律实行了开庭审理的制度，而对于被告人提起上诉的绝大部分刑事案件在二审时都不开庭，并且存在死刑核准程序与二审程序合二为一的现象。     

论死刑的实体控制与程序控制

死刑作为最严厉的刑罚只适用于最严重的犯罪,并且应严格控制其适用的数量。对死刑的控制包括实体控制与程序控制两个方面,实体控制是指制定死刑的一般适用标准和针对个罪的具体适用标准,     

死刑的实体和程序控制

在死刑的正当性问题争论不休之际,如何控制死刑、确保现存死刑的最低程度的正义,是一个不得不面对的重要问题,在此背景下,有必要认真审视检讨我国的死刑制度。一、死刑存废的简要回顾死刑,是剥夺犯罪人生命的刑罚方法,是刑罚体系中最严厉的刑罚方法,故又被称为生命刑、极刑。死     

论死刑案件的诉讼周期

本文从一起死刑案件谈起，对我国死刑案件的诉讼周期进行了分析，并提出改革设想，以增加死刑案件的正当性，限制死刑的运用。     

中国式死刑制度变革

对于死刑——这一“以国家名义合法杀人”的最高刑罚,究竟应该设计怎样的程序正义,以避免错杀、冤杀等悲剧,这既是近年来司法改革的一大主攻点,亦是屡屡引发社会争议的一大敏感源。目前,《刑事诉讼法》的修改已提上议事日程,死刑案件诉讼程序、死刑制度改革等等,也随之成为法学界、司法界日益升温的重大议题。     

对死刑复核程序的概念性探讨

当今世界,废除死刑已经成为了国际社会的潮流,据统计,截止2005年,世界上已有79个国家和地区在法律上明确废除所有罪行的死刑,15个国家和地区废除了普通犯罪的死刑,还有23个国家和地区在实践中事实上废除了死刑,但也有78个国家和地区依然保留死刑,我国便是其中之一。由此可见,废除死刑是人类法制文明的必然要求。在我国,虽然死刑并未废除,但是,我国仍然有独具特色的用以限制死刑适用的程序——死刑复核程序。本文将从死刑复核程序的基本概念入手进行探讨。     

死刑控制背景下的徒刑改革

在控制死刑的背景下，徒刑制度必须合理承接遏制犯罪的社会功能。与域外徒刑制度相比，中国徒刑制度的缺陷是刑期遇低，执行期限遇短，减刑遇陡，因而需要给予宽严相济的改革。     

The death penalty and the right to life

On the first anniversary of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, some reflection on the phenomenon of state-sponsored execution in an enlightened, civilised world seems appropriate. While this subject has an obvious international character, it also possesses some intriguing Irish and Northern Irish dimensions. In a wide ranging treatise, I examine how the rule of law has dealt with the death penalty at both the national and international levels, highlighting in particular the important influence of national constitutional laws in this sphere. I examine also the influence of the universally acknowledged right to life and the requirement of due process.     

The juvenile death penalty and the Eighth Amendment

The present study investigated the Eighth Amendment tests of societal consensus and proportionality as applied to juvenile death penalties. A sample of former jurors (N=179) voted on whether to execute the defendant in a hypothetical case. Defendant's age (10, 15, 16, or 19) and level of remorse were varied. A large percentage of participants voted to execute the defendant in each condition, but the defendant's age and the participant's attitude toward juvenile culpability significantly predicted the likelihood of execution. Implications for the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty and future research directions are discussed.     

Dilemmas in administering the death penalty

This article critiques ethical arguments against conducting forensic evaluations of capital defendants or condemned prisoners and against treating prisoners found incompetent for execution, and considers the impact of widespread professional abstention on the legal system. It concludes that arguments for abstention by forensic evaluators are grounded mainly in personal moral scruples against capital punishment, rather than in tenets of professional ethics, but that abstention would be ethically required if the evaluator's scruples preclude objectivity. It also concludes that treatment of incompetent prisoners known to want treatment is ethically permissible but that treatment for the sole purpose of readying the prisoner for execution is not.Editor's note: Adversary Forum is edited by Gary B. Melton. Stan Brodsky was asked to respond to Professor Bonnie's article, and Professor Bonnie was given an opportunity to reply.This article is based on a paper presented as the Keynote Address to the Annual Meeting of the     

Public attitudes towards the death penalty

Responses to a general question regarding the use of the death penalty were compared with the sentences that respondents chose in a set of scenarios describing homicide cases. The percentage of respondents who assigned the death sentence in one or more of the following scenarios was higher than those who favored the death penalty in the abstract question, but there were inconsistencies in the answers. A majority assigned the death penalty only for the most heinous offender described, and the figures were lower for other crimes, even clear cases of first degree murder. At the same time, a manipulation involving information about methods of execution did not affect answers. These results strongly suggest that the abstract questions typically used in public opinion polls do not accurately reflect the public's feelings about use of the death penalty in specific cases. More generally, research on public opinion regarding criminal justice policies should survey a variety of specific circumstances.