Relative prestige of criminal justice doctoral programs

Organizational sets are made up of organizations with interchangeable personnel, important activity common to members, and a prestige order. The prestige order in other academic disciplines has been identified, and the survey reported here was an attempt to provide some preliminary information on the prestige order among criminal justice doctoral programs. A survey of a sample of Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences members and other criminal justice educators revealed several programs consistently receiving high ratings. These programs are likely to have a substantial influence on the development of criminal justice graduate education by providing models for graduate programs, personnel to staff criminal justice programs, and establishing the standards by which quality education will be defined. In addition, the importance of a list of characteristics pertaining to quality education was examined, and library resources and several faculty attributes emerged as those perceived as most important for quality doctoral education in criminal justice.     

Productivity ratings of graduate programs in criminal justice based on publication in ten critical journals

This article examines scholarly productivity among faculty members of graduate programs in criminal justice. Studies of scholarly productivity in other disciplines have frequently appeared in the literature. Cartter's early work on “prestige levels” was cited as being the forerunner in this respect. The authors obtained rankings of the “ten most critical” journals from graduate criminal justice program directors. After the list of journals was compiled, these journals were searched for the most recent five-year period. Articles published by full-time faculty members at fifty-two institutions were included in the study. In addition to total productivity, data on productivity adjusted for faculty size was also presented. Problems and controversy associated with this type of work are cited by the authors.     

“卡迪”模式与刑事公正司法的实现

从“有法必依”到“公正司法”喻示着一种刑事司法观的应然转变:放松了司法者对法律文本本身严格服从的要求,更加强调文本之外的个案公正、合情理等实质合理性依据。这对破解当下具有普遍性的法条主义裁判思维,无疑是一种很好的政策支持和启发。按照罪刑法定原则本意进行合乎逻辑的推演,绝不能推导出“法有明文规定即可定罪处罚”的结论。韦伯关于中国古代司法系“卡迪”模式(即“非理性”)的论断具有一定的事实依据及合理性,这种卡迪模式对实质公正的追求具有目的正当性,不宜将此简单视为“恣意司法”的代名词,其中体现的能动性判断具有司法出罪维度的意义。在目前刑法体系下,法的公正价值与法的安定性并不存在冲突,出罪的理论依据与规范依据完全可以得到恰当融合,但在法适用中需要缓和法的命令性要求。恰当的说理论证是嫁接法的安定性与个案公正的纽带,该过程实际上是将合情理、合目的等价值考量揉入刑法文本的理解、适用及说理论证过程当中。     

Educational saliency and careers in criminal justice: The case of Louisiana

While there is little consensus as to the exact form and structure of an academic criminal justice program, the traditional model of higher education, with its emphasis on qualified and productive faculty, has gained popular acceptance in the past decade. Concurrently, graduates of criminal justice programs have often found that prospective employers do not value their degrees. This article explores the relationships between student evaluations of their educational experiences, the structural characteristics identified as essential to an educational program, and the mechanisms used by ex-students to reduce dissonance caused by employer rejection or a poor job market.In 1980 a total of 411 recent graduates of eight criminal justice programs in Louisiana responded to a questionnaire designed to measure their attitudes toward and evaluations of their educations. Several key structural variables frequently associated with quality higher education failed to predict student evaluations. Two exceptions were ration of senior faculty and ratio of ex-police as faculty, and the effects of these variables on student evaluations were inverse. Overall, the best predictor of the saliency of one's educational experiences was the student's evaluation of the current job market in criminal justice. This variable was followed, in descending order by sex, ratio of faculty with senior rank, years since graduation, type of degree granted, and ratio of ex-police as faculty.     

Criminal justice faculty and criminal justice students: A case for the missing data

This article reviews the most current criminal justice education research. It examines the interrelationship between the work of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, the Joint Commission on Criminology and Criminal Justice Education and Standards, and the National Advisory Commission on Higher Education for Police, and describes and compares some of their more important findings. Discussed are types of criminal justice programs; characteristics of criminal justice faculty, particularly in terms of earned academic degrees; agency work experience; commitment to research and teaching; types of criminal justice curricula, as typified by certain educational philosophies; and criminal justice students. Although this article notes several areas with which future research might become fruitfully involved, the area in need of most immediate attention, and the area that current research has all but ignored, is the criminal justice student.     

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.     

和谐社会的刑事法治理性探讨

构建和谐社会需要实质的刑事法治,尤其需要高度重视、重新审视和检讨刑事政策的公正价值与谦抑宽容理性,合理兼顾犯罪防控和人权保障。在理论上,片面强调以报应主义论证刑法公正,把“刑法公正必然内在要求报应主义”这个命题作为一个“不言自明”的公理是存在很大疑问的。在刑事政策意义上的相对公正理性,不但内含了对犯罪规律的基本认识、对犯罪态势的基本判断、对可资利用的现实物质基础和精神文化资源的基本估价、对社会发展的基本考量、对人权尊重的基本态度,还内含了人性假设的基本立场以及在特定历史条件下的价值权衡和价值取向。现代刑事政策内含的谦抑宽容价值理念应当充分体现出最大限度地保障人权、最大限度地促进社会发展、最大限度地体现相对公正、最小限度地维持必要秩序这样一种“三大一小”理念;因此,现代刑事政策理念应当坚持“人权保障至上”、反对“犯罪防控至上”,坚持“公正至上”、反对“效率至上”。     

A SENSE OF INJUSTICE?:

The literature on the impact of processing a defendant through the criminal justice system has long assumed that this experience created a “sense of injustice” for defendants which militated against rehabilitative efforts within correctional settings. The current research examined this assumption with data collected from a sample of inmates in a medium and a maximum security institution within a midwestern state. The findings serve to question the assumption of the development of a sense of injustice, as most inmates perceive themselves as having been treated fairly by the criminal justice system. It is also found that there is little relationship between attitudes toward the preprison criminal justice system and measures of prisonization. The results are discussed in reference to their relevance to the functional and importation models of prisonization.     

The power model of juvenile justice

The author first identifies those characteristics which distinguish the juvenile justice system from its more widelypublicized counterpart, the criminal justice system. He next demonstrates how many textbooks in this area fail to portray adequately the uniqueness of juvenile justice. He concludes by developing and explaining the “Power Model,” which more accurately describes the juvenile justice system.     

The Prisoner's Perspective: A Needed View in Policy Formulation

The need for soliciting attitudes of convicted adult criminals towards the public system of criminal justice remains a neglected area of study. To the exclusion of the “prisoner's perspective”, criminological thought has relied extensively and, at times, exclusively on traditional criminological sources, public opinion polls and simulation studies, for relevant information regarding the criminal justice system. This paper seeks to break the cabal of silence by contending that the “prisoner's perspective” must be a requisite in any effort directed at making better decisions. The relationship between attitudes and behaviour, the sense of participation, the implementation of sound business practices, and the adherence to democratic principles are offered as possible rationales for the acceptance of the “prisoner's perspective”. It certainly cannot be suggested that the majority of ills confronting the criminal justice system are due to the non-recognition of the prisoner; however, unilateral and archaic policy construction and continued bypassing of the “prisoner's perspective” can serve only to harden the apparent resentment and contempt for a criminal justice system predicated on brass-bound policy ideals.     

The New Code of Criminal Procedure in the People's Republic of China: Protection,Problems, and Predictions

This paper is a “nuts and bolts” look at criminal procedure in China as outlined by Chinese and Western scholars, the Chinese code of criminal procedure, and my own observations in the People's Republic of China. China has finally formalized, at least to some degree, its criminal justice procedures and protections after years of ad hoc procedures. Also, along with codifications of criminal procedures, the Chinese are making greater use of defense attorneys, and trying to work out their version of “presumption of innocence.” Finally, the Chinese are grappling with these new rules and procedures, attempting to develop a fair and consistent system of criminal procedure that sometimes still gives way to political expedience.     

法律援助:中国刑事诉讼制度发展的瓶颈

我国的刑事法律援助在实践中华而不实,已引起社会的广泛关注乃至严厉的批评。国务院近期出台了《法律援助条例》,试图提高法律援助的质量,但经过分析发现,其制度夙愿也许并不能转化为现实。笔者以我国当代刑事诉讼制度对律师的依赖、法律援助对诉讼制度的影响为切入点,通过揭示刑事法律援助在整个司法改革中的重要地位,进而探讨完善法律援助的思路。同时还说明,如果整个刑事辩护执业环境不改变,即使法律援助本身完善到极致,保护被告人与被害人诉讼权利的目的也无法实现。     

The future of criminal justice administration and its impact on civil liberties

Criminal justice agencies have the means to increase their efficiency and to bring a larger proportion of the population within their net of surveillance and control. In the next twenty or forty years this form of control over citizens will increase. Simultaneously, growing bureaucratic and legal control mechanisms will prevent such control from becoming tyrannous. Over a longer period, given the possibility of a “no-growth” economy and a decline in the social and economic system that supports traditional civil liberties, there is a threat that an efficient criminal justice system would support tyrannous government. In the future tyranny can be avoided by the conscious policy of limiting the full potential of control over citizens by the criminal justice system.     

“同案不同判”的反向审视与规则建构——基于刑事责任本体论的思考

理论界与实务界对于“同案同判”的非理性坚守以及“同案不同判”的极端化批判,仅仅是刑事责任虚无化境遇下罪刑之间的“调节器”功能失灵所引致困惑中的冰山一角。绝对的“同案”本不存在,“同案不同判”现象的出现亦有其合理的一面。对此,应当放弃对刑事裁判量刑结果形式化的追求,采用逆向思维模式,将焦点转向对定性与定量“同”与“不同”之间充分的说理论证。同案不同判的规则建构,应当以罪刑法定为底线坚守,程序正义为形式保障,刑事责任功能发挥为实体支撑,其中,刑事责任的量的侧面是核心。     

专家参与刑事司法的多元功能及其体系化

从1979年刑事诉讼法颁布至今,专家参与我国刑事司法的制度功能变得开放而多元。专家制度功能的多元化,根源于刑事司法的三重逻辑:弥合法律人与专家之间知识鸿沟的“认知逻辑”;落实公检法机关“分工负责,互相配合,互相制约”原则的“权力逻辑”;保障当事人合法权益与实现控辩平等的“权利逻辑”。从结构主义与整体主义的视角看,当前,刑事专家制度存在明显的体系化缺陷,主要表现为专家制度过度权力化、专家制度功能尚未结构化、专家制度不够规范化。改进刑事专家制度,应当采取体系化路径:首先,将多元专家参与模式调整为鉴定人与专家辅助人二元专家模式;其次,彰显专家制度的“权利逻辑”,矫正过度权力化倾向;最后,构建系统化的专家制度,为专家服务刑事司法创造制度条件。     

Publication productivity of criminal justice faculty in criminal justice journals

An important dimension of university faculty life is publication expectation. Often the level of publication productivity is used to assess general program prestige or to evaluate individual faculty performance. The publication rates of faculty in PhD and master-level programs have been unclear. This study examined the publication rates using a general list of criminal justice journals, and a select list of the leading journals, over a five-year period. The faculty members were located in criminal justice programs that granted PhD and master degrees. Publication productivity rates were established for the two different degree level programs, and the institutions with the strongest publication rates were identified. Publication rates are only one factor used in the assessment of program quality and the relationship of publication rates to other program features is discussed.     

解读刑事法治

刑事法治是法治的根本标志之一 ,而刑事法治就意味着以刑法限制国家的刑罚权 ,罪刑法定原则也就成为了刑事法治的必然首选。而我国传统的法律文化认为 ,刑法是阶级统治的工具 ,是无产阶级专政的“刀把子”。因此 ,要把我国建设成为一个现代的社会主义的法治国家 ,除了健全法律制度之外 ,更重要的是 ,我们必须更新观念 ,正确认识刑法的功能 :刑法不仅保护国家的利益、维护社会的稳定 ,也保护公民个人的合法权益。刑法是人权保障的“大宪章”。     

习近平法治思想中的刑事法要义

有关刑事法治的丰富论述是习近平法治思想的重要组成部分,可以将习近平法治思想中的刑事法要义概括为“宽严相济,以发展眼光看问题”的刑事政策论、“完善对违法犯罪行为的惩治和矫正法律”的刑事立法论、“守住防范冤错案件的底线”的刑事司法论、“综合施策、标本兼治”的犯罪治理论。习近平法治思想中的刑事法要义在吸收国际社会刑事法治文明成果的同时,较为集中地体现了对中华法治文明的传承与弘扬。刑事法治建设与刑事法研究必须以习近平刑事法治思想为根本遵循,深刻领悟和把握习近平刑事法治思想的博大精深,避免做西方刑事法治经验与理论的“搬运工”。     

Expanding the Boundaries of Criminal Justice: Emphasizing the “S” in the Criminal Justice Sciences through Interdisciplinary Efforts

At its very core, the phrase “criminal justice sciences” points to the interdisciplinary nature of our field. However, efforts to promote and support interdisciplinary teaching and research face significant barriers. In this paper, I address how interdisciplinarity is conceptualized, the history of criminal justice as an interdisciplinary field, why we should promote interdisicplinarity, barriers we confront in interdisciplinary efforts, the degree to which ACJS members engage in interdisciplinary practices, factors related to interdisciplinarity, and opportunities for increased interdisciplinary research in criminal justice. To grow as an academic field, I conclude that we must look to other disciplines such as biology, computer science, policy, and women’s studies as we expand our disciplinary boundaries.