论司法程序中的公正与效益

本文主要从宏观的角度探讨诉讼公正与效益的关系问题,从分析效益入手,提出几个诉讼模型,通过逻辑推理得出结论,阐明公正与效益辨证关系,并将理论应用到实践中,希望能有益于目前所进行的司法审判改革这一现实问题的深入。     

由杜培武案解读司法程序层面的公正审判权

宪法规定了公民的基本权利,公正审判权就属于公民基本权利的保障权。杜培武案是公民没有得到公正审判权的典型案件,本文从司法程序层面的审判为中心的三阶段说进行论述,分析公民得到公正审判权可是公民的基本权利的保障权。     

转型社会司法程序公正问题的若干思考——基于深圳等地调研的分析与思考

中国当前处于社会转型关键期,社会主体多元、利益多元、矛盾多元,面临的社会风险也是多元的。司法天职在于定纷止争,司法的价值追寻在于社会公平正义,司法的公正能够引领社会的公正。司法的功能决定了它在整个社会风险管控中起着十分重要的作用。     

论司法的程序公正

实现司法公正是司法制度改革的一个重要目标.程序公正是整个司法制度的基础.本文从三个方面对司法的程序公正进行论证.即司法程序公正存在的不足;司法程序公正的价值内涵;司法程序公正的实现.     

论民事诉讼程序公正必备要素之平等性

程序公正是程序的内在价值,它为人们提供了评价诉讼程序优劣的价值标准。但该原则十分抽象,因而为诉讼程序本身设立一些具体、可操作的公正标准,便成为当务之急。而平等性是公正实现的前提条件,本文试从民事诉讼当事人平等及其现实意义方面,揭示平等性在民事诉讼中的重要地位。     

通过正当的法律程序控制死刑——从公正审判权的国际标准谈我国死刑司法程序的完善

公正审判权的国际标准大体上包括平等的法律保护权、无罪推定的权利、侦查阶段的人权、审判阶段的人权、判决后的救济权、不受重复追究的权利和在适用刑法方面的权利七个方面。我国法律规定了着眼于限制死刑适用的特别司法程序,但对照国际标准,这一程序在立法和实施两个方面均存在明显的问题,并由此产生了相当严重的危害后果。为了保证死刑案件的公正审判,严防错杀无辜,争取在合理可接受的限度内平稳地减少死刑的数量,立法人员和司法人员应当坚决摒弃长期以来主导刑事司法全过程的"专政型司法"观念,尽快树立"公正型司法"观念;立法机关和司法机关应当参照公正审判权的国际标准全面完善我国死刑案件的侦查程序、一审程序、二审程序、死刑复核程序和审判监督程序。     

通过正当的法律程序控制死刑——从公正审判权的国际标准谈我国死刑司法程序的完善

公正审判权的国际标准大体上包括平等的法律保护权、无罪推定的权利、侦查阶段的人权、审判阶段的人权、判决后的救济权、不受重复追究的权利和在适用刑法方面的权利七个方面。我国法律规定了着眼于限制死刑适用的特别司法程序,但对照国际标准,这一程序在立法和实施两个方面均存在明显的问题,并由此产生了相当严重的危害后果。为了保证死刑案件的公正审判,严防错杀无辜,争取在合理可接受的限度内平稳地减少死刑的数量,立法人员和司法人员应当坚决摒弃长期以来主导刑事司法全过程的专政型司法观念,尽快树立公正型司法观念;立法机关和司法机关应当参照公正审判权的国际标准全面完善我国死刑案件的侦查程序、一审程序、二审程序、死刑复核程序和审判监督程序。     

论刑事司法实体公正与程序公正的统一

司法公正以实现社会公正为目的.完善的刑事司法公正包括刑事司法的实体性公正和程序性公正两个方面.国际社会以<公民权利和政治权利国际公约>为基础,在实现社会公正方面取得了巨大成就,对于积极而审慎地推进司法改革具有积极意义.     

论司法程序现代化的标准

司法程序现代化是在传统司法程序基础上不断扬弃而形成与新的社会背景相适应的更为合理科学的现代司法程序的过程。司法程序现代化的标准不但是司法程序现代化成果的衡量标准,同时也指向现代司法程序所应具有的基本特征。司法程序现代化的标准包括形式、价值和实践三个方面,形式标准可以区分为周延性和体系性两个方面,价值标准则包括公正、和谐和效率三个方面。     

论程序公正

公正与法律的关系是法哲学上一个永恒的论题 ,一般公正只是通过程序公正才能最终实现。程序公正的必备要素含程序主体地位的确立与强化、确信真实的定案依据和审判者中立。     

Distributive and procedural justice: Multifaceted meanings and interrelations

Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice have taken on various interpretations. Even when the meaning assigned to each term has been specified and clarified, however, no single set of unique interpretations for each term allows for an unambiguous set of interrelations among the terms. That is, definitional clarity alone cannot resolve all of the questions that can be raised about how one construct is related to another. My discussion raises some of those questions to illustrate that point. A related point is that although an agreed upon set of conceptual defintions might allow for independence of the constructs and thus their independent manipulation, in practice—and as measured (rather than manipulated) variables—these constructs inevitably reveal considerable overlap. Several different reasons for this overlap are explored and the implications discussed.     

Why procedural justice in organizations?

This article reviews the existing research and theory on procedural justice and considers how it may be applied to the study of organizational behavior. It begins by distinguishing between the concepts of distributive justice and procedural justice and noting the historical contexts within which they emerged. Existing conceptual contributions and the research inspired by them are reviewed. The few existing studies applying procedural justice notions to organizational contexts are summarized, and the contributions of the articles to the present issue of this journal are reviewed relative to these efforts. The article closes by discussing the dual benefits of studying procedural justice in organizations: the enhanced understanding of the concept of justice and the behavior of people in organizations.     

Privacy and procedural justice in organizations

This paper advances the argument that individual privacy is a procedural justice issue in organizations. A review of the organizational privacy literature supports this argument, and new directions for procedural justice research are suggested. In addition, it is argued that a focus on individual privacy highlights the political and paradoxical implications of procedural justice issues in organizations.     

Children's criteria for procedural justice: Developing a Young People's Procedural Justice Scale

A Procedural Justice Scale for Young People was developed to examine the criteria that Grades 7 and 9 students thought were important in judging the fairness of the procedures used to judge a case of a hypothetical young thief. A 10-item scale was developed using unidimensional scaling and factor-analytic techniques. The study supports the earlier work on adults by Thibault and Walker (1978) and Tyler (1988) showing that for children too procedural justice concerns make a contribution to satisfaction with the outcomes and procedures of a case.     

Context effects on procedural justice: Effects of interrelatedness,trust, and penalty on procedural preferences

The relationship of context to procedural preferences was studied by examining the effects of interrelatedness, trust, and penalty on preferences for adversary and inquisitorial hearing procedures. Subjects imagined themselves members of different communities and were led to believe that they had been accused of committing an offense of which they knew they were innocent. Interrelatedness, trust, and penalty interacted to affect subjects' ratings of both hearing procedures. Subjects in highly trusting settings (i) preferred the inquisitorial procedure more than those in nontrusting settings and (ii) preferred the adversary procedure less than their nontrusting counterparts. A penalty effect was also found. As penalty increased, subjects increased in their preference for the adversary procedure and decreased in their preference for the inquisitorial procedure, but only in noninterrelated communities. The implications for prior research and for the role of interrelatedness in procedural choice are discussed.     

Perspective and procedural justice: Attorney and litigant evaluations of court procedures

A comparison of the procedural justice judgments of attorneys and those of lay people judging the same procedures offers an opportunity to generate new information on what factors affect judgments of fairness. In a survey of reactions to conventional and innovative procedures in a United States district court, attorneys and lay people involved in tort and contract cases were asked to judge the overall fairness of court procedures and the fairness of specific procedures used in arbitration hearings. The respondents were also asked for their judgments concerning the favorability of the procedure's outcome, the opportunity to have the case heard and decided by an impartial third party, and their side's control over what happened in the case, all of which are factors found in previous studies to affect procedural fairness judgments. The results showed that, while attorneys gave higher overall fairness ratings than did litigants, the difference was not affected by the procedure assigned to the case. In addition, attorneys and litigants appeared to use the same standards to evaluate the fairness of procedures, although they disagreed about where the procedures they experienced fell on these dimensions. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.     

论法治社会与促进司法公正

新形势下必须依法治国,建设社会主义的法治国家必须司法公正。     

Group representation and procedural justice in multigroup decision-making bodies

Representation of groups in policy-making bodies is increasingly at the center of intergroup conflicts in plural societies. This paper proposes a social psychological approach to the issue of group representation which is based on procedural justice and intergroup-relations research and on cross-national analyses of constitutional arrangements. The allocation of representation is central in intergroup relations because it determines the relative control various groups have in important decision-making processes. It is, however, not the only determinant of control. After discussing the principles that people believe to be relevant in the allocation of representation, the paper presents a quantitative model describing how the distribution of control in two-group decision-making bodies varies as a function of both group representation and decision rule. This model is then extended to cases of multigroup decision-making bodies.     

论构建和谐社会的底线——司法公正——从一次调查分析我国的司法现状及改革对策

和谐社会的根基就是民主法治,而法治社会则必须保证司法公正。在构建社会主义和谐社会的进程中,依靠公正的司法来维护社会的公平与正义,通过司法裁决的方式来解决社会问题、经济问题乃至政治问题,应当成为整个社会的首选。因此,探究影响司法公正的原因,实现和维护司法公正,已经成为构建和谐社会的迫切要求与重要任务。     

The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior

To investigate the relationship between fairness and organizational outcomes, the present study examined the survey responses of government employees at six Federal installations. Indices of procedural and distributive fairness were factor-analytically derived. Multiple regression analyses indicated that both the procedural measures and the distributive measures were significantly related to measures of job satisfaction, evaluation of supervisor, conflict/harmony, trust in management, and turnover intention. Procedural fairness accounted for significantly more variance than distributive fairness in each of these criterion measures, except for turnover intention. These findings are related to conceptual and methodological issues concerning procedural fairness and organizational behavior.