中国刑事诉讼改革亟需理清的几个问题--以刘涌案为背景的分析

本文以辽宁刘涌黑社会犯罪案件的改判所引发的论战为背景,对与此相关的中国刑事诉讼法制改革亟需理清的几个宏观性问题进行了深入研究,进而提出如下主张刑事司法改革应当适度超越公众观念,但其路径及其力度的选择又要虑及公众的观念形态;大陆法系职权主义刑事诉讼更宜于作为我国刑事诉讼变革的主要摹本;注重细节建设,确保改革措施的可行性与实效性;公平比公正更重要;践行司法独立,提高司法素养,型塑司法权威.     

论刑事诉讼侦查阶段犯罪嫌疑人的人权保障

在讨论侦查阶段对犯罪嫌疑人的人权保障命题中,较为流行的观点是主张引进西方的诉讼模式,比如沉默权制度、比如讯问时的律师在场权等等,以此作为当前我国进行司法改革的权威参照。但作者以为,我们不能完全以西方国家的标准来衡量自己,而是应该站在一个客观的角度看问题,应该根据本国的实际情况,走符合本国国情的法治之路。当前比较可行的办法是,呼吁本国的立法机关,重新修订现行刑事诉讼法。重要的是:对法条的修改要尽可能的具体化、明确化,要少定原则,多订细则,只有法律具有了良好的操作性,才能有效保障犯罪嫌疑人的合法权益。     

穿越透明的正义——论司法透明度的构建与机制保障

依照现代司法理念，司法必须以公众为基础，反映公众最广泛的信赖，如果司法神秘化，司法过程带有暗箱操作，公众没有知情权，即使司法结果公正，公众也难以认同。中国司法的人民性和司法权的公共性，决定了司法机关司法活动应当向社会公开。司法透明有利于提升当事人的程序主体地位，保障当事人的诉讼权利。同时又是预防司法腐败的有力武器和防止司法黑幕的重要手段。20多年来，中国各级人民法院着力于提高司法透明度工作，在法治框架下，推行公开审判，改革诉讼方式，强化裁判文书说理，加强庭审的实质化等，取得了较大的进展。但除法律规定应当保密的环节以外，司法过程不透明现象在审判工作的各个环节还不同程度地存在，说明中国的司法透明度建设还有很长的路要走。如何正视这些问题，井在认识司法透明度价值的基础上对之以合理的构建和保障，是当前中国人民法院审判工作中的一个重要课题。     

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.     

Developments in criminal law and criminal justice

LL.B., Victoria University of Wellington 1969; J.S.M., Stanford University 1972.     

Developments in criminal law and criminal justice

Conclusion It follows from what has been said above that history, principle, and authority combine to compel the conclusion that § 80's guarantee of trial by jury precludes a verdict of guilty being returned in a trial upon indictment of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth otherwise than by the agreement or consensus of all the jurors. That being so, § 57 of the Juries Act, 1927, cannot, consistently with § 80, operate to authorize the conviction of either of the appellants by a majority verdict. Their convictions were unconstitutional and must be set aside.The appeal should be allowed. The orders of the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal should be set aside and in lieu thereof it should be ordered, in the case of each appellant, that the appeal to that court be allowed, that the conviction be quashed and a new trial ordered.B.A., Columbia University 1972; J.D., Hofstra University 1975.     

Developments in criminal law and criminal justice

Developments in criminal law and criminal justice     

Drugs, markets and criminal justice in Poland

Since 1989 drug situation in Poland has changed considerably. First, Polandhas become a major European producer of synthetic drugs. Second, it has becomea major transit country for smuggling drugs. Third, while its drug markets arenot yet fully developed, they offer now a much broader selection of drugs thanthe pre-1989 staple drug, the home-made ``Polish heroin'. Despite some alarmabout a growing drug problem, Polish drug policies remained for many years primarily public health oriented. The recent drug law reforms may signify, however, a shift towards a more punitive approach. This paper explores theconditions surrounding the emergence of both new markets and new controlstrategies.     

司法权力运行与当事人诉讼权利保障实证研究

“司法文明指数”2015年的调查报告,对“司法权力”和“当事人诉讼权利”两个一级指标及其内容进行了调整,通过相关调查数据可以展现司法权力运行和当事人诉讼权利保障的现状.由此数据我们可以发现,司法权力运行与当事人诉讼权利保障的现状既有进展,也有不足.数据对于了解实践现状有其积极意义,但是同时要客观看待其中的局限.司法权力运行与当事人诉讼权利保障之间的关系将是未来研究的重要课题.     

Citizenship, mental illness, and the criminal justice system

The concept of citizenship in regard to persons with mental illness has gained increasing attention in recent years, but little empirical research has been conducted on this topic. In addition, little research or conceptual writing has been done on the topic of criminal justice in regard to citizenship for people with mental illness, in spite of the high incidence of criminal charges and incarceration among this group. We review our work on an applied theoretical framework of citizenship, including its origins in mental health outreach work to people who are homeless and in a jail diversion program. We then suggest the contribution the framework can make to the intersecting issues of mental illness, its criminalization in the U.S., and the goal of community integration for people with mental illness.     

科学发展观与职务犯罪侦查阶段犯罪嫌疑人的人权保障

在职务犯罪的侦查阶段,由于侦查机关掌握法律赋予的广泛而强大的权力,而犯罪嫌疑人只是消极的被追诉方,双方的力量相差悬殊,因此,侦查机关的侦查活动必然涉及到对犯罪嫌疑人人身自由、个人隐私以及各种财产权利的限制与剥夺,两者的权利必然发生碰撞,犯罪嫌疑人的个人权利必然会受到侵犯。检察工作必须始终贯彻科学发展观,落实到职务犯罪侦查中,就是要正确处理好惩治犯罪与保障人权的关系。结合现行法律和司法实践,笔者封存在侵犯犯罪嫌疑人人权的问题以及原因进行分析。同时。笔者认为应从法律本土化、地方性知识的角度出发,从转变侦查观念、完善立法、转变侦查模式、强化监督四个方面入手,对职务犯罪侦查阶段犯罪嫌疑人的人权进行保障。     

Marxism and the critique of criminal justice

Conclusion The purpose of this article was to consider the nature of the Marxist critique of criminal justice. My conclusions are, first, that the combination of Marx and retributivism is an opportunist one that does not take account of the significance of historical materialism not only as a critique of social relations, but also of the genesis of ideologies, including moral ideologies, from such relations. An analysis of the juridical form that justice assumes in bourgeois society, and its basis in exchange relations, shows the specifically historical nature of bourgeois justice in a way that the analysis merely of its functions cannot.Second, a study of the economic basis of capitalism as the unity of relations of exchange and production, shows the essentially formalistic nature of justice within capitalism, and from this analysis is derived the critique of justice in general, and criminal justice in particular. From this point of view, the important contradiction within retributivism between criminal justice and social injustice can be seen as an inevitable consequence of the contrast between the spheres of exchange and production. Exchange relations give rise to a juridical conception of justice at the same time as production relations render this conception formalistic. The result is that in capitalist society the demand for criminal justice is always and unavoidably associated with a deficiency in social justice. The dichotomy between criminal and social justice is a necessary feature of capitalist society, and since retributive criminal justice requires for its validity a combination of the two, the theory is forever doomed in its practical application to self-contradiction.I would like to thank Peter Cameron, Dean Clarke and Ian Taylor for reading and commenting on this paper. Of course they are not responsible for its contents.     

Sentencing rationales, judicial discretion, and the practice of criminal fines in Israel

Much attention has been paid over the last three decades to the examination of the criminal fine, its administration, enforcement policies, and effectiveness. Yet, one research topic has often been overlooked: the link between sentencing rationales, judiciary discretion, and fining policy. The present research, based upon ninety hours of phenomenological semi-structured interviews undertaken in a random sample of forty active Israeli magistrates, six hundred verdicts, and quantitative data regarding the fining policy in Israel, analyzed the degree of harmony/disparity between these variables. The main findings revealed lack of confidence in the ability of the criminal fine to successfully achieve different penal objectives, scarcity of knowledge of actual fining administration procedures, and a high degree of harmony between fining rationales and ideology.     

刑事诉讼中的司法证明规则

尽管刑事诉讼法在 1996年进行了较大规模的修订 ,对抗制开始引入中国刑事司法制度 ,但是司法证明机制并没有在这一制度中确立起来。结果 ,不仅控辩双方的诉讼对抗容易出现混乱 ,而且法官对于诉讼进程似乎拥有无限的自由裁量权。因此 ,在未来的刑事证据法中 ,必须重新构建证明对象、证明责任、证明标准规则 ,使得法庭审判真正保持最基本的诉讼形态。     

Colonialism and the criminal justice system in Nigeria

This article examines the development and subsequent evolution of Nigeria's criminal justice system. The history of the Criminal justice system in Nigeria dates back to the colonization of the country in the late 1800's by Europeans, who introduced imprisonment based on their own correctional system.

Although interpretation of the causes of the development of the Criminal Justice system in Nigeria may differ, there can be no disputing the fact that the system is foreign‐made. Here was an invasion and revolution in social practice. The earlier events that led to the development of Nigeria's criminal justice system include: the British occupation of Nigeria, The Nigeria‐Europe confrontation and the Slave Trade. Although some British participants in the development of criminal justice in Nigeria had humanistic and religious inclinations, the system was formed to protect the Europeans from the natives they were exploiting and oppressing.     

Business offenders in the criminal justice process

How are various types of business offenders treated by criminal justice institutions? Focusing on a range of “crimes against consumers” under Food, Trading Standards, and Weights and Measures laws, this article concludes that a variety of interrelated factors affect agencies' enforcement tactics and the disposition of cases. The nature of the offences involved, the form of law involved and its pattern of enforcement, and the identities and types of offenders all affect the course and outcome of the process. Few neat generalizations can be made about such factors, and simple allegations of agency bias are difficult to sustain. Significant “structural advantages” do, however, work to the benefit of some classes of offenders, such as large and established businesses, and these advantages are compounded as cases move from stage to stage. There are no simple remedies available for such contrasts in treatment, but the analysis does point to the need to consider basic concepts of crime and law enforcement within their ideological contexts.     

Interest groups in the criminal justice process

This article reviews recent research about interest groups in criminal justice policy making and considers the state of knowledge in this area. Portions of major studies by Downs, Berk et al., and Berk and Rossi are discussed. These studies came to varying conclusions about the nature and importance of interest group influence. Three points are suggested by the research described: (1) groups composed of criminal justice professionals (law enforcement personnel, corrections officials, attorneys) are more influential than those with social service or reform concerns, (2) particular social, cultural, and economic conditions in the various states affect interest group structure, power, and goals, (3) criminal justice legislation is generally enacted on a consensual basis without open conflicts in state legislatures and without major public involvement in the process. Some evidence that would tend to modify these conclusions is also presented. Avenues of future research concern are suggested and a framework for further analysis of interest groups in the politics of criminal justice is proposed.