International Recognition of Victims' Rights

Since its inception, the United Nations has adopted two GeneralAssembly resolutions dealing with the rights of victims: the1985 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victimsof Crime and Abuse of Power and the 2006 Basic Principles andGuidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victimsof Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and SeriousViolations of International Humanitarian Law. The focus of theformer was on victims of domestic crimes, while that of thelatter is on victims of international crimes; more particularly,gross violations of international human rights law and seriousviolations of international humanitarian law. The 2006 Principlesare, for all practical purposes, an international bill of rightsof victims. Their adoption has been hard-fought, but their implementationboth at the national and international levels is sure to stillface many obstacles. Parallel to this historic development havebeen decisions by the European Court of Human Rights and theInter-American Court of Human Rights, as well as provisionsin the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), givingstanding to victims in ICC proceedings, but also certain rightsof compensation. These parallel developments, as well as otherswithin domestic legal systems, evidence a wide movement towardsthe recognition of the rights of victims of crime, whether domesticor international, or gross violations of human rights. Thisarticle re-traces the historic origin of victims' rights indomestic and international legal systems, focusing particularlyon the adoption of the two international instruments mentionedabove, and more particularly on the negotiating history of the2006 Principles. A detailed commentary of these Principles constitutesthe centerpiece of this article.     

Victims' Rights in Criminal Trials: Prospects for Participation

Victims in common law jurisdictions have traditionally been unable to participate in criminal trials for a number of structural and normative reasons. They are widely perceived as 'private parties' whose role should be confined to that of witnesses, and participatory rights for such third parties are rejected as a threat to the objective and public nature of the criminal justice system. However, recent years have witnessed both a major shift in attitude in relation to the role of victims within the criminal justice system and a breakdown in the public/ private divide in criminal justice discourse. This article considers the standing of the victim within the criminal trial against the backdrop of such changes, and examines the arguments for a more radical course of reform that would allow victims to participate actively in criminal hearings as they are able to do in many European jurisdictions.     

Victims' Rights, Victims' Expectations, and Law Enforcement Workers' Constraints in Cases of Murder

Research on crime victims and their experiences with the criminal justice system suggests that victims' rights (e.g., victim impact statements) and victims' services (e.g., crime victims' compensation, counseling) have not significantly improved victims' satisfaction with the criminal justice system or their recovery from the crime. Thus, we appear to know little about how to satisfy and assist victims of crime. This study uses the symbolic interactionist perspective to examine victims' experiences with law enforcement workers (e.g., detectives, counselors) with a focus on people who have lost a loved one to murder ("bereaved victims"). The data come from in-depth interviews with thirty-two bereaved victims, seven law enforcement workers, and three crime victims' advocates in Union County (pseudonym). Bereaved victims define the victim role differently from law enforcement workers, creating two main points of conflict with workers: (1) a conflict over their deceased loved one's body, and (2) a conflict over the flow of information in the case. Bereaved victims' frustrations over these conflicts created problems for their recovery. Bereaved victims' efforts to see their deceased loved one's body, guide detectives' investigation, and learn information about the murder and the investigation took a back seat to detectives' interests in protecting the integrity of the investigation and building a strong case for the prosecution. Policy implications are discussed.     

Property Crime Victims' Decision to Notify the Police: Social,Cognitive, and Affective Determinants

Previous research suggests that 3 general processes underlie the decision of property crime victims to notify the police: One that is cognitively driven by reward/cost considerations, one that is affectively driven, and another that is socially driven. This study is the first to employ a community sample of crime victims to compare the 3 processes within a single study. Computer-assisted interviews were conducted with 422 property crime victims (n = 129 burglary, n = 293 theft) located via a random digit dialing procedure. Logistic regression analyses showed that each process independently accounted for a significant amount of the variance in victim reporting, and that there were no interactions among the three processes in predicting reporting. Of the 3 processes, social influence was the best predictor of reporting. Analysis of the affect-driven process showed that reporting was primarily a function of the level of fear rather than anger or the level of generalized arousal upon discovering the crime.     

性犯罪被害人权利保护的域外经验

与一般刑事犯罪被害人相比,性犯罪被害人在获得社会同情的时候,往往又容易被一般的社会舆论所中伤,其所受到的身心损害既持久又不易恢复;因此,美国、英国、德国、澳大利亚、日本、韩国等国家以及我国的台湾、香港地区主要从性犯罪被害人的知情权、参与权、免受二次受害权、请求赔偿和补偿权出发制定一系列非常细化、有效的规范,以实现对性犯罪被害人的特殊保护。     

美国《犯罪被害人权利法》扩张适用及其启示

《犯罪被害人权利法》标志着美国犯罪被害人保护立法达到了顶峰,但是环境犯罪被害人的出现使该法的适用引起了争议。反对者的主要理由是基于审判程序的复杂性、被害人的难以确定性和媒体报道所导致的不公正性,然而,支持者认为适用该法不仅不会导致审判程序复杂化,而且能够合理地保护环境犯罪被害人的权利并保证审判的公正性。引起争论的深层原因在于环境犯罪被害人的特殊性。美国《犯罪被害人权利法》的扩张适用对我国环境犯罪被害人的保护具有启发意义。首先是扩展传统犯罪被害人的定义;其次是保障环境犯罪被害人的刑事诉权;最后是完善环境犯罪被害人的救济制度。     

浅谈罪犯权利的保护对改造的作用

罪犯是公民,他们自然也享有权利。树立正确的罪犯权利观,保护罪犯的合法权利,对于 维护社会主义法制秩序,促进对罪犯的教育改造工作,提高改造罪犯的社会效益有着十分重要的意义。     

死刑案件被害人权利保护问题

在刑事司法领域,人权保障是一个内涵丰富且不断发展的制度体系。既要保障犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的合法权利,也要保障被害人的合法权利,同时注意二者平衡。1996年《刑事诉讼法》确认了被害人的诉讼主体地位,但由于缺少配套机制,导致实践中出现诸多问题。新《刑事诉讼法》在很大程度上完善了犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的诉讼权利及其保护,但较少涉及被害人的权利保护问题。与普通刑事案件相比,死刑案件给被害人造成的伤害尤为严重,应当给予特别保护。     

论单位未尽防治性骚扰义务的民事责任

性骚扰现象在机关、企业、学校等场所时有发生,因而亟需法律规制。《民法典》第1010条第2款规定了单位防治性骚扰的义务,此义务应属确保单位中个人精神健康的安全保障义务。单位是否存在性骚扰防治上的过失,除了判断单位在预防方面是否依法作为外,还应当在处置环节检视单位是否知道或应当知道性骚扰行为存在,并是否及时采取合理的制止或纠正措施。在法解释层面,单位若未尽防治性骚扰的安全保障义务,应参照适用《民法典》第1198条第2款的规定,由单位对受害人承担补充责任。但补充责任的适用既不利于受害人救济,亦不利于激励单位积极预防。故此,在立法论层面若有明确责任规范之可能,应规定单位与实施性骚扰的行为人承担连带责任,但单位对行为人享有追偿权。此种模式可兼顾受害人救济、单位激励及故意侵权人制裁三方面的立法目的。     

Can the Human Rights Bodies be Used to Produce Interim Measures to Protect Environment-Related Human Rights?

International environmental law does not protect individuals as such. On the other hand, human rights do not formally encompass the right to a healthy environment. This article argues that human rights bodies are suitable forums to protect environment-related human rights. They can do so by producing interim measures to prevent States' actions or inactions towards the environment from infringing on human rights, even if the harmful character of those actions is uncertain. It is demonstrated that the recourse to the precautionary principle is possible to achieve such anticipatory protection and is supported by recent developments in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice. In particular, the article shows that human rights bodies can develop interrelationships and interdependency between rights of different normative values in different areas of international law that will lead to equitable interim measures prescribing positive obligations that are reasonable and appropriate.     

实现行政法治以保障人权——纪念《行政诉讼法》颁布20周年

中国宪政的进步和行政法治的进步在很大程度上离不开《行政诉讼法》的颁布和实施,同时中国宪政发展的曲折和行政法治进展的艰难却又是在一定程度上通过这部《行政诉讼法》在实施中的艰辛和困难表现出来,因此,可以说检讨我国《行政诉讼法》的成就和困难,就是研讨我国宪政的成败得失,就是研讨我国行政法治的进步和不足。     

履行司法行政职能 维护和保障人民权益

维护和保障人民权益是司法行政机关的重要职责。胡锦涛同志指出：“维护人民权益，是党的根本宗旨的要求，也是做好政法工作的目的；要坚持以人为本，坚持执法为民，司法公正，把维护好人民权益作为政法工作的根本出发点和落脚点，着力解决人民最关心、最直接、最现实的利益问题，为人民安居乐业提供国家有力的法治保障和法律服务”。这给司法行政部门提出了新的更高的要求。     

警察权与公民权平衡初论

警察权与公民权利作为公权力与私权利的各自代表,无论是在理论还是在现实层面都存在冲突的可能。警察权的过度行使必然侵犯公民正当权利,但在对警察权力的规制和控制过程中,矫枉可能会过正,导致警察权威的丧失。面对这种双重困境,行政法基础理论中的“平衡理论”为我们研究警察权提供了新的视角和理论支持,通过平衡理论,探寻警察权与公民权利的“黄金分割点”,最终实现公民权利有效保障与警察权高效运行的统一。