论被害人诉权

<正>一、引言曾在贵州备受关注的"高三女生被抢劫、强奸、杀害案",随着终审判决"从轻发落"而引起轩然大波。该案中,被告人对"两次抢劫同一人,两次强奸同一人,两种方式去杀人"的犯罪事实供认不讳,一审被判处死刑,而二审法院却以被告人"坦白其罪行,认罪态度好"为由改判死缓。结果,群情激愤,舆论哗然,"不杀不足以平民愤"一语成谶。     

物权变动规则的体系化 评《物权法草案》第二章

<正>一、引言近现代民法典以概念主义所主导的体系化为基本特质,目的在于通过特定逻辑操作,使意义精确的概念和规则能自洽地连接成有机一致的体系,这正是潘德克顿科学思想的立法表达。我国物权法草案(下称草案)中的物权变动规则同样如此,无论从"公示"和"不动产登记"、"动产交付"之间的上下位关联,还是从第二章作为物权变动的通则既具体化了第一章的第4条,又给其他各章中的特定物权变动提供了框架性指导,都强烈表达了立法者在设计物权变动规则时所为的体系化努力。     

物权保护制度的立法选择 评《物权法草案》第三章

<正>一、问题的提出中国现行民事立法是以1986年4月12日通过,1987年1月1日施行的《中华人民共和国民法通则》(以下简称《民法通则》)为核心建立起来的民事法律体系。有关物权保护制度的一般规则体现在《民法通则》第5条、第73条、第74条、第75条、第83条、第106条第2款及第3款、第117条和第134条第1款及第2款。在《民法通则》的上述各项规定中,第106条第2款、第117条以及第134条第1款可谓是物权保护制度的核心内容。它们确立了一种不同于     

物权立法与法律理论 评《物权法草案》第一章

<正>一、引言法律的制定,在任何一个国家都会是重大的政治事件。但这丝毫不意味着,法律的制定仅仅是政治事件。萨维尼早已指出,法律由政治因素与技术因素共同构成,其中,技术因素所表现的是法律"独特的科学性的存在",它仰赖法学而得形成。就此而言,如果脱离了法学的支持,所谓法律,它表述的不过是制定者的专断意志。此时,无论立法的政治意义如何重大,皆     

THE STATE OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY*

After nearly 20 years of ferment in criminology, the reactive conception of criminality is the most intractable issue. It can be circumvented only if criminologists use official data to compute crime rates and to identify criminals or delinquents. That proposed strategy does not necessarily entail acceptance of the reactive conception, especially in light of an argument about etiological theories that purport to answer two of the four major criminological questions, those having to do with variation in the crime rate and with individual differences as regards criminality. Any such theory will be empirically indefensible unless it encompasses (1) some etiological condition as the independent variable; (2) the frequency of some type of behavior as an intervening variable; (3) an official criminality variable (for example, an official crime rate); and (4) a reactive variable, one which pertains to the behavior of legal officials and supposedly determines the connection between the intervening variable and the dependent variable. The argument bears on Marxist and conflict criminology only insofar as advocates of those perspectives genuinely pursue etiological theories about crime. Finally, apart from any substantive consideration, criminological theories will remain defective until criminologists adopt formal theory construction. The more general and important point is that some 20 years of ferment will not culminate in a new theory without some special strategy—if not the one proposed here, then another.