大力加强法院文化建设 弘扬核心价值观 展示司法形象 推进司法工作

7月5日至6日,全国法院文化建设工作会议在浙江宁波召开,最高人民法院院长王胜俊出席会议并发表重要讲话。他强调,各级人民法院要深刻认识加强法院文化建设的重大意义,高举社会主义先进文化的旗帜,坚持社会主义法治理念、“三个至上”工作指导思想和“为大局服务、为人民司法”工作主题,以弘扬公正、廉洁、为民司法核心价值观为根本,全面推进法院文化建设,     

加强完善司法公开 全力保障诉讼公正

为贯彻落实党的十七大精神和中央关于深化司法体制和工作机制改革的总要求,最高人民法院于2009年3月25日公布了《人民法院第三个五年改革纲要（2009—2013）》（简称“三五”纲要）。本文结合“三五”纲要及全国法院在司法实践中推行的各项改革举措,论述了人民法院在司法公开领域所取得的突出成就。     

论人民法院司法统计制度方法的改革与完善

人民法院司法统计由最高人民法院和地方各级人民法院管辖,这种部门负责的垂直体制和工作机制从司法统计专业化特点出发,有利于司法统计数据的收集和分析,有利于统计参与司法审判工作管理。但由于法院审判和执行工作的主导地位和司法统计工作的隶属性、辅助性、服务性角色,导致司法统计工作改革长期滞后于人民法院各项工作的改革和发展,司法统计工作地位越来越边缘化,呈现出许多困难和矛盾,影响司法统计工作的发展和整体功能的发挥,必须转变观念,以司法审判管理和信息咨询为进路作全面的改革和再造。     

江西省高级人民法院院长张忠厚代表:法院工作亮点纷呈 建议进一步加强机制体制保障

正王胜俊院长代表最高人民法院所作的报告,总结5年来的工作主题突出,亮点纷呈。司法理念不断创新。5年来,最高人民法院提出了"三个至上"指导思想、"为大局服务、为人民司法工作方针、"从严治院、公信立院、科学强院"等司法理念,这一系列工作理念指导全国人民法院工作,取得了显著成效。审判职能充分发挥。5年来,最高人民法院受理案件50773件,地方各级人民法院受理案件5610万件,两个数据同比均增长29%以上。通过刑事审判,     

司法改革的新征程

2008年12月5日,党中央批准了中央政法委关于深化司法体制和工作机制改革的意见。12月19日,最高人民法院院长王胜俊在全国高级法院院长会议上明确指出,最高人民法院应根据中央的部署要求,围绕中央确定的优化司法职权配置、落实宽严相济刑事政策、加强队伍建设、加强经费保障等重点,制定落实改革意见的实施方案,供各级人民法院贯彻实施。新中国人民法院的司法改革,在新的历史条件下又将迈出新的步伐,开始新的征程。最高人民法院在1996年3月召开的八届全国人大四次会议上,第一次提出把改革作为人民法院的一项重要工作。1997年9月,党的十五大确立了依法治国的基本方略,提出了推进司法改革的战略任务,人民法院司法改革由此拉开     

新时期群众路线司法价值的发掘、思考与实践

做好人民法院工作,必须始终站稳人民的立场,坚持群众路线,切实解决人民群众最关心、最直接、最现实的涉诉利益问题,不断满足人民群众的司法需求。胡锦涛总书记指出:"政法工作搞得好不好,最终要看人民满意不满意。"最高人民法院院长王胜俊多次强调:"建设社会主义法治国家必须坚持党的群众路线,立法要走群众路线,司法工作也要坚持群众路线,这是我国司法人民性的本质要求。"这些重要论述,为新时期人民法院的改革、发展和建设指明了方向。一、群众路线司法价值的发掘:从马锡五到陈燕萍在司法领域,"群众路线"一词很容易让我们联想到     

提升司法公信力专家学者座谈会在京召开

为了进一步推进公正司法,提升司法公信力,认真听取专家学者和律师界代表的意见和建议,由人民法院报社、《人民司法》杂志社和中国法院网举办的提升司法公信力专家学者座谈会,于2013年4月26日在最高人民法院召开。最高人民法院院长周强到会并讲话。周强指出,党的十八大明确提出了全面推进依法治国的要求,和提升司法公信力的要求。     

最高人民法院出台司法意见 践行司法为民加强公正司法提升司法公信力

<正>本刊讯10月28日,最高人民法院公开发布《关于切实践行司法为民大力加强公正司法不断提高司法公信力的若干意见》(以下简称《意见》),要求各级人民法院深入贯彻落实党的十八大关于加快建设社会主义法治国家的重大部署和习近平总书记关于法治建设的重要论述,积极回应人民群众对于新时期人民法院工作的新要求和新期待,切实践行司法为民,大力加强公正司法,不断提高司法公信力,充分发挥人民法院的职能作用。     

人民感受是司法改革风向标

最高人民法院院长王胜俊所作的最高人民法院工作报告显示出,人民群众的感受是司法改革的风向标;法院司法改革的具体推进也可以总结为:保民生、纾民困、听民意。保民生是人民法院工作的出发点和落脚点,也是为人民司法的内在要     

为创新驱动发展提供有力司法服务

2020年,人民法院在推动知识产权“严保护、大保护、快保护、同保护”方面采取了诸多行之有效的举措,并取得了显著成效。2020年,最高人民法院就我国知识产权司法政策和司法解释的制定与完善工作从全局高度进行了体系化构建,为我国各级人民法院公正、高效地审理知识产权案件提供了重要规范指引和政策指导。《关于全面加强知识产权司法保护的意见》等知识产权司法保护指导意见的出台,对于指导我国当前的知识产权审判工作,以及加强知识产权司法保护。     

Restorative justice: the indigenous justice system

Dramatically different beliefs about justice will produce dramatically different methods for achieving justice. The beliefs underlying the traditional Indigenous restorative justice systems, systems that dramatically differ from the European-based system practiced in the USA are presented. The discussion highlights the legacy of colonialism for tribal communities and the resilience and creative resistance that have continued to characterize the spirit and ingenuity of Indigenous peoples.     

Juvenile justice: a basic framework for the implementation of a functional juvenile justice system

The provision of appeal in arbitration law is a place where the judicial intervention can take place. One of the reasons many parties choose arbitration over litigation is the finality of the arbitral award even though a trial court may be more likely to deliver a legally correct result. The scope of appeal to the court in matters relating to arbitration is made very much limited by the statute in India. But despite several constraints and restrictions imposed by the legislature, this paper argues, the role of the judiciary still vastly remains interventionist in nature in some form or the other which is unacceptable.     

Doing justice to justice

Adshead's recognition that only when taken together can the many different conceptions of justice accommodate what is called for in the particularly demanding setting of forensic mental health care, is to be applauded. Each must be honoured and built into the systems of assessment and treatment that are the tasks of the forensic psychiatrist, she demonstrates. Adshead's far‐reaching revisions could resolve much that is troubling about the present practice of forensic psychiatry. Yet how much these revisions can overcome the moral dilemmas associated with dual roles in forensic psychiatry, is not so clear.     

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.     

Bargaining for justice: A means to resolve competing justice claims

In many types of social situations, individuals defend their claims to a portion of the rewards by arguing that they are just. Although a great deal of research demonstrates that individuals differ in their distribution preferences and thus their beliefs about what is fair, the literature curiously omits consideration of the consequences of these differences, especially the conflict they may engender. This paper first reviews the few attempts to address such justice conflict. The limitations of these approaches suggest concerns to be addressed in an alternative framework. The paper presents a theoretical discussion of this alternative that integrates assumptions about distribution preferences, justice beliefs, conditions fostering the emergence of justice conflict, and elements of negotiation processes as a basic framework for predictions about the bargaining strategies individuals may employ to resolve competing justice claims.     

Social justice and legal justice

The main aim of this paper is to challenge the validity of the distinction between legal justice and social justice. It is argued that what we usually call legal justice is either an application of the more fundamental notion of social justice to legal rules and decisions or is not a matter of justice at all. In other words, the only correct uses of the notion of legal justice are derivative from the notion of social justice and, hence, the alleged conflicts between criteria of social and legal justice result from the confusion about the proper relationship between these two concepts. Two views about the social justice/legal justice dichotomy are of particular importance and will provide the focus for the argument: this dichotomy is sometimes identified with a classical distinction between distributive and commutative justice and sometimes with the distinction between substantive and procedural justice.