State Politics and the Right to Counsel: A Comparative Analysis

One of the most significant recent developments in the study of crime and justice is the emergence of theoretical explanations for the dramatic changes in criminal justice policy over the past few decades. These theoretical accounts address not only highly visible developments, such as the meteoric rise in incarceration rates, but also less-conspicuous shifts in due process and civil liberties, and they do so by attributing more-repressive policies to the emergence of a political culture that has substantially redefined crime and justice. This article focuses on an important due process issue, the legal representation of indigent defendants in criminal courts. We describe the state of indigent defense policy, particularly structure and funding, across the states in 2002, and analyze variation on two dimensions where states may exercise discretion: the extent to which states assume responsibility for funding services (rather than relying on local governments), and the generosity with which these programs are funded overall. We test hypotheses that link funding for services with the ideology of state political leadership, public values about tolerance and race relations, and states' public welfare policy climates. We find little support for the prediction that a welfare climate shapes more progressive indigent defense policies. However, the results suggest that the racial threat hypothesis helps account for spending on indigent defense, and that Republican control of the statehouse results in the perpetuation of local responsibility for program funding. Normative literature on indigent defense suggests that the patterns we observe may have important consequences for the quality of indigent defense services across states. Further, the findings reported here suggest that the politics of the punitive turn, as it has played out across the states, may be responsible not only for shifts in crime control policy, but for due process policy as well.     

Balancing Security and Democracy, and the Role of Expertise: Biometrics Politics in the European Union

What is the relationship between security policies and democratic debate, oversight and rights? Does coping with security threats require exceptions to the rule of law and reductions of liberties? The inquiry that follows tries to answer such questions in the context of the European Union and takes the case of biometric identification, an area were security considerations and the possible impact on fundamental rights and the rule of law are at stake. Some hypotheses are explored through the case study: “securitisation” and “democratisation” are in tension but some hybrid strategies can emerge; the plurality of “authoritative actors” influences policy frames and outcomes; and knowledge is a key asset in defining these authoritative actors. A counter-intuitive conclusion is presented, namely that biometrics, which seems prima facie an excellent candidate for technocratic decision-making, sheltered from democratic debate and accountability – is characterised by debate by a plurality of actors. Such pluralism is limited to those actors who have the resources – including knowledge – that allow for inclusion in policy making at EU level, but is nevertheless significant in shaping policy; it explains the central role of the metaphor of balancing security and democracy, as well as the “competitive cooperation” between new and more consolidated policy areas. The EU is facing another difficult challenge in the attempt at establishing itself as a new security actor and as a supranational democratic polity: important choices are at stake to assure that citizens’ security is pursued on the basis of the rule of law, respect of fundamental rights and democratic accountability.     

Goodbye to the Despot: Feldman on Islamic Law in the Ottoman Empire

Noah Feldman's 2008 book, The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State , provides a sweeping review of the constitutional history of the Islamic polity that connects the past to developments in the Middle East today. The Ottoman Empire is vital to his argument. This essay critically evaluates Feldman's treatment of the Ottoman period, within the larger context of Islamic history, and in so doing considers the understudied constitutional history of the empire. Without denying the importance of the ulema and the shari'a , it argues that the empire was a hybrid of many different traditions and the centrality of Islamic law should not be overstated.     

Misunderstanding Corruption and Community: Comparative Cultural Politics of Corruption Regulation in the Pacific

This paper will take as its empirical foundation the author’s experience of corruption and regulation in small Pacific island states. The argument is that notions of corruption and strategies for its regulation suitable for modernized societies, which lack cultural specificity and community engagement, may in fact stimulate corruption relationships in transitional cultures. The other consequence of the imposition of inappropriate definitions and regulation strategies is a profound misunderstanding of communities of dependence. In fact, corruption control can misconstrue and exacerbate economic and political dependence environments, fostering the conditions for corruption which accompany socio-economic development. Two remedies are suggested. First, corruption requires an appreciation which is ‘community-centered’, while at the same time not being neutralized by disconnected cultural relativity. Second, an enterprise theory of corruption in modernized societies and international political/commercial entities may assist in the relevant translation of global anti-corruption policies in a way which advances good governance in traditional communities. This is so when corruption is conceived as dependant on phases of modernization, and the tensions which arise when the interests of societies at different phases intersect. Corporate citizenship and compliance with anti-corrupt business practices by major corporations with a commercial interest in these transitional economies may be more beneficial than deference to uniform international codes of governance.

浅谈司法鉴定改革三题

司法鉴定是指在诉讼活动中鉴定人运用科学技术或者专门知识对诉讼涉及的专门性问题进行鉴别和判断并提供鉴定意见的活动。2005年2月28日《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》（以下简称《决定》）是我国司法鉴定工作的重大改革。在改革司法鉴定制度时。必须围绕司法公正这一主题．树立现代的司法鉴定理念。     

试论法医学鉴定和医学鉴定之差异

随着司法鉴定制度改革的不断深入,越来越多的临床医学从业人员加入到法医学鉴定的队伍中来。在这种大趋势下,一个极易形成的误区就是把医学鉴定与法医学鉴定混淆起来。事实上,两者虽然在许多方面有相似之处,但毕竞有本质的不同。医学鉴定重视的是损伤本身,而法医学鉴定则是在医学鉴定基础之上,从法律规定的角度为损伤定性。因此,要求我们的法医学鉴定人既要重视医学知识的培训和提高,也要学习法律知识和法医学知识,才能更好地完成司法鉴定工作。     

司法鉴定管理立法势在必行

司法鉴定管理问题,已成为当前鉴定界倍受关注的热点。本刊自今年第1期发表全国人大内司委负责同志答记者问——落实“三个代表”重要思想把司法鉴定管理纳入法制化轨道一文之后,收到了不少探讨司法鉴定管理问题的来稿,我们遴选了部分专家的文章,特辟“专家论坛”栏目,以笔谈形式,研究司法鉴定管理中的实际状况和理论问题,旨在促进司法鉴定的立法建设,推进司法鉴定管理体制的改革与完善。     

社会鉴定机构涉鉴被诉案件解决路径研究

当前,针对不满鉴定意见而引发的鉴定纠纷,当事人常采取多种维权方式,除鉴定投诉、信访上访外,有些会直接向法院起诉社会鉴定机构。通过研究发现,当事人起诉社会鉴定机构案件的裁判结果多为驳回起诉或诉讼请求,解决鉴定纠纷的效果不佳,且由于存在审理裁判困境,法院在处理此类案件时似乎觉得相当棘手。为了解决鉴定管理与诉讼规制未紧密衔接而衍生出的鉴定纠纷,以及倒逼鉴定机构/鉴定人重视提升鉴定质量,有必要合理构建当事人起诉鉴定机构制度。     

司法鉴定统一管理若干问题探讨

全国人大常委会《关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》（以下简称《决定》）自2005年10月1日颁布实施以来,我国的司法鉴定机构、司法鉴定人、司法鉴定的执业范围等逐步纳入了科学化、规范化、法治化管理,消除了司法鉴定管理中的混乱状态,进一步完善了我国司法鉴定制度,使司法鉴定的客观性、中立性、科学性有了保障,从而更好地为诉讼活动和司法公正提供更好的服务。但在如何理解《决定》、如何贯彻执行《决定》过程中产生了一些分歧,加之有关部门囿于权力与利益之争等原因,其中主要是对司法鉴定登记的统一管理及对某些业务范围的界定不明确,因而影响了《决定》正确、全面、深入地贯彻实施。     

Lesser-Evil Justifications: A Reply to Frowe

Sometimes one can prevent harm only by contravening rights. If the harm one can prevent is great enough, compared to the stringency of the opposing rights, then one has a lesser-evil justification to contravene the rights. Non-consequentialist orthodoxy holds that, most of the time, lesser-evil justifications add to agents’ permissible options without taking any away. Helen Frowe rejects this view. She claims that, almost always, agents must act on their lesser-evil justifications. Our primary task is to refute Frowe’s flagship argument. Secondarily, it is to sketch a positive case for nonconsequentialist orthodoxy.

     

统一思想 明确任务 推进司法鉴定管理工作的顺利发展——司法部部长吴爱英同志在全国司法鉴定管理工作会议上的讲话

(2005年8月31日)同志们:这次会议是部党组决定召开的一次重要会议。会议的主要任务是:以邓小平理论“和三个代表”重要思想为指导,贯彻落实党的十六大和十六届三中、四中全会精神,牢固树立和落实科学发展观,认真学习贯彻中共中央转发的《中央司法体制改革领导小组关于司法体制和工作机制改革的初步意见》和全国人大常委会《关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》,进一步提高认识、统一思想,理清思路、明确任务,就当前和今后一个时期的司法鉴定管理工作作出部署,积极推进司法鉴定管理体制改革,推动司法鉴定管理工作顺利、健康发展。关于开展司法鉴定…