Corrective Justice as A Principle of Criminal Law: A Prolegomenon

This article argues that corrective justice is an adequate principle of criminalization. On my interpretation, corrective justice holds that, in order for an action to count as a crime, there needs to be a plausible normative story about an offender having violated the interests of a victim in a way that disturbs their relationship as equal persons and a subsequent story about responding to crime in a way that corrects this disturbance. More specifically, I claim that corrective justice is concerned with the protection of interests that persons have in owning private goods throughout standard interactions with other persons. The argument proceeds in three steps. First, I specify the subject-matter that principles of criminal law need to ground and provide an outline of the idea of corrective justice. Second, I show that corrective justice can account for the main cases of crime and the salient modes of criminal responsibility. I also argue that corrective justice can make sense of two prima facie recalcitrant types of cases (rape and inchoate offenses). Third, and finally, I address two objections to my corrective justice theory of criminal law. The first concerns the implications corrective justice has for locating criminal law along the private/public law divide. The second objection raises the putatively problematic consequences corrective justice has for understanding the separation between criminal and civil law.     

论刑法学方法对刑事立法与司法的意义

在刑事法治系统中,立法与司法是两个非常重要的子系统。研究刑法学方法,①对于这两个子系统的良性运转,进而促进刑事法治系统的良性运转,具有重要意义。一立法完善,对于中国刑事法治而言,是一项重要的制度建设工作。二十世纪八十年代以来的刑事立法,始终贯穿着这一主题。(一)立法完善的含义与意义完善之意,指(使之)完备美好。②立法完善,即通过立法程序使法律、法规进一步完备的过程与结果。刑法的立法完善亦然。废除、修改非正当、不合理的规定,增补与社会现实相适应的内容,是刑法立法完善工作的基本方式。制定立法解释,是刑法立法完善工作…     

联合国刑事司法准则与我国刑事法律改革若干问题

1998年10月5日,我国签署了《公民权利和政治权利公约》。该公约最为明确、集中、具体地规定了联合国刑班司法准则．我们有必要将我国的刑事立法与联合国刑事司法准则相对照．寻找差距．并提出改革、完善的具体措施。从而推动我国刑事法律向前发展。试就涉及刑法、刑事诉讼法方面的问题作了一些探讨。     

Theorizing Criminal Law Reform

How are we to understand criminal law reform? The idea seems simple—the criminal law on the books is wrong: it should be changed. But 'wrong’ how? By what norms 'wrong’? As soon as one tries to answer those questions, the issue becomes more complex. One kind of answer is that the criminal law is substantively wrong: that is, we assume valid norms of background political morality, and we argue that doctrinally the criminal law on the books does not embody those norms. Another kind of answer is that the criminal law as it stands presupposes certain empirical facts, and yet those facts do not hold. Traditionally, criminal law reform has been informed by both these answers. Analytical theorists examine doctrine for its conceptual structure, and social scientists examine the actual workings of the criminal justice system. This tidy picture is, however, challenged by social constructivist accounts of the criminal law. They challenge the stability and conceptual purity of doctrine, and they challenge the objectivity of social science. On the basis of these challenges, they undermine the ambitions of traditional criminal law reform, and argue that the only reforms to the criminal law that matter are politicized ones—that criminal law reform is pointless unless it serves the interests of the marginalized and the dispossessed. It seems undeniable that in some sense our perceptions of crime in our society are indeed moulded by social forces, and that crime does not exist independently of the social structures and processes that help to define and control it. But why should those insights have the implications for our understanding of criminal law reform that they are alleged to have? How could it follow from those insights that criminal law reform either becomes radicalized or valueless? The aim of this paper is to show that what can legitimately be taken from the emphasis on the social constructedness of crime does not require wholesale abandonment of the traditional picture of criminal law reform, even though it may require some modifications of that picture.     

再看意大利的刑事司法改革

一、曲折的刑事司法改革路径意大利是西方文明的一个重要发祥地,是罗马法的故乡。在相当长的一个历史时期里,它的法学思想、法学观念引领着世界法学的发展方向。但是,伴随着席卷欧洲大陆的法国大革命的到来,这种领先地位逐步被具有更加新鲜理念的法国所取代,从而由领导者地位转而成为了一位追随者。意大利的刑事诉讼法律与其他部门法学相比,出现得相对较晚。据记载,统一的意大利刑事诉讼法始于19世纪末。第一部正式、统一的意大利刑事诉讼法典诞生于1865年。由于受法国大革命的影响,这部法典明显地效仿了拿破仑法典,表现出典型的纠问式风格…     

我国刑事审判制度改革前瞻

我国刑事审判程序的设计存在不少疏漏 ,在一定程度上呈现出非理性状态。本文从审判权的归属、简易程序的改造、庭审调查程序的改革、死刑核准权的再配置、审判救济程序的正当化、法官弹劾制度的建构等方面对实现我国刑事审判制度的科学化、理性化进行了论证。     

论刑法国际化下我国刑法的发展

伴随着经济的全球化发展,法律制度的国际化步伐也在加快。基于对人权保护重要性的共识,刑法国际化已经是全球化背景下各国刑法完善的一个非常重要的方向。我国作为法治后发型国家,其刑法现代化的进程应该顺应当今世界的刑法趋势,在刑法国际化的背景下,应立足于中国已有的刑法国际化立法,积极合理地吸收国外有益的立法经验,在注重我国刑法本土化发展的同时,注重刑法理念的更新和现有刑事制度的完善,减少我国刑法国际化进程中的差异性,以便促进我国刑法的长足发展,实现刑法应有的机能。     

论刑事司法规律

规律是支配事物发展过程的自然的、固定的因素.司法是人类社会以法律手段解决社会矛盾的活动.司法规律是司法制度产生和发展的规律,它表明人类司法制度发展需要经历从无到有,从野蛮到文明,从专制到法治的发展过程.刑事司法规律是司法规律在刑事诉讼中的体现,法治社会的刑事司法应当实现公正审判和采用正当程序原则,司法公正是刑事司法的价值,正当程序的一系列原则是司法公正的保障.     

刑事诉讼制度改革中的“底限正义”——对中国刑事诉讼制度改革理路的质评

我国刑事诉讼法修改在即,但是关于刑事诉讼制度改革我们始终缺乏一种方法论上的指引。“底限正义”理论是一种指导刑事诉讼制度改革的有效方法和策略,它一方面认可人类社会存在着最低限度的正义要求,从而为以法律移植为主要内容的我国刑事诉讼制度改革提供了理论依据;另一方面又承认正义的相对性和多元性,承认法律制度移植的可选择性,从而为我国当前刑事诉讼制度改革提供了微观操作步骤。同时,“底限正义”理论对我国刑事诉讼法学研究的深入拓展也有着重要的借鉴意义。     

刑事司法发展与监狱改革

中国司法部设监狱管理局,管理和指导全国监狱工作。按我国法律规定,中国监狱依法收押改造经人民法院判处有期徒刑、无期徒刑、死刑缓期二年执行的罪犯。目前,全国共有监狱674所,全国现有在职监狱人民警察28万人,离退休警察约10万余人,在押罪犯为156万余人,监禁率为10万分之120。2004年底,中国政府积极推进司法体制和工作机制改革,提出了改革和完善诉讼制度,切实解决方便人民群众诉讼,加大人民法院判决执行力度问题;改革和完善诉讼收费制度,加大法律援助和司法救助力度问题;改革和完善监督体制,确保司法公正等10个方面35项改革任务,成为新中…     

从《所有人的正义》看英国的刑事司法改革

本文详尽介绍了英国刑事司法改革的背景、宗旨、目标、步骤和具体内容;在此基础上,总结出英国刑事司法改革的五大趋势,并阐述了英国司法改革对我国司法改革的几点启示.     

Criminal Justice in a Democracy: Towards a Relational Conception of Criminal Law and Punishment

This article starts from the observation that in classical Athens the discovery of democracy as a normative model of politics has been from the beginning not only a political and a legal but at the same time a philosophical enterprise. Reflections on the concept of criminal law and on the meaning of punishment can greatly benefit from reflections on Athenian democracy as a germ for our contemporary debate on criminal justice in a democracy. Three main characteristics of the Athenian model will be analysed: the self-instituting capacity of a democracy based on participatory and reflective citizenship, political power as the capacity of citizens for co-operating and co-acting with others, and the crime of hubris as one of the key issues in Athenian criminal law. These analyses will lead to the conclusion that one of the key issues of a democratic legal order lies in its capacity of recognizing the fragility of the human condition and of developing workable and effective standards of justice in that context. A relational conception of criminal law and punishment, based on proportionality, reflexivity, mutual respect and responsibility fits best with a democracy under the rule of law.

论我国刑事审判监督程序之改革

刑事诉讼法的修改是当前理论界和实务界关注的热点。作者选取其中的刑事审判监督程序(又称刑事再审程序)作为研究对象,从其存在和改革的必要性、重构的理念以及改革的具体设想三个方面进行了全面、系统的探讨。作者认为,刑事再审程序的存在是符合诉讼规律的,是实现司法公正所必需的;我国刑事再审程序对于实现司法公正和提高效率存在明显的缺陷,需要在更新观念的基础上进行改革。文章指出,现代化的刑事再审程序必须把追求公正、纠正错判和既判力理念、禁止双重危险规则结合起来。作者还就我国刑事再审程序的改革提出了若干建议。