无罪推定原则的意义解读——一种诉讼法哲学分析

无罪推定已经成为现代国家的一项刑事诉讼法原则乃至宪法原则。无罪推定在各国立法例中虽然有肯定式和否定式两种表述方式 ,但其基本内涵却是相同的 ,即 :任何人在没有充分证据证明并由法院判决确定有罪之前 ,应作为无罪公民对待。作为一种关于正义的规范性命题 ,无罪推定原则具有内在的基本特征和诉讼程序规则 ,具有深厚的社会哲学基础和重要的政治法律意义。在建设社会主义法治国家进程中 ,无罪推定原则的进一步发展与完善 ,成为当代中国刑事诉讼法制现代化的迫切需要和时代课题。     

认罪认罚从宽制度实施中的五个矛盾及其化解

认罪认罚从宽制度在实施过程中暴露出以下五个矛盾:一是认罪认罚的自愿性前提与压制型法之间的矛盾,二是认罪认罚从宽的合意基础与实体真实原则之间的矛盾,三是不规范的从宽处罚与刑事法基本原则之间的矛盾,四是“检察官司法”与法官中立裁判原则之间的矛盾,五是简化、速决的一审程序与续审制的上诉审构造之间的矛盾。出现这五个矛盾的原因在于,作为认罪认罚从宽制度运行环境的基础性诉讼制度不健全,认罪认罚从宽制度的设计缺乏系统思维和整体考虑,相关的配套措施不完善。要化解上述矛盾,必须深入推进以审判为中心的刑事诉讼制度改革,努力提高刑事程序正当化水平;进一步完善认罪认罚从宽制度,健全公正与效率总体平衡的制度规范体系;完善相关配套措施,确保不因追求司法效率而损害司法的基本公正。     

The Right to be Presumed Innocent

The presumption of innocence has often been understood as a doctrine that can be explained primarily by instrumental concerns relating to accurate fact-finding in the criminal trial and that has few if any implications outside the trial itself. In this paper, I argue, in contrast, that in a liberal legal order everyone has a right to be presumed innocent simply in virtue of being a person. Every person has a right not to be subjected to criminal punishment unless and until he or she has done something that is criminally wrong. Since disagreements about allegations of criminal wrongdoing are inevitable, the liberal legal order requires a process for determining whether wrongdoing has occurred. In order to preserve the right not to be punished without wrongdoing, the accused person must be presumed innocent throughout this process. The presumption of innocence is therefore as much a basic human right as, for example, the right to bodily integrity or the right to freedom of expression. Specifications of and limitations on the right should therefore be justified not primarily in terms of their instrumental effectiveness in fact-finding or crime control but in terms of the role of the criminal process in a liberal legal order. I consider some implications of this view of the presumption of innocence for the pre-trial process and for substantive criminal law. I argue that the presumption of innocence, understood as a basic human right, should condition the entire pre-trial process; it has, however, minimal implications for the definition of offences.     

“存疑有利于被告人”原则的正确理解适用

"存疑有利于被告人"的思想源于古希腊自然法思想之正义观。作为一项法律规范,它最早出现于古罗马时期。在法律文化的变迁过程中,罪刑法定、无罪推定、刑法谦抑主义、正当程序等刑事法律思想为该原则的形成提供了思想滋养与理论支撑。但是,由于缺乏对该原则内涵的准确把握,导致我国司法实践中至今仍存在多种滥用该原则的现象,这不仅损害了司法公正,也削弱了刑法的法益保护机能。所以,对该原则的使用范围、使用条件和使用阶段需要从司法实践出发认真思考。     

我国疑罪从无的理论省察及规则重述

疑罪是刑事诉讼在司法实践中必然遭遇且无法绕开的实然性难题。刑事诉讼立法抑或刑事司法或显或隐地借助于从无来摆脱其困境。疑罪从无作为一项诉讼原则被我国理论所倚重,理论上不仅将其视为国外司法活动的惯常做法,在叙事上也将其与证据不足相等同,甚至还将其功能扩展到作为根治冤假错案的惟一途径。坚持疑罪从的无国家存在冤假错案的现实,与我国理论对其功能表达形成相当的反差,特别我国司法实践未遵从理论指导的现实样态,又使得人们对理论阐述衍生迷思并陷入困惑。实质上,疑罪从无是一种分配错误的裁判规则,是法官认定事实时存疑且心证无法形成情形下选择配置错误的一种方式,其本身不是减少错案的防范性规范,在证据理论层面不同于证据不足,理论也不宜作为纠正冤案的基本惟一准则。一般而言,对于有罪与无罪均有证据证明而难分伯仲时,疑罪应当从无;对于达到证明标准或者辩方自愿认罪而法官心证仍未形成,且对有罪无法排除合理怀疑的,此种情形下的疑罪也可以从轻。     

Judges,juries, and the decision to convict

The bureaucratic context of criminal prosecution emphasizes efficiency; its legal context emphasizes due process and procedural fairness. This paper focuses on the trial stage of prosecution where both concerns are central. It empirically examines the bench trial, an alternative to the more commonly used plea of guilty and the more traditional trial by jury. A comparison between trial by judge and trial by jury reveals striking differences in determinations of guilt. These differences have implications for commonly held assumptions about both jury and judicial behavior.     

Beyond normative constraints: Declining institutionalism and the emergence of substantive and procedural justice

Popular notions of what it means to be put on trial invariably generate thoughts of the adversarial criminal trial, most often before a judge and jury. However, the criminal trial as the site for the testing of evidence of wrongdoing via a model of proof that proceeds according to prescribed processes in a normative institutional milieu is in decline. Controversially, this decline has been met with resistance from the legal profession, academics, policy makers and other stakeholders seeking to preserve the due process model that defines the criminal trial as an adversarial exchange between state and defendant. While the due process model continues to dominate as popular conceptualisation, the twenty-first century criminal trial has changed to such an extent that it is no longer seen as the quintessential form for the meting out of procedural fairness and testing of state's evidence, that emerged toward the end of the seventeenth century. Rather, the rise of control orders, modifications to the law of evidence, and the right of the accused to confront their accuser, together with the inclusion of non-traditional agents of justice, specifically victims and the community, has brought forward an era of substantive and procedural justice that lies beyond the normative constraints of the criminal trial. Robed counsel and bewigged judges beware; the advent of substantive and procedural justice has allowed for greater innovation transgressing the orthodoxies of criminal law in common law systems of justice. This paper will consider the virtues of the introduction of a transgressive criminal procedure.     

论书面侦查说明的形式审查规则——在程序性裁判视野下的探讨

2013年《刑事诉讼法》及相关解释所构建的以非法证据排除和瑕疵证据补正为核心的程序性裁判,为侦查机关出具书面说明材料的适用设定了较大空间,悖离直接言辞原则,存在明显的正当性瑕疵。但侦查说明的适用,又在我国司法实践中具有一定的必要性与合理性,两种理念存在激烈的矛盾。就此,有必要根据程序性裁判的不同证明方式,试求形成侦查说明从底限规范性到精密规范性的多层级规范性阶梯,进而确立其审查与排除规则。借此,以精密的形式性规则,弥补侦查说明的公正性瑕疵,弥合其理论正当性与实践合理性之间的鸿沟。     

建构我国刑事诉讼合理构造的理念与原则

刑事诉讼构造是刑事程序法律规范所确立的刑事诉讼各要素之间的诉讼地位和相互关系。建构合理的刑事诉讼构造是修改、完善我国刑事诉讼法的关键。在我国 ,建构合理的刑事诉讼构造 ,必须确立控诉与审判分离、裁判权中立、控诉与辩护平等对抗等理念与原则     

刑事缺席判决制度引论

参与原则是刑事诉讼法的一项基础性原则 ,但为迅速终结诉讼、提高诉讼效益 ,各国均规定了缺席审判程序作为参与原则之例外。我国现行刑事诉讼法对刑事缺席判决程序缺乏明文规定。在诉讼效益价值日益得到重视的今天 ,一味否定缺判决制度的存在价值是非常不明智的。为此 ,应当在借鉴国外先进立法经验的基础上 ,结合我国的司法经验和具体国情 ,从协调诉讼公正与诉讼效益的宏观角度出发 ,构建我国的刑事缺席判决制度。     

我国刑事赔偿制度之改革

参照联合国人权公约的有关规定 ,应对我国刑事赔偿制度进行如下改革 :错案赔偿不能以一审或二审是否判无罪为标准 ,而应当是在终审判决有罪以后发现新证据并经再审改判无罪的情况下对已经服刑的当事人赔偿 ;如果侦查、检察和审判人员合法执行公务 ,即使被告人最终被判无罪 ,也不应当赔偿被告人在诉讼期间因为被逮捕、拘留或其他执法行为所带来的损失 ;如果系非法拘禁 ,即使被告人被判有罪 ,也应当赔偿 ;应当将搜查、扣押财产列入刑事强制措施之中 ,以区别合法的搜查、扣押和非法侵犯财产权 ,并落实对侵犯财产权的赔偿。     

End-of-life decision-making, the principle of double effect, and the devil's choice: a response to Roger Magnusson

Recently, the principle of double effect has come under scrutiny by Magnusson who believes it provides a subterfuge for those who act so as to end the lives of their patients. Specifically, he argues that the conceptual distinction between foresight and intention is dubious and, moreover, renders patients vulnerable to involuntary euthanasia. At the same time, Magnusson wants to protect doctors from criminal liability when faced with (what he understands to be) a "devil's choice" between ending the life of a patient or under-treating pain. Hence, Magnusson proposes that, subject to specific conditions, a so-called "defence of necessity" be recognised through either common law doctrine or legislation. However, to safeguard this defence, he must rely on what he most wants to reject: a fundamental aspect of the principle of double effect.     

不能犯判断标准之我见

近年国内一些学者开始对传统刑法学将不能犯作为未遂的类型之一的观点进行质疑,使不能犯成为理论界关注的问题。而笔者亦认为有严格区分未遂犯和不能犯的必要,故试图采用比较分析法,结合国内外关于不能犯的理论进行比较研究,建议我国采用具体危险说为标准区分不能犯和能犯未遂的界限,以实现刑法的社会保护机能和社会保障机能。     

夫妻一方对他方自杀而“见死不救”之刑事责任新探——从“宋福祥故意杀人案”之判决理由谈起

"罪刑法定原则"与"罪刑相适应原则"已经成为我国刑法的基本原则。"宋福祥故意杀人案"之判决理由欠缺合理性与合法性,夫妻一方对他方自杀而"见死不救"的不应当承担刑事责任。在刑事审判中,法官应"以事实为根据,以法律为准绳",以作出正当的个案裁判为己任,在审判中真正做到符合"罪刑法定原则"与"罪刑相适应原则",才能切实保障公民的合法权益,维护社会的和谐稳定,也才能真正实现依法治国。     

The Historical Development of Corporate Criminal Liability

The application of criminal liability to corporations grew out of a minor common law doctrine that masters were criminally liable if their servants created a public nuisance by throwing something out of the house onto the street. The expansion of that doctrine to full corporate criminal liability was primarily the result of judicial interpretation of common law and existing statutory laws, rather than the result of any-deliberate legislative action Civil law countries, lacking the tradition of judicial interpretation, have never developed the concept of corporate criminality. Corporate criminal liability will probably continue to expand in common law countries, regardless of its merits.     

Ignorance of the Criminal Law,and Duties to Avoid it

‘Ignorance of the law is no defence,’ so we are told from an early stage in our legal studies. Or, to be more accurate, ‘ignorance of the criminal law is no defence to a criminal charge.’ That appears to be the rule in this country, apart from a couple of well‐established exceptions and another possible one. I will argue that it is a preposterous doctrine, resting on insecure foundations within the criminal law and on questionable propositions about the political obligations of individuals and of the State. In developing these arguments, I will draw attention to the differing problems of ignorance of the criminal law in three broad areas – regulatory offences, serious crime, and offences of omission – with a view to suggesting that there is a great deal more that the State needs to do if the issue of ignorance of the criminal law is to be dealt with adequately and fairly. I begin by scrutinising the relevant rule of English criminal law and the justifications offered for it. I then go on to situate the ‘ignorance‐of‐law’ doctrine in the context of the principle of legality and the rule of law, those bastions of liberal criminal law theory. Part three then explores the three broad areas of the criminal law, and parts four and five carry the debate into the political obligations of individuals and of the State in these matters.     

令状主义的例外及其限制

我国刑事诉讼法并未明文将令状主义确立为一项基本原则。令状主义背后所体现的司法审查精神、对公权力的制约思想以及人权保障的理念值得在诉讼程序尤其是侦查程序中贯彻。在侦查程序的构建中,应将令状主义作为解释的指针之一。对于令状主义的例外情形应当进行限缩解释,否则将导致令状主义的空洞化,紧急处分说可以作为这种限缩解释的基本依据。作为先行拘留与扭送对象之一的现行犯,在刑事诉讼法上应做统一理解。从紧急处分说出发,预备犯原则上不得作为现行犯处理;对于"正在实行犯罪"这一要件的解释,必须同时具备现行性、明白性、急迫性,对于明白性的判断应坚持事前判断与事后判断的对应原则;对于"犯罪后即时被发觉的"这一要素的解释,应同时具备时间与空间上的接近性。     

论刑事诉讼中实体公正与程序公正之关系

程序公正近年来在我国法学理论界引起很大争论与探讨,就刑事诉讼中实体公正与程序公正之关系,各种观点百家争鸣,而该问题不仅为诉讼理论问题,且关系到诉讼中人权保障、诉讼模式等一系列实质内容,但有些提法抛开法律文化背景与法制现状,一味强调程序优先或过分坚持实体优先,有失偏颇。     

现代风险社会中危害性原则的角色定位

功利制约正义的国权主义刑法思想会使刑法成为控制风险与不安全性的重要工具,促使危害性原则内涵不断膨胀,刑法的社会机能随之扩张并使危害性原则的人权保障机能与批判机能逐渐丧失。在现代风险社会语境下,以保障人权、自由为本位的人本主义刑法理念仍然是立法与司法的基本准则。风险的控制应该是有梯度的,危害性原则必须与刑法谦抑思想并用才能成为刑事立法的指导原则;必须在形式的构成要件框架内,在形式理性优先于实质理性的前提下才能成为刑事司法的指导原则。     

指挥官刑事责任基本理论

指挥官刑事责任是指挥官因为其下级实施了犯罪而应当承担的一种共犯责任。该理论在20世纪随着一系列重要的国际刑事司法实践而逐渐形成,并在当前主要的国际刑事法律中得到了体现。要追究指挥官的刑事责任,必须证明三点:具有上下级关系;上级知道或者应当知道下级的罪行;上级指挥官未能采取合理、必要的措施阻止犯罪或者惩罚罪犯。但是,无论是在司法实践中,还是在理论研究上,人们对这个原则还有不同的认识与做法,一个科学、合理的指挥官刑事责任理论体系还有待建立。