DECISION-MAKING IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS:

This article attempts an analysis of the relationship between the guilty-plea bargaining process and presentence investigation reports. It is argued that because plea-bargaining has increasingly come to involve bargaining over sentence. probation officers, as a consequence, have increasingly come to experience encroachment upon their decision-making autonomy. In this predicament they have found little support from judges, who, committed to norms of managerial efficiency will reassert the primacy of the plea-bargain when probation officers refuse to ratify previously negotiated sentence agreements. The policy implications of this for the criminal justice system are discussed.     

刑事政策视野中的刑法目的解释

<正>刑法适用解释是纸面上的刑法得以适用于个案的必经路径,而刑法适用解释的关键是解释方法的选择及其位阶安排问题。这一问题的棘手之处在于,各种解释方法着眼点的不同往往导致考察者思维上的混乱。     

演进与启示:中国民间社会在刑事政策体系中的角色变迁

前言对世界各国而言,抗制犯罪都是一个“宏大的叙事结构”,也是一个几乎永恒的课题。现代社会中,反犯罪都是在政府或者官方的主导下进行的,应该说,这有其必然性。首先,国家或者官方承担抗制犯罪这种公共产品,符合国家作为“守夜人”的现代宪政理念;其次,抗制犯罪这一公共产品,其“原料”本身就来自于公共领域,如针对犯罪的法律,打击犯罪的专业力量,抗制犯罪所需的物质准备等等,通常都是国家能够提供,而若由社会组织或个人提供这一     

THE EFFECTS OF CRIMINAL LAW ON ARBITRATION

While arbitration is essentially a private law institution, its various aspects have ties to criminal law. Therefore, it is highly important to examine particular circumstances that criminal law norms may have on the arbitration procedures, or arbitral awards, as well as the consequences of these affects. In this respect, the implementation of the rules of Criminal Procedure, in particular rules regarding inadmissible evidence--in the arbitration proceedings; direct or indirect influence of criminal court judgments on arbitration proceedings; or criminal responsibility of arbitrators, are some of the important issues that deserve to be examined. In this study, these issues will be evaluated with respect to the theory and the practice of Turkish Law.     

德国刑事诉讼法对被告人的保护

<正> 一、查明真相与保护人格作为刑事程序的中心矛盾在国家强制面前避免自证其罪与保护私人领域作为相互冲突的问题范围。在查明真相的利益与保护被告人人格权的利益之间,每一个法治国的刑事程序法都需要作出权衡。德国刑事诉讼法正是在这些相互对抗的要求之间,表现出持续不断的奋斗。在加强对被告人的保护方面,司法判决作出了主要的努力,与此同时,新近的立法也不允许在私     

LEGISLATIVE PROGRESS IN CHINESE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS SYSTEM: THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW OF CHINA

As a cornerstone of the legal system, the Criminal Procedure Law of China addresses a series of issues, such as the allocation of public power and the protection of private rights, and so on. The Amendment (drafted in August 2011) to the Criminal Procedure Law meets the demand of the whole society. Generally, the Amendment makes more progress in the advocacy system, evidence system, compulsory measures, investigational procedure, trial proceedings and enforcement rules. Specifically, it sets forth special procedures, which make the proceedings (in the whole) more reasonable. The Amendment involves five aspects: (a) prohibiting the extorted confession by torture and protecting the legal rights of criminal suspects; (b) excluding illegal evidence; (c) strengthening the supervision of investigation, and standardizing judicial actions; (d) improving the defense system and enhancing the role of lawyer; and (e) overcoming difficulties in the witness presence and promoting the quality of trial.     

略论刑法学研究中的“事”与“器”

<正>"工欲善其事,必先利其器",这句古语最直白地说明了工具的重要性,同时也包含了"事"与"器"的单向逻辑关系——由事择器。然而,对于一门学科("事")的研究和发展而言,研究方法("器")的意义却复杂得多,其中至少还存在着一种相反相成的逻辑——"因器明事"。前者自不必说;后者的意义则在于,方法的突破也许会改变学科的研究内容甚至整个学科的知识体系。基于学科与研究方法的这种"事"与"器"的辨证关系,对于方法的研究一方面有必要阐明学科本身之"事",不应以假想的"事"之前提来研究"器"之选择;另一方面也要关注方法对学科的反作用。近来,刑法学研究方法的问题受到越来越多的理论关注,本文即在这两个逻辑路径的指导下,对我国刑事法学的"事"与"器"进行导论式探讨,以期对目前我国刑法学研究在本体内容和研究方法上的瓶颈与迷失的解决表达些许管见。     

刑事犯罪与民事不法的分界 以美国法处理藐视法庭行为为范例的分析

<正>一、问题的提出藐视罪(contempt)是一个很古老的犯罪,源于古代习惯法,作为对蔑视国王或其政府的一种报复。在美国,藐视罪有两种情况:藐视立法机关和藐视法庭。所谓藐视法庭(contempt of court),就是将一切影响法官审判或执行判决的干扰行为(包括在诉讼程序进行中而实施的干扰