从人民代表到代表人民-由《选举法》的修改说起

一、楔子 在中华人民共和国建国六十周年之际，当改革开放行进三十年之际，全国人大常务委员会公布了《选举法》修改草案。就草案的内容看，其是我们政治体制改革的进一步深化与具体化，是人民民主之法治化的延伸，是人民当家作主的进一步扩大。     

社会保障成本转嫁及其自我强化机制

在我国经济体制转轨过程中,社会保障一直承担着国有企业改革的成本转嫁。近年来,某些重大公共工程和公共政策,诸如三峡工程、南水北调工程等,也向社会保障进行成本转嫁,加重了社会保障的负担。本文认为,为了防止把社会保障变成转嫁成本的公地,应建立社会保障评估制度,对重大工程和公共政策实行事先的社会保障评估。     

文化体制改革中公平与效率的关系探讨

中国深化文化体制改革、推动社会主义文化建设有两个目标,一个是发展文化事业,一个是发展文化产业,公平与效率是衡量这两个目标的重要纬度。公平目标包括了平等原则和效率原则,在文化体制改革中,公平与效率的关系依赖不同的条件,即因适用的范围不同而不同,这些范围和条件包括文化市场、政府和精神道德三个领域。深化文化体制改革要采取多种措施来兼顾公平与效率二者之间的关系。     

Generality, continuity, and change in offending

A number of criminological theories make either implicit or explicit predictions about the empirical relationship between prior and future offending behavior. Some argue that time-stable characteristics such as criminal propensity should account for any positive correlation between past and future criminal behavior for all individuals. Others contend that the positive association between offending behavior at different points in time are partly causal and partly spurious. Still others anticipate that different patterns will emerge for different groups (distinguished by their ciminal propensity) of individuals. Using a longitudinal data set comprised of 848 training school releasees, we test various hypotheses emanating from these different theoretical perspectives. The results indicate that (1) both stability and change have causal implications for one's offending behavior and (2) with but one exception, these effects do not vary between high and low criminal propensity groups.     

Hybrid law and human rights – banning and behaviour orders in the appeal courts

The desire of the New Labour Government to be seen as responsive to popular concerns and moral panics over hooliganism and anti-social behaviour is resulting in the increased use of legislative responses that bridge criminal and civil law. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Football Banning Orders are two key examples of this ‘Hybrid Law’, imposed as a response to criminal conduct, supported by criminal law sanctions, but operating under a civil law procedure providing fewer protections for defendants. These hybrid orders have the power to severely restrict the freedom of individuals who have not been found guilty of any criminal offence, and have been challenged in two important cases under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The decisions of the Appeal Courts that the purpose of the orders is merely preventative rather than punitive, and can therefore be justifiably imposed under a civil law procedure, is controversial and indicates an unwillingness to use the powers of the Human Rights Act to challenge such legislation and protect the fundamental human rights of defendants.Dr Geoff Pearson is Lecturer in Law, Management School, University of Liverpool