邓小平对我国社会主义政治文明建设的探索

文章阐述了邓小平在我国社会主义政治体制改革的过程中,对我国社会主义政治文明建设理论的探索和实践,这些探索有:关于政治改革的一些谈话隐含着“文明三分法”、对社会主义政治制度的建设和创新、借鉴资本主义政治文明建设成功经验建设社会主义政治文明等三个方面。这一理论对于我们今天社会主义政治文明建设仍然具有重要的作用。     

SPLIT IDENTITY AND CHILDREN OF DIVORCE

Divorce, although a statistical norm, is a developmental trauma to the children involved. This article looks at the two-camp emotional environment of a divorcing family and its effect on the formation of a child's identity. By examining developmental ages, chosen according to divorce research, the author attempts to show how the interspouse emotional cathexes negatively affect a child's sense of self in ways specific to the child's age at the divorce.     

当前推行行政执法责任制中存在的主要问题及对策研究

近年来各级人民政府、各行政执法部门广泛建立了行政执法责任制,对规范行政行为、提高执法质量、维护群众权益起到了积极的作用,但在执行中也暴露出一些问题。本文分析了一些突出问题的深层次原因,并对顺利推行行政执法责任制提出对策建议。     

Mass deaths by gas or chemical poisoning. A historical perspective

This review chronicles the characteristics of deliberate and accidental mass poisonings that occurred in World Wars I and II, in Bhopal, and in other historical cases up to and including modern wars. It also considers approaches to the investigation of such cases from the medicolegal as well as general standpoints.     

DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures

The DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics (ISFG) was convened at the 21st congress of the International Society for Forensic Genetics held between 13 and 17 September in the Azores, Portugal. The purpose of the group was to agree on guidelines to encourage best practice that can be universally applied to assist with mixture interpretation. In addition the commission was tasked to provide guidance on low copy number (LCN) reporting. Our discussions have highlighted a significant need for continuing education and research into this area. We have attempted to present a consensus from experts but to be practical we do not claim to have conveyed a clear vision in every respect in this difficult subject. For this reason, we propose to allow a period of time for feedback and reflection by the scientific community. Then the DNA commission will meet again to consider further recommendations.     

The sentencing reform act of 1984: A bold approach to the unwarranted sentencing disparity problem

Conclusion In 1984, after years of study and thorough debate, a bipartisan majority of the Congress enacted perhaps the most far-reaching reform of the federal criminal justice system in the history of the United States. The Sentencing Reform Act and the federal sentencing guidelines are now beginning to produce data indicating that the objectives of avoiding unwarranted disparity and invidious discrimination are being achieved.After an uncertain beginning, the guidelines are gaining acceptance by courts and criminal justice practitioners. As one appellate court observed in admonishing lower courts that the guidelines must be respected:We have embarked on a new course. Only time will tell whether the use of the guidelines will result in an improvement over the old system. But unless we follow the spirit and written directions of the guidelines, we will never know if they have been given a fair test. They at least deserve that.Indeed, the bold new approach to sentencing that is being followed today in federal courthouses throughout the United States deserves an opportunity to succeed, given its many beneficial features and the lofty goals toward which the reforms are directed. While ample work remains for the United States Sentencing Commission to monitor and improve the guidelines, indications at this still early date are that the experiment is succeeding.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the fifth conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, Parliament House, Edinburgh, Scotland, August 5–9, 1990. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Sentencing Commission.B.A., Davidson College 1964; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1967.B.A., Ohio State University 1974; M.S., Arizona State University 1980; M.A., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1983.B.S., Clemson University 1971; M.S., Clemson University 1975; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1978.