当代中国“司法不独立”的原因及对策

本文探讨了当代中国存在"司法不独立"问题的原因,认为人们在如何认识"司法独立"问题上存在误区;在提高法官素质问题上陷入先有鸡还是先有蛋的怪圈;现行的错案追究制影响了法官独立地行使审判权.在我国当前司法权尚处于权利弱势的情况下,提出了解决当代中国的"司法不独立"问题的几点对策.     

Trans-Regional Courts in China: A Study of Establishment Models and Jurisdictional Rules

The trans-administrative regional (trans-regional) court was created as part of China’s judicial reforms in 2014. Thus far, only two trans-regional courts have been established, namely the Shanghai No. 3 and Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People’s Courts. An important reason for this slow pace is that the trans-regional court has transcended the current structural framework under the Organic Law of the People’s Courts in that (1) it is neither a specialized court that hears certain types of cases, (2) nor a local court established completely in keeping with administrative divisions. Therefore, the legal nature and status can only be clarified and justified when there is a clear definition of this new court system in the Organic Law of the People’s Courts. Several models, namely the independent set-up model, full reshuffling model and limited transformation model, have been proposed for the establishment of trans-regional courts. The most practical and efficient among these models is the limited transformation model, aiming to reconstruct the existing railway transportation courts. The trans-regional courts may have exclusive, alienage, or supplemental jurisdiction. Each form addresses particular types of special and major trans-regional cases, and other cases based on the theory of consolidation.     

我国刑事羁押制度的重构——从比较法角度分析

由于刑事羁押制度的缺位,当前我国刑事强制措施体系存在着结构性缺陷,必须从根本上加以变革。通过国内外对比分析,笔者以为,地位独立、捕押分离以及法院主导程序应是我国刑事羁押制度的发展趋势。在此基础上,笔者进一步对构建中国刑事羁押制度提出了初步构想。     

THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE: THE COURT ASSIGNMENT AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

A survey of 355 judges examined the differences in judicial satisfaction between those assigned to problem-solving courts—such as drug treatment and unified family—and judges in other more traditional assignments such as family law and criminal courts. The unified family court systems, like drug treatment courts, have generally adopted the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Significant differences were found on each of the three survey scales: (1) helpfulness, (2) attitude toward litigants, and (3) positive effects of assignment. The judges who were in the problem-solving courts (drug treatment and unified family court) scored higher on all three scales than those who were not (traditional family and criminal court). The group of problem-solving court judges consistently scored higher than the other group of judges, with the drug treatment court judges scoring the highest. The group of traditional criminal court and family court judges scored less positively, with the criminal court judges having the lowest scores. The problem-solving court judges were more likely to report believing that the role of the court should include helping litigants address the problems that brought them there and were more likely to observe positive changes in the litigants. They were also more likely to believe that litigants are motivated to change and are able to do so. They felt more respected by the litigants and were more likely to think that the litigants were grateful for help they received. The problem-solving court judges were also more likely to report being happy in their assignments and to believe that these assignments have a positive emotional effect on them.     

论和谐社会理念下人民法庭的弱司法化

在我国,人民法庭是一定历史阶段的产物,它在成立之初及以后相当长的时期内,在很多方面均发挥了重要作用.但随着社会的发展同,人民法庭工作也面临着困境,集中表现在纠纷的解决与规则之治之间出现了矛盾和背离,"两便"原则并未带来预期效果,人民法庭的特殊功能难以发挥等.和谐社会的丰富内涵隐寓着完善的社会纠纷解决机制,在构建和谐社会的大背景之下,根据我国当前及今后一段时间内的司法实际,为了更好地发挥人民法庭的特殊功能,寻求纠纷解决与通过法律达到规则之治之间的统一,应适时改变人民法庭的传统角色定位,将其从完全的司法性质改造成弱司法性质的简易纠纷处理机构,并通过相关制度的构建加以实现.     

Institutionalizing inequality in the courts: Decomposing racial and ethnic disparities in detention,conviction, and sentencing*

A significant body of literature has examined racial and ethnic inequalities in sentencing, focusing on how individual court actors make decisions, but fewer scholars have examined whether disparities are institutionalized through legal case factors. After finding racial and ethnic inequalities in pretrial detention, conviction, and incarceration based on 4 years of felony court data (N = 83,924) from Miami-Dade County, we estimate nonlinear decomposition models to examine how much of the inequalities are explained by differences in criminal history, charging, and for conviction and incarceration, pretrial detention. Results suggest that inequality is greatest between White non-Latinos and Black Latinos, followed by White non-Latinos and Black non-Latinos, ranging from 4 to more than 8 percentage points difference in the probability of pretrial detention, 7–13 points difference in conviction, 5–6 points in prison, and 4–10 points difference in jail. We find few differences between White non-Latinos and White Latinos. Between half and three-quarters of the inequality in pretrial detention, conviction, and prison sentences between White non-Latino and Black people is explained through legal case factors. Our findings indicate that inequality is, in part, institutionalized through legal case factors, suggesting these factors are not “race neutral” but instead racialized and contribute to inequalities in court outcomes.     

Courts and the politics of secrecy: national security,human rights and the importance of supranational oversight

Abstract

The article examines the use of state secrecy in court litigation concerning alleged gross human rights violations committed in the struggle against terrorism, focusing specifically on cases of extraordinary rendition and comparing the performance of courts in the United States, in Italy and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The article explains that national courts have validated the assertion by national governments of the state secret privilege in litigation involving cases of extraordinary rendition, ensuring de facto immunity to individuals involved in gross human rights abuses. On the contrary, it underlines that the ECtHR has pierced the veil covering these ‘deep secrets’, undertaking a strict scrutiny of acts of extraordinary rendition to torture committed by governments in the name of national security. As the article argues, the success of the ECtHR can be explained by a number of reasons, including distance, time and institutional design. In conclusion, the case law of the ECtHR on secrecy and national security confirms the continuing importance of supranational courts as instruments of external oversight on the human rights practice of European states.     

浅析军事法院的角色定位——以民事案件的管辖权为视角

军事法院试行审理军内民事案件,引发了一些争议。从军事法院的职能看,军事法院审理军内民事案件是可行的。但是,不宜将审理军内民事案件作为军事法院的主要职能。为了突出专门法院的特点,有必要对军事法院的角色进行重新定位,以实现司法资源的优化配置。建议将军事法院现有的一般审判职能向地方人民法院转移。具体而言,在平时,或者撤销军事法院,将其现有审判职能完全转移至地方人民法院;或者军事法院专属管辖军事行政诉讼案件。     

基层法院“立案难”：一个法律样本的解读

基层人民法院作为我国审判机关的前沿,是司法体系的基础,担负着全国法院80%以上的一审案件的审理任务,在和谐社会构建上起着重要的减震器作用。立案程序则是社会纠纷进入基层人民法院的必经门槛,大量的社会纠纷通过人民法院的立案程序进入人民法院的审理视野,所以解决法院立案难问题的关键在基层法院。在当前司法地方化,缺乏公信力的背景下,基层法院立案难问题更加突出,其中既有司法考核、司法腐败等人为的因素,更有立案制度、监督制度、纠纷机制等制度因素。本文通过一个法律样本的解读,分析具体的司法场景下法院的选择,立案如何成为基层人民法院的一个难题,又应当如何解决。从而推进相关机制改革,完善立案制度,切实维护当事人的诉权。