论认罪认罚案件中值班律师制度的功能定位

国外值班律师制度的确立是其刑事辩护制度日臻完善的结果,其基本功能是为被追诉人提供应急性的法律服务。基于中国当下刑事程序改革的新发展及刑事辩护率低下的现实,认罪认罚案件中确立值班律师制度主要是为实现有效辩护的功能。认罪认罚案件中值班律师的见证人化是其功能异化的体现,将会导致值班律师的权利被极大地限缩,有效辩护难以实现;值班律师沦为公权力的合作者,破坏被追诉人对值班律师的信任。未来,我国值班律师制度的功能将呈现二元化的特点,认罪认罚案件中,应以有效辩护为核心,从以下方面强化值班律师辩护权的实现：以被追诉人认罪认罚的自愿性为核心,通过赋予值班律师在场权,明确值班律师介入的时间点;围绕被追诉人认罪的真实性、自愿性,细化值班律师法律帮助的具体内容;以有效辩护为目标,明确值班律师的各项权利;强化值班律师对程序性事项的有效辩护。     

多元治理视野下的多规合一——以浙江省试点县（市）为例

文章运用一元为主、多元辅补的多元治理理论分析方法,对浙江省试点县（市）“多规合一”的协调机制、编制主体、审批机制和空间管控进行了系统分析,总结提炼出“多规合一”四方面的成效,为今后其他地区“多规合一”编制工作提供经验借鉴。研究发现：一是试点地区“多规合一”的成效明显;二是本文将多中心治理理论中国化为“一元为主、多元辅补”的多元治理的理论,并用以分析“多规合一”的现状、成果、缺憾及完善路径是有效的。因此,文章研究结论为现行“多规合一”还需要从政策法律体系、编制机构和公众参与等方面完善。     

Centralisation versus regionalisation: Designing the Sixth National Mental Health Plan

In response to the recent Productivity Commission report into mental health, the previous Federal Government announced its intention to produce a new national agreement that lays the platform for Australia's sixth national mental health plan. It has been recommended mental health move to a more regional model of governance and planning, away from a centralised, top-down approach, partly in response to broader reforms affecting health care, and partly in direct response to consistent inquiry evidence that the mental health system remains in crisis. The past 30 years of mental health planning have been centralised. Successive national plans set a broad framework, with real decisions about mental health funding and service allocation made in the health departments of our capital cities. Will the next plan sponsor or inhibit regionality in mental health planning? This paper assesses Australia's historical approach to health planning particularly as it affected mental health and the costs arising. In learning these lessons, we propose the necessary ingredients to facilitate a regional, innovative, and effective approach to decentralised planning, for better mental health outcomes. We cannot afford to replicate the failed planning approaches of the past.     

Like bringing a knife to a gunfight: Why IRC Section 2036 is not the right weapon to combat abusive family limited partnerships

Family Limited Partnerships (“FLPs”), which were once a great estate planning technique, have now become victim to Section 2036 assertions made by the IRS. Over the years, the IRS has struggled to find a means to combat abusive FLPs until the courts began to embrace Section 2036 as a weapon for them to use. Different courts, however, have maintained different rules and have now subjected both abusive and non-abusive FLPs to inclusion of their assets into their gross estates. This has shed light onto the main issue, that is, that Section 2036 is not the appropriate tool to combat abusive FLPs.