论恶意诉讼之成因与规制

当今社会,诉讼被视为人们维护合法权益和解决争议的最重要手段,其价值与作用在我们的社会生活中得到了相当的体现。但是,在推行法治的同时,恶意诉讼现象与问题也屡见不鲜。恶意诉讼虽然是英美侵权行为法的概念,但其意旨在中国侵权法的立法及司法实践中也应该有其应有的位置,以服务于社会。在对待恶意诉讼上,通过对恶意诉讼者提起民事赔偿和诉之刑事制裁,当是有效的遏制手段。     

以公诉权为核心矫正刑事和解制度

刑事和解制度是我国当前刑事法学领域一个热点问题，在实践中发挥出明显的作用，但也有其自身的缺陷。公诉权的价值追求与刑事和解制度的价值追求具有一致性。以公诉权为核心矫正刑事和解制度具有合理性，能够克弊求利，以尽其效。     

公诉权与侦查权的冲突与衡平

侦查权和公诉权是国家在刑事诉讼中的两项重要权能。就其性质而言，侦查权和公诉权都是承担追诉犯罪职能的公权力，具有一定的同质性。但由于侦查权和起诉权分属于不同的国家机关行使，且各自的程序任务不尽相同，因而两种权力在服务于刑事诉讼目的的过程中难免会发生分歧，甚至有相互冲突的情形，从而导致程序效率的消减。因此，在刑事诉讼中适度衡平侦查权和公诉权的权力配置，既是程序科学运行的技术性制度安排，也是防范权力滥用的程序法治问题。     

追诉时效延长制度实务探究

我国追诉时效延长的法律条文内容存在争议,应当正确理解立案侦查或受理案件以后,逃避侦查或者审判的含义。要真正实现追诉时效制度的价值,从长远看应当建立时效中止制度,从近处讲为了解决实务困境可以以司法解释的方式明确追诉时效延长制度的内涵。     

逮捕实质条件的理论反思——兼论逮捕实质条件的立法完善

基于无罪推定原则，国家不应该在宣布公民有罪之前羁押公民，但是，由于国家理性的限制，公民对于刑事纠纷的解决具有配合义务。这一义务的承担不是针对任意一个公民。追诉事实的可能性条件的功能就在于将负有特定配合义务的公民与其他一般公民区别开来。同时，诉讼风险决定了国家不能不惜一切代价追诉轻重不同的犯罪，追诉犯罪的严重性条件的功能就是在成本代价和惩罚犯罪的功利追求之间予以平衡。逮捕措施是程序性而非惩罚性措施，诉讼保障的必要性条件就在于准确体现逮捕措施的性质，从而具体实现逮捕措施的节约化。新一轮的立法修改，应该从上述三方面科学设计逮捕制度的实质条件，以实现羁押状态下等候审判是例外的通行原则。     

公诉案件庭前审查程序重构之法理探析及初步设想

我国修改前后的两部刑事诉讼法,虽然均在公诉案件第一审程序中对庭前审查程序作出规定,但由于立法时对庭前审查程序的功能认识不够清晰,相关规定过于简单和粗疏。因此,有必要对庭前审查程序的改革问题加以深刻思考。鉴于目前对于庭前审查程序的研究多局限在具体实施问题的层面,在评析各家之说的基础上,对庭前审查程序重新进行定位,对其价值取向、理论原则等问题展开初步论证。最后提出重构我国公诉案件庭前审查程序的若干设想。     

完善民事行政检察监督的有关立法建议

构建和谐社会是当今时代发展的主旋律,社会的和谐与否,执法部门是否正确执法起着至关重要的作用。有一句至理名言＂权利失去监督必将产生腐败＂,如果执法部门的执法活动得不到有效监督的话,就难免会产生错案,就难免会侵害人民群众的利益,再如果权利受到侵害后得不到有效救济的话,就很容易引发上访事件,社会就不会稳定,更谈不上和谐。但我国目前的法律状况很难保证监督的有效性,因此,笔者建议立法机关尽快立法,以实现监督的有效性。     

论审查起诉中检察官的客观义务

客观义务是检察官履行职责的基本要求之一，它要求检察官基于客观公正的立场对被追诉者的利益予以保护，具体到审查起诉阶段就是要求检察官不但应当在实体上作出正确的起诉决定，还应当保障被告方的程序参与权，充分听取被告方的意见，注意有利和不利于被告人两方面的证据。我国目前的审查起诉程序基本上是检察官单方的、秘密的审查，缺乏被告方程序参与和听取其意见的具体操作程序，应当结合检察官的客观义务原理对我国审查起诉程序加以改革。     

Bellamy on Dirty Hands and Lesser Evils: A Response

This article offers a response to Alex Bellamy's article 'Dirty Hands and Lesser Evils in the War on Terror'. It outlines deep errors in his claims about 'dirty hands' and 'lesser evils'. Essentially, these errors result from his failure to grapple with the complexity of dirty hands theory, coupled with his uncritical acceptance that dirty hands scenarios are essentially defined as a clash between a public and private morality. Furthermore, we argue that Bellamy's distinction between 'dirty hands' and 'lesser evils' is a spurious one since all dirty hands cases require a choice between lesser evils. In addition, we reject his claim that dirty hands makes no political sense. For illustrative purposes, we then briefly examine one problematic philosophical issue which needs attention if the notion of dirty hands is to be taken seriously. Finally, we demonstrate the usefulness of the concept of dirty hands by applying it to the issue of torture in the so-called 'war on terror'.     

Securing reliable information in investigative interviews: coercive and noncoercive strategies preceding turning points

ABSTRACT

Investigative interviewers apply a range of physical, cognitive, social or legalistic strategies to secure information from suspects. The perceived effectiveness of coercive and noncoercive strategies on turning points was examined by interviewing 34 practitioners and 30 high value detainees in East Asian and Western jurisdictions. Each recounted an interview with an initially uncooperative detainee who became cooperative, or an initially cooperative detainee who became resistant or silent. Analyses of interview narratives identified perceived turning points in the practitioner-suspect relationship associated with clear outcomes. Independent of jurisdiction, 56% of the noncoercive strategies were associated with cooperation, yielding reliable information in 49.4% and true admissions in 20.0% of the cases. In contrast, coercive strategies were perceived as more ineffective (58.9%) than effective (14.6%) in securing information. Physical coercion, intimidation and deception were most frequently acknowledged to yield false information. These findings suggested prioritisation of noncoercive social and physical interview strategies and international consensus on best practices.