公安行政执法公正性探微

在我国现行法律体系下,公安行政执法的内容相当丰富。但由于各种因素的制约,公正在公安行政执法中并未得到充分体现。适度控制行政自由裁量权、严格遵守行政执法程序、优化行政执法监督和责任制建设是实现公安行政执法公正性的有效保障措施。     

试论司法公正与诉讼效率－－兼评“普通程序简易化”

当前,诉讼法学界对司法改革的研讨逐步深入,作为对实践呼声的回应,诉讼效率问题又引起了更多的关注。刑事诉讼效率应具有双重内涵,一要符合诉讼经济原则,二要满足人们对司法公正的要求。诉讼效率与司法公正密不可分,二者理应是一致的。对于效率与公正的关系,可用两句话概括:提高诉讼效率是实现司法公正的基本保证;过度追求诉讼效率则可能影响司法公正。因此,“公正优先,兼顾效率”应当是处理效率与公正关系的总原则。     

从出土文献看秦汉时期刑事司法协助的请求

秦汉时期,县道是基层司法机关。当罪犯逃出辖区时需请求协助,请求的对象是其他的县道。如不属同郡,则需通过自己所属之郡转达。     

论宽严相济的刑事政策

一项刑事政策的提出,重在对其含义的理解和解释,只有运用正确的方法和思路来理解和解释,才能挖掘出刑事政策的全部内涵,理解和解释刑事政策应当遵循宏观把握、回顾历史、结合实际和立足长远的原则,具体到理解宽严相济的刑事政策时,不能对"宽"和"严"做过于狭隘的解释,应当扩大"宽"和"严"在使用语境上的含义,将"宽"和"严"放到整个刑事立法和司法中来分析,而且,"宽严相济"在语义上的要点应当在"济",要重视对"济"的理解。     

论司法的原初与衍生功能

在"司法改革"如火如荼的当下中国,讨论我国的法院或者法官应该扮演怎样的角色,应是学界认真考虑的一个课题。本文以一种复眼式的角度,把司法功能分为原初功能与衍生功能。文章认为,作为原初功能,司法的纠纷解决还包括中介、缓和及促进纠纷解决等子功能。而以历史演变为线索,现代司法的衍生功能则包括法律维护与规则创设、权力制约与权利保障、社会控制与政策推进等功能。     

Collection and direct amplification methods using the GlobalFiler™ kit for DNA recovered from common pipe bomb substrates

When analyzing DNA from exploded pipe bombs, quantities are often in trace amounts, making DNA typing extremely difficult. Amplifying minute amounts of DNA can cause stochastic effects resulting in partial or uninterpretable profiles. Therefore, the initial DNA collection from “touch” evidence must be optimized to maximize the amount of DNA available for analysis.This proof-of-concept study evaluated two different swab types with two direct amplification strategies to identify the most effective method for recovering DNA from common pipe bomb substrates. PVC and steel pipes, electrical tape, and copper wire spiked with epithelial cells were swabbed with cotton or microFLOQ® Direct Swabs and amplified directly or via a pre-treatment prior to STR amplification.Not only was the microFLOQ® Direct Swab protocol the quickest method with the least risk of contamination, but in combination with direct amplification, the microFLOQ® Direct Swabs also generated the most complete STR profiles.     

Juvenile Justice in Pennsylvania: Mission‐Driven; Performance‐ Based; Outcome‐Focused

Since 1995, Pennsylvania's Balanced and Restorative Justice Mission has been the driving force behind Pennsylvania's reform and system improvement efforts. Pennsylvania has made strong and steady progress towards advancing this statutory mission and the related operational goals through policy, practice and programmatic enhancements over these past 20+ plus years. Three key events spurred forth this advancement: the legislative passage of Act 33 in 1995 that statutorily established the goals of Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ), the Models for Change Juvenile Justice Reform Initiative–Additional Reform Momentum (2004) and the Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy–Evidence‐based Approach to the Reforms (2010).What follows is the story of how it all unfolded.     

The Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018: Updating the Federal Approach to Youth Involved,and At‐Risk of Becoming Involved,in the Juvenile Justice System

On December 21, 2018, the Juvenile Justice Reform Act was signed into law, marking the first update in 16 years to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended. The reforms reflect much of the knowledge that has been gained through research and science over the past decade and strengthen the Act’s core protections for youth in the juvenile justice system. The changes also expand the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s role in research, and technical assistance, and provide for additional oversight for related programs.     

关于集体土地征收案件的争议焦点和裁判结果的调查与思考

来自数据库"北大法宝"和中国裁判文书网的22篇关于集体土地征收案件的终审裁判文书揭示了如下事实:集体土地征收案件的争议焦点主要集中在受案范围、原告资格、诉讼请求、起诉期限、起诉程序、管辖法院、土地征收程序及土地征收补偿等方面,而法院大多支持原审被告。这一现象说明,只有通过制度设计来降低司法维权的成本和提高司法维权的实效,才能引导土地被征收人通过司法途径维权。同时,还应当完善行政程序违法的判决形式、驳回诉讼请求判决的适用条件以及管辖权转移制度,加强涉农法制宣传教育。     

Out on a Limb: Appointing a Parenting Coordinator with Decision‐Making Authority in the Absence of a Statute or Rule

This Article addresses the issue of whether a court may appoint a Parenting Coordinator (PC) with decision‐making authority in the absence of a statute or court rule. The Article identifies possible sources of authority for the appointment of a PC with decision‐making authority in a state with no authorizing statute or court rule. It also provides a paradigm for constructing an appointment that allows for the benefits of Parenting Coordination but does not delegate decision‐making authority to an extent that it would constitute an impermissible delegation of judicial authority.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court may find some authority allowing the appointment in (1) its equitable authority over child custody and visitation, (2) its authority to enforce its own orders, or (3) its authority to appoint other extrajudicial assistants such as a special master or mediator.
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court must craft an appointment that delegates enough decision‐making authority to the PC for parenting coordination to be effective yet, at the same time, not so much decision‐making authority as to render the appointment an impermissible delegation of a judicial function, specifically:
  • The PC's role should be limited to assisting the parties in implementing custody and visitation terms already decreed by the trial court.
  • A PC should be appointed only if the parties to the divorce consent to the appointment or if the trial court makes a finding that the case is a high‐conflict case.
  • The parties must have the opportunity for the trial court to meaningfully review any decision of the PC so that the trial court retains ultimate decision‐making authority.