刑事立法效益原则的经济性解读

刑事立法主体所追求的目标是通过投入一定量的时间、人力、物力和财力,设置刑法规范,使该规范在现实生活中发挥最大的作用,以期达到其以最小代价换取最大可能的社会和平与和谐的目的。刑事立法活动中的效益取向,是立法理念的嬗变与进步,是我国社会经济发展的历史必然,也是法本身的正当性要求。刑事立法活动的经济性因素具有可预测性、可控制性和可节省性。刑事立法对效益原则的遵循,其价值体现在社会、经济和法律等关系到立法本质的宏观层面。     

论经济行政法的效率导向——从经济分析的角度研究

从经济分析的角度看,经济行政法应以实现资源配置的帕累托效率为导向。这是因为经济行政主体干预经济的理由在于克服市场失灵,实现资源配置的帕累托效率。但是由于存在公共失灵的问题,经济行政主体难以实现其效率的目标,需要经济行政法对经济行政权力进行控制,以便克服公共失灵的问题,因此经济行政法存在的理由在于通过控制经济行政主体的经济干预行为来促成社会资源配置的帕累托效率状态,其必然是效率导向的。     

改革警检关系提高侦诉效率

公安机关的侦查与检察机关的起诉,是刑事诉讼中前后衔接的程序,它们的高效运作对法院审判乃至于整个刑事诉讼,都起着至关重要的奠基性作用。由于警检关系立法定位存在一定的缺陷,使得侦诉程序基本处于分离、牵制的状况,降低了审判前程序的诉讼效率,改革势在必行。但是改革不能脱离了现行的法律制度与司法状况,因此,既要确定改革的长远目标,从宏观立法和诉讼构造上实行变革;同时,现阶段也不能放弃改革警检关系的努力,可以在不改变法定诉讼体制构造的前提下,通过加强公安与检察机关的相互沟通,创设和完善一些形成侦诉合力的有效措施,从而提高诉讼效率。     

论诉讼程序经济

诉讼程序经济指诉讼程序的设计和运作符合经济效益的要求 ,即诉讼主体以最低成本或耗费获取最大收益 ,包括诉讼程序规范层次上的与运作层次上的经济。市场经济必然要求诉讼程序经济 ,程序经济可以缓解司法资源稀缺与诉讼纠纷日渐增多二者之间的矛盾。诉讼程序经济与诉讼程序公正既对立又统一 ,都是诉讼程序要促成实现的价值目标。     

公益诉讼的本质及其理论基础

我国法学界对公益诉讼基本局限于制度性探讨,而没有揭示公益诉讼运作的内在机理。公益诉讼本质上是公民共同行为的有机组成部分,其理论基础是公民共和主义而非自由主义。     

行政行为效力理论与确认判决制度

理论界对行政行为的成立、生效、合法、无效等基本概念的界定模糊,导致行政确认判决存在众多问题。确认合法、有效判决违反不告不理原则,且与行政诉讼的目的相背。无效行政行为在立法上的矛盾令实务界陷入两难境地,必须对此加以研究和完善。     

行政诉讼中民事诉讼规范之“适用”——基于《行政诉讼法》第101条展开的分析

行政诉讼与民事诉讼之间的关系决定了行政诉讼中民事诉讼规范有一定的适用空间。在我国,民事诉讼规范在行政诉讼中的适用,经历了适用——参照——适用的一个制度史变迁过程。2015年经修正后实施的《行政诉讼法》第101条规定了民事诉讼规范在行政诉讼中的适用,其内容可以分为“诉讼程序”和“检察监督程序”两部分。在“诉讼程序”中,立法以“等”作不完全列举的例示性规定。从判例中我们可以看到,与原告法定代表人资格确定、二审裁判方式等相关的民事诉讼规范,也都在可以“适用”之列。毕竟,行政诉讼和民事诉讼的立法目的各异,所以,在行政诉讼中适用民事诉讼规范,应当确立不抵触立法目的和补充性两条规则。     

我国医疗损害诉讼中专家辅助人制度的现状与建议

2002年《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》规定了民事诉讼中的专家辅助人。2013年修订的《民事诉讼法》中也明确了民事诉讼中的专家辅助人制度。在司法实践中,医疗损害的案件专业性强,并且案件通常都会涉及到医疗损害技术鉴定,这就使得医疗损害案件是民事案件中经常需要专家辅助人的一类案件。本文在剖析了专家辅助人的诉讼地位后,认为我国医疗损害案件中的专家辅助人不同于英美法系中医疗诉讼中的专家证人,也不同于证人、鉴定人和诉讼代理人。在此基础上,探讨了医学专家辅助人在医疗损害案件诉讼的实际应用,并针对现有相关规定中不明确的地方提出了完善医疗损害诉讼中专家辅助人制度的建议。     

Actions by Political Officials Have Weakened the Federal Government Workplace: Downsizing Has Cut Lower Level Workers the Most and Replacing Federal Employees with Private Corporations Costs Much More,Creating the Need for Immediate Reform

Abstract

The authors of this paper are four practitioners each of whom has many years of experience working in the Federal government and also has pursued doctoral studies in public or business administration. Three ideas developed in this paper are that: (1) the Federal civil service has been changed from being a model workplace to a much less desirable one; (2) although downsizing has been touted as an efficiency and economy measure, lower level employees experienced the most cuts and (3) the current practice of replacing Federal employees with private corporations costs much more. Over the past two decades private sector workplaces in the United States, and now the Federal government workplace, have experienced so much change that previous theories, concepts, models, and expectations no longer hold. Just as private industry workplaces have been changed by downsizing, reorganizations, mergers, elimination of middle management, and outsourcing, so, too, has the Federal government workplace been fundamentally altered. Reducing the number of government workers, replacing Federal employees with private firms, increasing the number of officials with political agendas, and using harsh personnel management practices have transfigured the Federal workplace. Examples of factors that have contributed to a changed workplace include: the Civil Service Reform Act which replaced the Civil Service Commission with the Office of Personnel Management; importing private sector approaches into the government, e.g., the Grace Commission; replacing the Civil Service Retirement System with the Federal Employees Retirement System; pressure to downsize and privatize; and many elements of the National Performance Review and Government Performance and Results Act. Now that the metamorphosis away from the traditional Civil Service borne of the Pendleton Act is nearly complete (although the new paradigm is not entirely clear), questions about the effects of a changed government workplace are being raised. Some people believe the metamorphosis is from a caterpillar to a butterfly, while others think the opposite. Whether the changed Federal government is a thing of beauty or a distasteful organism will be determined over time by observations and assessments of the effects of the change. These effects will be both internal to the government workplace, itself, and external to it, involving the products, services, outputs, and outcomes it produces. This paper begins by describing some of the politically mandated changes that have altered the very foundation of the Federal government workplace over the past 20 years and made it a much less desirable place to work. Next, some of the effects of two politically mandated changes are examined: (1) downsizing or reducing the number of Americans who can work for their government and (2) contracting out or replacing government workers with private corporations. Political officials have told the media and the American public that these changes were needed to improve the government's efficiency, effectiveness, and economy. It has been suggested that these initiatives will reduce costs. However, an examination of downsizing and contracting out shows the opposite effect. While overall the Federal government has fewer employees now than in 1961, the statistics indicate that lower level employees have been cut the most:

• The number of secretaries decreased by 39% between 1992 and 1998.

• The blue collar workforce is down 40% since 1982, e.g., Supply Clerical and Technician (?35%), Accounting Technician (?24%), and Electronics Mechanic (?41%).

• Between 1993 and 1998 the number of GS‐1 to GS‐10 employees fell from 767,000 to 594,000.

• In 1983 the number of GS‐1 to GS‐10 workers exceeded GS‐11 to GS‐15 by nearly 300,000, while in 1997 GS‐11 to GS‐15 outnumbered the lower level workers by 44,000.

Although authoritative cost comparison studies are difficult to conduct because top officials have made little provision to collect information on the cost of contracting with private firms or the number of contract employees, available information indicates that it is much more expensive than using government employees. The contracting out we are talking about is not the usual kind—building ships or planes, or acquiring computer systems or special expertise not available in the government. Rather, it is contracting with private firms to do jobs that are currently being performed by Federal employees. Not satisfied with the level at which firms are being substituted for Federal employees, actions by political officials have created an environment which now favors private corporations and where they can be given work at top management's discretion, often regardless of cost. In fact, today most contracting out is done without the use of Circular A‐76 Cost Comparison Studies. There is empirical and logical evidence that shows that replacing government employees with private corporations is more expensive. For example, a study by the Department of the Army documents what people close to contracting have always known—that it is far more expensive to contract with a private firm for work than to have Federal employees do it. Logically, the government incurs additional items of cost when replacing Federal employees with private corporations. First, there is the profit that goes to the firm. Second, there is the firm's overhead which pays for corporate offices, staffs, and CEOs. Third, there are the costs of the contracting and award process and of contract administration and management. Although the worker on a government contract may be paid a little less than a government worker, the cost of the worker is only a third to a half of what the government pays the firm. Thus, replacing government workers with private firms usually costs far more and it is not unusual for it to cost two to three times as much. This paper partly is based on the authors' long experience in the Federal government. It is not based on the organizations in which they are currently employed.     

医疗纠纷诉讼中医疗事故技术鉴定结论三辩

《医疗事故处理条例》的发布实施在解决医患纠纷,缓解医患冲突方面确实起到了一定的积极作用。然而我们仍然应当清醒地看到其中存在的盲区、与相关法律存在的法益冲突以及可能对医疗纠纷诉讼产生的影响。通过对医疗纠纷诉讼中医疗事故技术鉴定结论应用的几个问题作简单地探讨,以期对司法实践能有所裨益。