Sentences and prosecutors’ demands for aggravated drunk driving in Finland

ABSTRACT

Sentences and prosecutors’ demands for aggravated drunk driving are categorised into three classes: The sentence is more lenient than, is compatible with, or is harsher than the prosecutor’s demand. The probability of a sentence falling into one of the three ordered categories is explained by a cumulative logit model. The following circumstances affect the probability of a more lenient or harsher sentence, in decreasing order of importance: driving a truck, facing at least four counts, having a legal assistant, and being present in the trial. The hypothesis that factors known by the prosecutor, at the time of writing the demand, should not systematically affect sentences is refuted. The judges assess circumstances differently than the prosecutors. The prosecutors’ role is nevertheless prominent in the sense that the sentences follow, to a great extent, their demands. Notable gender effects of the actors in the courtroom are found.     

对戴手套作案现场的勘查

刑事犯罪案件现场存储了大量有价值的信息,但是对戴手套作案的现场,会因为犯罪嫌疑人戴手套而使指纹等大量的痕迹物证隐匿起来,从而影响刑事技术人员对现场的勘验。捕捉、提取、分析和利用这些隐匿的信息,对侦查破案和起诉犯罪嫌疑人至关重要。在现场勘查时,应把常规痕迹与微量物证、有形的痕迹物证与无形的现象并举勘验;另外,还要注意尽力寻找指印。     

Rearrest probabilities for the 1984–1993 apprehended Western Australian population: A survival analysis

A large population of all persons arrested by police in Western Australia for the first time between April 1, 1984, and June 30, 1993 (n=146,038), were followed up to determine if they have ever been rearrested. Probabilities of rearrest were estimated at 0.52 for male non-Aborigines, 0.36 for female non-Aborigines, 0.88 for male Aborigines, and 0.85 for female Aborigines. Significant variations in the probability of rearrest and/or time to rearrest for different age groups, number of times arrested, occupational status, offense group, place of birth, and bail status were observed. Covariate analysis (Maller, 1993) of non-Aboriginals (n=51,302) found with the offense of driving under the influence (DUI) was also undertaken to test the significance of differences in probabilities of rearrest for subgroups. Probabilities of rearrest were 0.47 forany offense and 0.31 for arepeat DUI for males and 0.34 forany offense and 0.20 for arepeat DUI for females. The results are discussed in the light of estimates of reimprisonment and the utility of offender risk assessment.     

关于《刑法修正案（八）（草案）》中危险驾驶入罪规定的立法评介

刑法修正案（八）草案拟将近年来频频发生的醉酒驾车、飙车等危险驾驶行为正式写入刑法，有其现实合理性，但在犯罪化的过程中一定要保持在入罪范围和入罪程度上的谦抑性。草案对危险驾驶罪的个罪归属安排也是值得商榷的，应该从刑法体系协调性的角度对其进行调整。同时新罪名的增加，也会对刑法既有罪名的适用带来影响，这就需要对相关犯罪间的界限进行辨正。     

醉酒驾车综合治理探析

醉酒驾车严重危及人民生命财产安全,影响公共安全秩序和社会和谐。本文在科学发展观的指导下,从刑法、行政法和政府管理创新三个维度,探究醉酒驾车治理的不同路径,尝试构建我国醉酒驾车综合治理制度。     

大调解实践背景下的立案调解机制研究

立案调解是中国在世纪之初由人民法院发起的一种调解样式,其快速勃兴对于扩大调解适用范围发挥了重要作用。在大调解的实践背景下,立案调解宜广义理解为在立案阶段由人民法院主导进行的调解。西方国家多门法院系统的实践对于我国立案调解机制的建构具有启发意义。人民法院需要在保持司法品性的前提下对接大调解。立案庭可以被改造为类似多门法院系统的案件甄选和转介机构。构建立案调解机制的重点在于实现三调联动,并正确处理与诉权保障的关系。此外,人民法院还可以通过法定方式提升立案调解结果的效力。     

危险驾驶罪施行有“危险”

本文以调研上海市危险驾驶罪司法裁判情况为基础，以截至十月全市法院审结危险驾驶罪219件案件为素材，分析司法现状，总结、归纳危险驾驶罪案件的具体特点，重点剖析目前执法、司法过程中的问题，提出切实可行的改革措施，以期能够降低危险驾驶罪施行中的不足，促使危险驾驶罪正常发展。     

知假买假行为适用惩罚性赔偿评析

知假买假行为使用惩罚性赔偿的分歧主要集中在立法目的、消费者的认定、欺诈、打假的社会功能等四个方面。由于《消法》立法目的不明确,无法作为立论依据;由于举证难,无法否认知假买假行为为生活消费需要、事先知假,应该认定知假买假者为消费者、销售者存在欺诈,因而可以适用惩罚性规则;从社会功能上看,知假买假客观上净化了社会环境,提高了社会福利,因而法律应该确立这种行为。     

醉酒驾驶犯罪化若干问题的探讨

醉酒驾驶行为具有严重的社会危害性和主观恶性，刑法中的交通肇事罪和以危险方法危害公共安全罪带有报应刑色彩，对于醉酒驾驶尚未造成实害结果的无计可施。我国大可将刑事政策定位于刑法早期介入公共安全领域，将刑法的防卫线向前推置，进一步严密法网，将醉酒驾驶行为犯罪化。     

“醉酒型”危险驾驶罪客观方面的基本问题

危险驾驶罪的设立有效制止了我国醉驾高发态势,获得了良好的法律效果和社会效果。但是,危险驾驶罪在司法实践中也凸显了不少实际问题和困惑。在"醉酒型"危险驾驶罪客观方面认定时,对醉酒的标准应当采取客观标准,而不是主观标准;驾驶行为是指行为人基于运行机动车的意思而发动机动车引擎或实际运行机动车;超标电动车应列入机动车的范围;道路的基本特点是区域公共性和车辆通行性,生活小区内的类似道路应归属于危险驾驶罪中的道路。