对电子证据作为诉讼证据几个理论问题的研究

随着网络时代的到来以及计算机在日常生活中的广泛应用,电子证据在诉讼中的频繁出现已经不可避免。文章较为系统地论述了当前有关电子证据的几个热点问题:电子证据的概念、电子证据的法律地位、电子证据的采信标准、电子证据的司法鉴定等问题。同时结合文中的观点,简要地分析了两个典型的涉及有关电子邮件、手机短信等电子证据的案例,来说明电子证据的可采性和证明力问题。     

以审判为中心的庭审模式对法医出庭质证的挑战

以审判为中心的庭审模式是当今诉讼改革的主要方向,案件庭审实质化是诉讼改革的主要目标,在此背景下,法医鉴定人出庭质证将会实质化、常态化。为此,最高人民法院等部门出台了保障鉴定人出庭的相关规定、规则。法医鉴定意见质证实质化要求法医鉴定人在出庭时履行相关义务:尊重法庭、如实回答提问、释明鉴定意见。当前法医参加庭审质证中存在法医鉴定人出庭率低、鉴定意见的法律性质不明确、鉴定人出庭的具体要求不明确、与包括专家辅助人在内的其他专家证据形式的冲突等问题。为此,笔者向法医鉴定人提出三点建议:不断学习,提升专业技能;加强修炼,提高法律知识;注重实践,强化表达能力。     

公安机关鉴定人员面临错鉴责任风险

错案时有发生,错案与错误的科学证据有着密切关系。在全面推进依法治国、建设社会主义法治国家的大背景下,公安部对《公安机关人民警察执法过错责任追究规定》做了修订,其中的内容涉及鉴定人员出具虚假、错误鉴定意见的法律责任。除了相关部门加大投入、提高鉴定人员的待遇之外,作者提出了5条建议:加强对鉴定人员的职业伦理教育;鉴定人员应当努力提升自身的业务水平;规范实验室管理,严格鉴定程序;做好送检的检材、样本等物证的交接与保管;增强鉴定文书书写制作意识,保存好鉴定档案。     

当前司法鉴定存在的问题及危害性

司法鉴定存在的问题,既有法律规定不完备之处,也存在司法鉴定体制不合理的问题,这些问题不利于司法机关正确的运用鉴定结论这一证据。严重影响了依法办案。建议立法机关尽快对司法鉴定有关问题予以立法。使司法鉴定有章可循,有法可依。     

专家的局限性及其控制——政府决策咨询视角

政府公共事务决策要广泛听取专家的意见和建议,这对决策的科学化、民主化起着重要作用.由于专家也存在着局限性,对此各级政府决策机构必须引起足够的重视.本文试图通过对专家局限性问题分析,探索关于如何克服专家局限性的有效对策,以便为政府公共事务管理决策提供参考.     

THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING

The legal standards for admissibility of expert testimony have recently been raised following several U.S. Supreme Court decisins. Although forensic mental health experts have relied on psychological testing as a method of data collection for many years, the scientific basis of such testing has traditionally gone unquestioned in court. Given the increased scrutiny currently being applied to expert testimony, it is more important now than ever for attorneys, judges and forensic experts to understand the scientific principles underlying psychological tests. In this article, the scientific principles of validity and reliability are explained, and scientifically acceptable methods for the forensic use of psychological testing are discussed. The application of recent case law to several well-known tests is described.     

侦查终结辨正

人们对侦查终结的认识存在偏颇,我们应对侦查终结和基本条件做科学界定,建议完善侦查终结立法。     

Do Jurors “Know” What Isn’t So About Child Witnesses?

Are expert witnesses needed in child sexual abuse cases to educate jurors about children’s memory, suggestibility, and reactions to abuse, or do jurors already know what such experts could tell them? To cast light on this question, we surveyed jurors and jury-eligible college students and compared their beliefs with what is known via scientific research regarding children’s memory and ability to testify, reactions to interrogation, and reactions to sexual abuse. We also asked participants to infer results of four widely cited studies of children’s suggestibility. Participants’ beliefs were consistent with findings from research on some issues (e.g., that children can be led to claim that false events occurred) but diverged from the scientific consensus on other issues (e.g., whether children can remember painful events in infancy). Similarly, participants sometimes overestimated and sometimes underestimated the level of suggestibility observed in empirical studies. Individual differences in accuracy were related to participants’ gender, education and ethnicity, and there was considerable disagreement among participants on many questions. Implications of findings for the admissibility of expert testimony in child abuse cases are discussed.     

论想象竞合犯的诉讼进路选择

实体法上的想象竞合犯表现出较为特殊的结构矛盾,亦即一行为与数犯罪之间的内在矛盾。在付诸刑事司法实践时就存在着两种不同的进路:从处断结论为一犯罪出发的诉讼进路实际上预先地限定了单一诉讼客体的范围,事先对犯罪事实进行了取舍;从结构解析出发的诉讼进路则将想象竞合犯所涉及的数罪均作为独立的诉讼客体分别予以确认,很好地实现了犯罪构成的整理功能,虽然也需要对想象竞合关系与"一行为"进行揭示,但整体上符合人权保障的基本要求,是目前较为理想的进路选择。     

Party System Change in Italy: Politicising the EU and the Rise of Eccentric Parties

Using expert survey data covering the 2001–13 period, this article investigates the changing shape and structure of the Italian policy space over time, as well as parties’ shifting policy positions. Our results show the emergence of a distinct pro-/anti-EU (European Union) dimension structuring party competition and a change in the meaning of EU related attitudes. The increasing importance of the pro-/anti-EU dimension is due to the entry of brand new parties in 2013. Our findings also speak to the Euroscepticism literature, as they question the hypothesis according to which Euroscepticism is confined to peripheral parties located at the extremes on the left–right scale.