试论民间法的司法进入

法律的存在应该回应社会的需求,因此,国家不应忽视在社会中起实际调整作用的民间法。民间法具有地域性、非正式性和内生性等特点,它的特点决定了民间法进入国家法的最好途径是司法途径。当然这种进入不是无条件的,它要求能够作为法源的民间法要具有普遍性、延续性、适时性、合理性、可诉性和权利义务性。     

中国刑事证据立法的基本理念

证据制度是一国诉讼制度中重要的组成部分。我国目前证据立法过于粗疏 ,可操作性不强 ,远远不能满足司法实践的需要。合理地重构证据制度 ,应当对传统证据理论进行全面检视 ,在此基础上准确把握现代刑事证据制度藉以立足的基本理念 ,惟此方能实现理性立法。     

法律选择方法演变与构建国际和谐社会

法律选择理论是国际私法的核心理论,主要是以各种法律选择学说为载体,具体表现为各种法律选择方法。从十四世纪意大利巴托鲁斯创立法则区别说以来,法律选择方法一直处于不断的演变之中,体现了国际社会追求和谐的要求。本文以法律选择方法的历史演变为线索,以法律选择方法的价值追求——正义为研究视角,探讨法律选择方法的演变与构建国际和谐社会之间的联系。     

人格理论视角下的宽严相济刑事政策

宽严相济的刑事政策是党和国家在建设社会主义和谐社会过程中提出的刑事司法政策,在贯彻过程中应当注重与建设和谐社会的背景相适应,调动一切积极因素打击和控制犯罪.为此,我们应当结合人格刑法理论,在定罪、量刑与行刑时,充分考虑行为人的人格,抛弃传统的刑罚万能观念,该宽则宽,该严要严,二者结合,充分发挥刑事政策的作用.     

我国侦查透明制度的建构

侦查是现代刑事诉讼程序一个重要构成部分。我国侦查理论与实践长期以来奉行侦查保密原则。事实上,侦查本质上是一种程序构造,理应符合程序正义的基本要求。因此,在坚持侦查保密原则不动摇的前提下,主张一定程度的侦查透明,这是程序正义的应有之义,也是现代法治国家的必然要求。侦查透明有其独立的理论依据和价值基础。要在我国实现侦查透明,必须相应地采取一些具体的措施。     

公正：构建和谐社会的伦理基石

和谐社会包括人与自然的和谐、人与社会的和谐以及人与自身的和谐。在和谐社会的诸多价值诉求中,公正是和谐社会的首要价值和伦理基石。构建和谐社会必须首先从美德公正和制度公正这两个维度着手。     

Empathic emotions and justice in society

Empathy is defined as an affect more appropriate to another's situation than to one's own. The paper (i) summarizes different modes of empathic affect arousal; (ii) shows how empathic affect may interact with social-cognitive development, to produce four levels of empathy development; (iii) suggests that causal attributions may transform empathic affect into sympathy, guilt, and empathic anger, which are major moral affects; (iv) discusses how these affects may influence moral judgment and behavior; (v) points up empathic morality's limitations and the need to embed empathy in relevant moral principles; (vi) discusses possible links between empathy and justice principles, with special focus on Rawls; (vii) illustrates the interplay of empathy, moral judgment, and justice; and (viii) suggests that moral principles may become hot cognitions.     

Integrating societal and psychological rules of entitlement: The basic task of each social actor and fundamental problem for the social sciences

A preliminary statement of a theoretical framework integrating psychological and societal determinants of justice in human affairs is presented. It is proposed that the social structure provides the rules of entitlement and decision making that regulate the course of routine social interaction. These societally based norms are representable in people's conscious thought processes. By contrast, the psychologically generated rules of entitlement, typically contradict conventionally accepted rules of thought and discourse and thus remain unconscious. The major part of the discussion considers the motivationally important circumstances that engage the unconscious psychologically compelling determinants and how their appearance in behavior is both shaped and legitimized by the situationally prevailing normative context. The final section considers some of the more important methodological, theoretical, and social policy implications of this social psychological theory of entitlements.     

How Surrogate Impact Panels Function in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence: A Mixed-Methods Study

ABSTRACT

Intimate partner violence (IPV) continues to be an urgent social problem, despite decades of intervention and prevention efforts. Restorative justice programs (e.g., victim impact panels) may be a useful addition to intimate partner violence (IPV) intervention, but it is unclear how these panels operate and to what extent they are consistent with restorative justice models. This naturalistic study of IPV surrogate impact panels used ethnographic observation of panels (n = 18), archival analysis of audience responses to the panel (N = 287), and focus groups and interviews (k = 4) with IPV survivors, an audience member, and batterer intervention providers to investigate these gaps. Findings suggest the panels manifest interactional processes consistent with restorative justice principles. Implications, limitations, and future aims of research on these panels are discussed.     

Unclogging Courts by Targeting Litigant Incentives: The Case of the Brazilian Labour Justice Reform

Overburdened courts hinder economic and social progress, yet successful court reforms are rare. Instead of boosting judicial resources or adapting procedure, Brazil tackled persistent backlogs and delays in its labour courts by replacing the pre-existing each-pays-their-own-costs (American) rule for allocation of litigation expenses with an alternative loser-pays-all (English) rule. Using a newly assembled court-level panel dataset and difference-in-differences approach, we show that the reform alleviated the courts' demand pressures and, most importantly, increased court efficacy in both adjudication and enforcement. The Brazilian experience offers valuable policy lessons about viable court reforms for other jurisdictions.