Sexual assault complainants on the stand: a historical comparison of courtroom questioning

Because most cases of alleged sexual assault involve few sources of evidence, the complainant’s testimony is crucial. In line with empirical research findings, the way in which police question sexual assault complainants has evolved to ultimately maximise both the completeness and accuracy of evidence. But has courtroom questioning changed over time? To answer this question, we compared the courtroom questioning of sexual assault complainants in the 1950s to that used in cases from the turn of the twenty-first century. Overall, lawyers in contemporary cases asked complainants more questions and uttered more words than they did historically. Complainants, too, appear to have become more vocal over time. Across the two time periods, the questioning style used by prosecuting lawyers has shifted towards a more open style. In stark contrast, the format of cross-examination questions has remained remarkably consistent over time, with leading questions still making up the bulk of the questions asked. These findings have important implications for future legal reform and legal practice.     

Changing institutional culture in the wake of clerical abuse – the essentials of restorative and legal regulation

The Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse completed its final report in December 2017 after five years of hearings. The Royal Commission was the culmination of pressure from a series of public inquiries about institutional sexual abuse and sustained advocacy from victims and survivor support groups. The Commission made recommendations designed to change institutional leadership, governance and culture. The challenge is to have that change embedded in institutional culture. This paper considers how this might be done in a specific institution, the Catholic Church given that more than two-thirds of reported abuse in faith-based institutions occurred within its ranks. Regulatory theory suggests effective regulation must be responsive to past institutional behaviour. In the case of the Church, the task is profound given its strong self-protective culture which has long shielded abusers. The form of regulation must provide a balance where criminal sanctions loom large in the background while redress processes proceed in the foreground to repair both the harm suffered by survivors and renew Church culture.     

不查处违法犯罪行为刑罚体系的缺陷和完善

]对违法犯罪行为放纵不查处 ,对犯罪分子揭发他人犯罪事实和重要线索不查证或不及时查证 ,造成严重后果的 ,如何定罪处罚 ,现行《刑法》无可供定罪的罪名 ,使《刑法》对不查处违法犯罪行为的刑法处罚未能形成严密的体系。因此 ,应在《刑法》渎职罪中增加规定行政执法人员放纵违法行为罪 ,修改徇私枉法罪 ,完善立功制度 ,使其形成严密的处罚体系     

禁止重复评价原则视域中的想象竞合犯

想像竞合犯概念的内涵和外延的准确界定是对其进行理论研究的出发点和立足点,其概念的界定应以禁止重复评价原则为基础.想象竞合犯仅存在一个危害行为,由于此危害行为本身的全部或部分要素被重复评价,从而出现一行为触犯数罪名情况.禁止重复评价原则是想象竞合犯存在的实质根据.从禁止重复评价原则的角度审视,想象竞合犯的本质是实质的一罪.由于从一重重处罚和并罚原则违反了禁止重复评价原则的要求,想象竞合犯应当按照从一重处罚原则进行处罚.单一处罚的基石是想象竞合犯的单一危害行为和定罪中对单一行为的禁止重复评价.从重罪处罚的根据是一行为所侵害的数法益和量刑中坚持禁止重复评价原则.     

牵连犯数罪并罚问题研究

牵连犯是我国刑法理论中的一种罪数形态,对牵连犯的处罚原则,一直是理论界和实务部门比较关注的问题.笔者通过对牵连犯及其数罪并罚原则在国(境)外刑法中的地位,以及对牵连犯从一重处罚或数罪并罚相结合的原则在我国刑法理论界的争论和当前立法与司法中的矛盾的分析,认为在我国应当确立统一的数罪并罚的牵连犯处罚原则.同时,笔者认为,为了对行为人准确定罪处罚,需要划清牵连犯与连续犯、想象竞合犯和吸收犯之间的界限.     

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。     

街面侵财型犯罪的社会化预防

现阶段,街面侵财型犯罪日益突出,已经严重危害到人民群众的财产和人身安全。在治理街面侵财型犯罪的过程中,对其实行社会化预防,是一种超前的治理手段,具有从本质上消除犯罪的意义。街面侵财型犯罪的社会化预防可以按照犯罪学的理论,依照犯罪预测、抑制犯罪动机、限制犯罪机会和条件、预防重新犯罪等分步实行。     

模型建构视野下的滥用职权罪——与玩忽职守罪之区别

近年来,刑法学界在涉及滥用职权和玩忽职守两罪的认定时争议颇多,尤其表现在对两罪主观罪过形式及客观方面特征的界定上。实际上,刑法所建构的犯罪识别模型(犯罪构成)虽然来源于生活原型,但由于人为概念系统固有的拟制功能,法律规定往往高于生活事实本身。据此,在犯罪模型上将所有故意性的一般渎职行为统一拟制为滥用职权罪,将所有过失性的一般渎职行为统一拟制为玩忽职守罪,虽然在一定程度上超越于事实原型本身,但却是十分必要和切实可行的。     

Psychological distress and severity of personality disorder symptomatology in prisoners convicted of violent and sexual offences

Abstract

Background: There have been recent proposals in England and Wales to develop services aimed at reducing the risk to the public posed by offenders with so-called “severe personality disorder”. The emphasis of the proposals is on risk. However, prisoners with personality disorder may have psychiatric treatment needs other than those purely relating to public protection. The aim of the study was to examine the association between severity of self reported personality disorder pathology and psychological distress in serious offenders.

Method: All male prisoners in two prisons, convicted of violent or sexual offences, were sent the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire 4+(PDQ?4+) and the Symptom Checklist 90-R (SCL-90-R).

Results: High levels of self reported personality pathology were associated with high levels of psychological distress.

Conclusions: Offenders with the most severe self reported personality disorder pathology experience distress that may be clinically significant. Services for offenders with personality disorder will need to address their associated psychiatric symptoms.     

实体法：请慎入程序法之域——以民事责任竞合为例

在同一程序中就同一纠纷同时提起侵权之诉和合同之诉的起诉方式（重叠合并）广受排斥，然而实体法并不能为此提供依据。有侵权行为法建议稿中的责任竞合条文虽排斥这种起诉方式，但它们是自相矛盾的。从强化论证、法律具有不确定性、一次性解决纠纷等角度看，应准许甚至鼓励这种起诉方式。排斥重叠合并的深层原因是实体法与程序法的混同。可以在实体法中一并设立程序规范，但前提是已充分了解相关程序原理。