中外刑事审判主体制度之比较

作为刑事诉讼活动的主导力量,刑事审判主体在世界各国的刑事诉讼中形态各异。除法官作为重要的刑事审判主体以外,民众参与司法程序成为中外审判主体制度的发展趋势。针对当前刑事诉讼存在的司法不公现象,在借鉴国外审判主体制度的基础上,致力于增强司法的民主性,是防止司法腐败、确保司法公正的必由之路。     

构建干部培训现场教学的流程体系

现场教学的优势与特色使其在干部培训中得到了广泛运用。但也存在对现场教学重要性认识不足、不适应、不规范的问题。为了充分发挥现场教学的功效、保障教学质量,现场教学必须规范化、科学化。构建现场教学的流程体系,就是其中一个重要方面。     

法官自身因素对案件事实认定的影响——从定量分析的角度

司法审判作为解决社会纠纷的最后途经，一定要确保社会正义的实现。法官作为作出司法裁判的主体，是“法”或“正义”的化身，应当通过证据尽可能还原案件事实真相，然而法官在审理案件过程中受自身各种因素的影响，不可避免地带有一定的主观倾向，这种情况的发生严重影响了司法的公正性。北京师范大学证据法研究所课题组针对此问题，选取了八个省市的刑事法官进行问卷调查，并对上海、广州、武汉、昆明、哈尔滨等城市的调查问卷进行了定量分析，以探求法官自身因素对事实认定的影响。     

论法官的适法能力

法官的职业决定了法官永远是事实的后发现者。身为法官,在审判过程中需运用已有的成文规则和判例,对已发现的事实,通过证据进行分析、判断,进而处理复杂的社会矛盾,使本不平衡的社会利益对抗关系达到平衡状态。这个过程需要法官具有较高的道德素养,训练有素的语言、文字功底,博学的历史和现代科技知识积累,才能产生知识与经验、技巧的有机结合,形成分析、判断和破解疑难问题的能力。     

影响刑事判决的法官情感因素及其制约

法律规定和案件事实毋庸置疑是法官判决时考虑的两个因素。在刑事审判中,似乎法官在定罪量刑时以事实为根据,以法律为准绳,机械地运用三段论式推理就必然能得出正确无误的判决。然而,实证考察的结果表明事实并非如此。法官定罪量刑、得出罪之有无的判决过程是心与脑对话的过程,是理性与非理性冲突、协调的过程。在这一过程中,法官的情感因素起着重要作用。由于这些情感因素对司法公正具有利与不利双重性,因此应采取措施予以引导、制约。     

论刑事证据开示制度——以主持者的角度为切入点

证据开示制度在西方尤其是强调当事人对抗制的英美法系确立已久。证据开示的核心要求是在辩护方提出合理申请的情况下,法庭可以要求指控方在审判前允许辩护方查阅或获得其掌握的证据材料,同时在法律规定的特定情况下,法庭也可以要求辩护方将其准备在审判中提出的证据材料向指控方予以公开。当前,在理论界与实务界对我国引进该项制度的必要性基本达成了一致意见,但具体如何设置仍存在分歧。从理论角度来看,由法官助理作为证据开示主持者之后,其他问题如证据的开示时间、范围、地点以及违反开示的责任承担的裁判者都能得到恰当解决。     

论宋代司法活动中的人性化因素

宋代是中国封建社会法制成就最高的朝代,与前代相比,人性化因素十分突出,主要表现为对人的生命的关注,对弱势群体的矜恤,对血缘关系的维护与珍重。体现在司法活动中则是:恤狱慎刑,明德慎罚,灵活务实,原情定罪,重视伦常,维护亲情,矜恤弱势群体,广开越诉之门。     

论中国司法改革

中国现行的司法改革措施偏离了法治方向 ,原因在于对司法改革的根本法理问题、司法改革的性质、司法的价值取向、司法独立、司法的职业化等缺乏足够的认识。本文力求理清上述问题 ,并对中国的司法改革提出了一些设想。     

Can Us-Type Court Management Approaches Work In Civil Law Systems? Experiences From The Balkans And Beyond

The benefit of applying modern management approaches to court operations to ensuring access to justice, timely and transparent dispositions, and increased public trust in courts is recognized in many countries. In the USA, the art of applying modern management techniques to court operations has evolved over the past 30 years into a now solidly established profession. Since the underlying principles and techniques of modern court management, such as case flow management, goal-oriented performance measures, workload assessments, customer surveys, etc., are derived from general management concepts they are not tied to a particular legal system or framework and can be successfully applied in non-US systems if they are properly adjusted. Interested in the positive results of court management in the USA, researchers and practitioners in several European countries have been looking at the applicability of the approaches used in the USA to improve their own ability to manage court processes more efficiently.Since court management has become a main staple of reforming court operations in the USA, it is not surprising that US-funded development assistance in the Balkan states and other countries often involves transferring court management US-style into the newly evolving democracies as part of rule of law or commercial sector development assistance. These projects frequently introduce, among others, case flow management techniques that sometimes seem to be in conflict with underlying legal principles or procedural laws, and often defy the local legal culture. The US-funded assistance programs are often introduced parallel to efforts funded by European and other donors, which may take and suggest different approaches to the host country. As a result, confusion and insecurity about which approaches are appropriate for a particular country can arise and impede much needed reforms or lead to legislative and regulatory changes that do not mesh well or even conflict with other parts of the legal framework.This article reviews the role of US-based court management approaches in recent court reform efforts under way in Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia and, in light of lessons learned there and in other countries, assesses the reform processes applied and their status. It also outlines how these court management approaches fit into non-US court systems, how they can be adjusted according to individual country needs and what the main obstacles are that such reform efforts generally face.     

阴茎动脉Doppler超声分析

目的研究健康成年男性阴茎背动脉(DA)、海绵体动脉(CA)PI、RI及S/D的正常值。方法将257名健康成年男性按年龄分为5组,分别为<30岁组65名,30～39岁组83名,40～49岁组61名,50～59岁组38名,60岁以上组10名。用Logidop!2型数字式Doppler超声血流仪检查双侧阴茎背动脉、双侧海绵体动脉PI、RI及S/D值。结果阴茎疲软状态下,阴茎背动脉、海绵体动脉PI、RI和S/D值个体左右比较无差异,各年龄组也无差异。建议正常参考值分别为:(1)LDA:PI1.43～3.43,RI0.72～0.92,S/D2.68～10.56。(2)RDA:PI1.47～3.47,RI0.73～0.93,S/D3.27～10.09。(3)LCA:PI1.49～3.21,RI0.74～0.90,S/D3.17～9.55。(4)RCA:PI1.93～3.27,RI0.72～0.90,S/D3.22～9.42。结论作为一种筛选手段,Doppler超声血流检测手段,有一定的应用价值。