Juvenile Competency and Pretrial Due Process: A Call for Greater Protections in Massachusetts for Juveniles Residing in Procedural Purgatory

While juvenile courts continue to balance and reevaluate the dual goals of community safety and rehabilitation of youth, juveniles who are not competent to stand trial have been left without sufficient procedural protections. This paper examines Massachusetts’ approach to juvenile competency, due process, and pretrial procedure, within a national context. The inadequacies of the Massachusetts juvenile competency laws are not unique. Currently there are nineteen states that either entirely lack juvenile‐specific competency legislation or merely incorporate inapposite adult criminal statutes and standards into the juvenile context—making it difficult or impossible for those juvenile courts to dismiss or divert a delinquency petition following an incompetency finding. Massachusetts and states similarly situated should adopt explicit statutory language to delineate the basis for a juvenile incompetency finding and the grounds for dismissing delinquency complaints pretrial after an incompetency finding has been made. This paper proposes that Massachusetts adopt a timeline for effecting such dismissals based in part on the amount of time a juvenile could face if committed to the juvenile correctional authority following an adjudication of delinquency. The paper also recommends best practices of states that are pioneering juvenile legislative reforms like dismissal timelines and incompetency presumptions. Finally, we suggest a more stringent regulatory framework be put in place governing the pretrial detention of youths who have been found not competent to stand trial—a framework that recognizes and preserves the juvenile's substantive rights to education, mental health and rehabilitative services. Without legislation, juveniles found not competent to stand trial remain subject to the prospect of indefinite locked detention, often without access to the necessary services that contribute to future success as well as attainment of competency. This lack of due process runs counter to the foundational goals of the juvenile justice system.     

论我国审前羁押的司法救济

我国现行刑事诉讼法没有确立审前羁押的司法救济程序,被羁押者不能援用司法救济方式质疑审前羁押的合法性,导致司法实践中审前羁押率居高不下和超期羁押问题较为严重。解决这一问题的根本出路就在于构建我国审前羁押的司法救济途径,将人身保护令制度引入我国刑事诉讼法,赋予被羁押者对羁押的合法性提出质疑的权利,让中立的司法机关对羁押的根据进行司法审查,从而将审前羁押纳入司法控制的范畴,利用司法权来保障被羁押者免受非法或者无根据的羁押。     

谈呈请拘留报告书的规范化制作

刑事拘留文书是公安机关常用的刑事法律文书,公安部对此有统一的规定和要求,但基层公安机关在实际操作中往往存在着一些问题,使刑事拘留文书的写作有失规范。为使刑事拘留文书更好地发挥其效用,应进行规范化制作。     

羁押场所巡视制度研究报告

作为一种程序外的酷刑预防机制,羁押场所巡视制度通过邀请社会公众不定期地、未经事先通知地访问看守所,巡视看守所的羁押条件、羁押执法活动是否符合我国法律、法规的相关规定,有效地提高了看守所被羁押人的待遇、促进了监管机关执法的规范化。制度的试行还向社会公众传递了看守所规范执法的积极信息,增强了公众对看守所的了解与信赖。该试点研究通过比对试点前后的相关数据,包括衡量看守所条件、权利保障状况的指标得出了上述结论。     

In Search of 'Invisible' Actors: Barriers to Access in Refugee Research

The paper traces the early history of refugee research and showshow, from originally being prime movers in the research, refugeestoday have largely been reduced to invisibility. In the South,access to refugees held in camps is controlled by local governmentbureaucracies and by lead agencies, and may be severely restrictedor completely denied; in the North, refugees held in detentioncentres are equally difficult to access and even more disempowered.Examples are given of studies carried out in Sierra Leone, Sudan,Egypt, Kenya, Greece and the Former Soviet Union. The paperalso considers barriers to disseminating refugee research, andconcludes that now more than ever the duty of the researcheris to speak on behalf of refugees.     

刑事诉讼视野中的看守所制度研究

看守所制度作为未决犯的羁押场所在刑事诉讼中具有重要地位,实践中看守所的职能扩张已经影响到了看守所保障刑事诉讼顺利进行的原意,不利于在押人员的权利保障。     

海盗羁押不构成停租——评2010年the“Cosco Bulk Carrier v．Team—Up Owning”案

简要介绍the“Cosco Bulk Carrierv．Team—Up Owning”案的案情。按照争点审理的顺序，分别分析法庭对纽约租约停租条款中“海损事故”“不履行职责”“其他原因”等词的解释，提出可能的与判决相反的解释，论证法院判决的合理性。最后得出结论，出于公平分担船方和租方所负担的风险的目的，法院判决海盗羁押不构成停租。     

少捕慎诉慎押刑事司法政策研究

少捕慎诉慎押刑事司法政策是推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化,实现强制措施制度回归诉讼保障功能,应对犯罪结构发生重大变化和深化落实宽严相济刑事政策的必然要求。贯彻少捕慎诉慎押刑事司法政策应当在厘清其内涵的基础上规范其适用范围并遵循一定的原则,其实施路径包括正确把握逮捕的条件;进行实质化的羁押必要性审查;用好、用足不起诉制度;与认罪认罚从宽制度合理衔接以及充分发挥辩护制度的重要作用等。检察机关作为捕诉职能的承担者,是该政策有效施行的“第一责任人”,应当充分发挥“司法纽带”作用。时机成熟时,应当对该政策进行延伸,形成“少拘少捕慎诉慎押慎判”的系统的刑事司法理念和政策。     

美国矫正演进历史（下）

美国独立前沿用英国的刑罚制度，看守所的条件极类似于它们欧洲前辈的条件，在国家审判期间或某种国家惩罚的形式下。欧洲监狱监禁囚犯的条件极其严酷，囚犯还得给看守人员交付小费。当时在美国，监禁作为一种惩罚方式极为少见，而公开绞死和肉体惩罚却是常规行刑方法。美国独立后，殖民者对基本人权的关注以及他们担心政府权力不受限制地施加于公民．最终导致了改革的呼声。美国可谓是后起之秀，在刑罚执行方面建树颇多。逐渐地取代了英国开先河的地位和作用，成为世界性潮流的前卫。     

审前羁押程序比较

审前羁押会使犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的人身自由受到较为严重的侵害。西方各法治国家都采取了相应的法律控制手段。本文通过立法比较解读审前羁押的程序问题 ,透视了我国相关制度。反思了我国完善这项制度的出路以及面对的困境。