从世界人权标准看我国的审前羁押现状——审前羁押制度研究之人权篇

人权问题是每个国家在社会进步历程中都不可回避的一个问题.在世界性的规范文件中,对审前羁押活动中所涉及到的有关被羁押人应受到的程序性保障以及具体待遇情况都作了非常详尽的规定.而从实际调研情况来看,我国则存在有适用上的常规性、关押上的长期性、待遇的非人道性、法律救助困难等非常严峻的问题.对此,我们有必要从一系列制度上,如程序公开、侦查利益排除、加强监督和最低限度权利保障等方面对其进行纠正.     

国际海运业反垄断豁免的法经济学分析——从“THC风波”谈起

国际航运组织自2002年起统一在我国大幅收取THC的事件,反映了我国国际海运业严重的垄断问题。是否给予国际海运业反垄断豁免,事关我国经济发展大局。从宏观经济学的角度分析,我国应当以保护货方利益为原则,不应对国际海运业适用反垄断豁免制度。运用法经济学分析方法对班轮公会、协议联盟和海运经营者集中等垄断形式进行研究,也得出我国不应当给予国际海运业反垄断豁免的结论。我国应当坚定货主大国立场,加强对国际海运业垄断结构和行为的规制。     

从超期羁押看我国未决羁押制度的建立--兼评刑诉法第二修正案相关规定及完善

超期羁押这一我国刑事诉讼中的顽疾,在刑事诉讼法治化、现代化、人权保护意识高涨的今天已无立足之地,而其产生的根本原因在于我国目前无科学、合理的未决羁押制度.现行刑事诉讼法中有关未决羁押的零星规定根本无助于问题的解决,反而是问题产生的根源.所以在刑事诉讼法中建立完善的未决羁押制度是解决问题的必由之路.     

从分权制衡看我国的审前羁押体制——审前羁押制度研究之分权篇

在审前羁押的权力配置上存在着权力过度集中的现象,这种现象已对整个刑事诉讼带来了诸多不利的影响.为改变之,学者们提出了建立以法院为中心的司法审查制度,以强化检察权为中心的审查制度和将羁押机构从公安机关中"中立"出来等等设想.     

从刑事执行理论的发展看审前羁押制度的变革——审前羁押制度研究之关系篇

审前羁押与审后羁押或者说明刑事执行活动有着不可分割的联系.近些年来,刑事执行理论已经有了很大的发展,这样的发展也引起了司法实践的回应.刑事执行活动迅速发展与我们国家的现存审前羁押制度存在着很大的反差.借鉴刑事执行制度的发展,我们有必要考虑在审前羁押手段的适用、变更、解除以及被羁押者的处遇等方面进行一系列的变革.     

我国民事诉讼审前程序的构建

民事诉讼程序的结构模式调整的是诉讼各阶段之间的关系,实行集中审理主义是我国民事诉讼程序演变的基本规律。民事诉讼审前程序的科学构建正是实行这种理念的制度设计的开始。构建我国民事诉讼审前程序应当把握几对关系。     

我国民事诉讼审前准备程序之构建

我国民事诉讼审判方式过分强调开庭审理 ,忽视审前准备 ,导致审前准备程序与庭审程序界限不清 ,功能错位 ,当事人的诉讼主体地位难以确立 ,诉讼代理制度发展不充分等弊端。最高人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据规则的若干规定》确立了举证时限和证据交换制度 ,应当在此基础上尽快修改《民事诉讼法》 ,完善民事诉讼制度 ,构建以证据交换为主要内容的审前准备程序 ;设立审前准备程序法官 ;合理配置法官与当事人的权利义务 ,使当事人真正成为审前准备程序的主体 ;严格诉讼代理人的条件 ,充分发挥律师的作用 ,以更好地实现司法公正与效率的目的。     

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.     

Portrait of the Accused as a Young Man: New Zealand’s Harsh Treatment of Young People who Commit Serious Crimes

Abstract

This article argues that although New Zealand’s unique youth justice system generally considers the whole picture of a young offender and responds holistically to the offending, in the case of those accused of serious crimes, the system draws a limited picture that depicts the young offender as a ‘young adult’. These young people are sentenced in adult courts, where their youth, inexperience and potential for rehabilitation are far less influential than they are in a youth court. The result is harsh treatment of some extremely vulnerable young people, which breaches New Zealand’s international obligations. That harsh treatment is particularly problematic, given its hugely disproportionate effect on Māori youth.     

审前程序中的程序性辩护

以程序法为依据,针对刑事诉讼中的程序性争议提出主张或提出程序性申请,以期维护或实现被追诉者程序性权利的辩护即为程序性辩护.审前程序中程序性辩护的主体主要是犯罪嫌疑人及其辩护律师;权利内容由申请或异议权等四个方面的权利构成;程序性辩护的权利客体涉及程序性争议及程序性申请两大方面.