The Social Context of Responses to Injustice: Considering the Indirect and Direct Effects of Group-Level Factors

Whether individuals evaluate a distribution of outcomes to be unfair and how they respond to it depends upon the social context and their perceptions of why the objective injustice occurred. Here we examine a general feature of the situation that highlights what is often overlooked in distributive justice research: the impact of the group. We conceptualize such impact in terms of the group value model of procedural justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988) and in terms of collective sources of legitimacy (Walker and Zelditch, 1993). The former highlights how the extent to which one feels valued by the group may enhance perceptions of distributive justice (net of actual outcomes) and thus ameliorate the impetus to respond to objective injustice. The latter considers how the dynamics of group influence may reduce the propensity to respond behaviorally to perceived injustice. Our analysis shows how procedural justice and legitimacy (in the forms of authorization and endorsement) may affect attributions in a work setting, and, in turn, influence individuals' justice perceptions and reactions. By combining these elements, we chart for the first time the relative impact of two factors representing elements of the group on an individual's evaluation of and response to distributive injustice.     

保释制度的评析及借鉴

保释制度是指对被逮捕或羁押待侦查、审判的人提供担保后予以释放的制度。保释最早产生于英国 ,经过漫长的历史发展形成今日较为完备的一项以保障人身自由为目的的制度。保释制度为国际社会所接受是以其内在诉讼价值作为依托和支撑的 ,其所蕴含的权利保障理念对我国的取保候审制度有一定的借鉴意义。吸取其合理因素来改造取保候审对我国来说更为有利     

Preference for decision control in organizational decision making

Two studies examined preference for authority or subordinate decision control in dispute resolution and allocation procedures in an organizational setting. In both studies, a marked preference for the authority/subordinate sharing of decision control was found. In Study 1, nearly one third of respondents preferred that subordinates share decision control with supervisors in both dispute and allocation situations; for several of the situations decision sharing was the modal preference. The study also found a tendency to prefer subordinate decision control in disputes but supervisor decision control in allocations. In Study 2, again the most preferred procedure was one in which subordinates shared decision control with their supervisors. The procedure high in decision sharing was rated as the one most fair. It was also rated as more likely to improve relationships among members and to result in the best decision. Some differences in preference for decision control and decision sharing depending upon social factors predominant in the setting were found.     

论行政处罚自由裁量权的规制

行政处罚自由裁量权首先有一个合理性适用的问题,其规制应当从实体法和程序法上明确规定其适用的标准、方式、步骤与范围;在行政体制上要加强对工商执法部门的监督与管理,完善体制,提高工商执法人员的法律素质;在司法上设立最后的防线予以救济与保障,切实有效地规范行政处罚自由裁量权的适用。     

Perceptions of justice: Clientele evaluations of conflict adjustment by a utility regulatory agency

During the past 15 years social psychological research on justice has evaluated hypotheses about linkages among various personal and institutional attributes and variables like outcome favorability and perceptions of procedural and distributive justice in decision-making contexts. This article reexamines hypotheses and findings about procedural and distributive justice using data from the dispute adjustment process used by a state regulatory agency. This study differs from any previous studies of perceptions of justice in two respects. First, the study employs data about the perceptions ofboth sides of a disputing experience before a public authority. Second, rather than using multiple regression and path analysis as in many past studies, we illustrate the value of hierarchical log-linear analysis as an analytical technique. The data analyzed through loglinear analysis permit us to reconsider previous conclusions about the procedural neutrality and participation in dispute adjustment and the linkage of these concepts to the legitimacy of the political regime.     

羁押必要性审查制度研究

我国在最新修订的法律及各种规范性文件中对羁押制度进行了修改与完善,其中修改后的《刑事诉讼法》确立了必要性审查程序,而最新的《人民检察院刑事诉讼规则(试行)》则对此进行了细化,通过多个条文予以具体规定,对审查主体、内容、方式等问题进行了初步的规定。由于法律和司法解释的规定都相对比较原则,导致该项制度在实施过程中仍存在程序规定不细致、审查标准不明确等问题。我们应在理清羁押及羁押必要性审查的概念、羁押必要性审查的理论基础及价值目标等基础理论的前提下,梳理出我国羁押必要性审查制度的立法现状,并在此基础上正确理解我国羁押必要性审查的性质、涉及的诉讼阶段、审查的案件范围、实施审查的工作主体等基本问题,进而结合基层检察工作实际,构建一套符合立法意旨且切实可行的羁押必要性审查机制。     

刑事既判力理论及其中国化

欧陆的刑事既判力理论源于罗马法,指刑事既决事由所创设的稳定诉讼状态,包括既决事项的实质确定力和程序结果的自缚力。刑事既判力旨在解决刑事判决生效后既决事由的效力范围及程序安定性等问题。程序安定、诉讼经济及权利保障是其理论基础。在效力类型上,终局判决的既判力可分为肯定效力与否定效力、相对效力与绝对效力以及主观效力与客观效力。免诉裁决虽不构成严格意义上的刑事终局判决,但亦经过较严格的证明程序,具有"类"既判力。刑事既判力阻却制度奉行"禁止不利于被告的变更"原则,严格限制非常上诉与再审程序的启动。中国刑事诉讼长期缺乏程序安定的理念,再审程序的启动具有极大的随机性和任意性,应引入既判力理论,以维护判决的权威性及程序的安定性。     

我国大陆地区刑事被害人保护制度论纲

我国大陆地区刑事被害人保护措施虽长期存在,但并未形成专门且自成体系的制度。"有意"且专门的被害人保护制度得以初步成型的时间不过七、八年之久。刑事被害人保护制度的类型整体上可区分为程序性保护制度和实体性保护制度。程序性保护制度的具体内容体现为刑事被害人依法享有的诉讼权利。实体性保护制度的内容具体包括:刑事损害赔偿制度,犯罪赃物追缴、返还或退赔制度,刑事损害赔偿优先于犯罪罚没的制度,刑事被害人的社会保障制度,刑事被害人救济制度。程序性保护制度和实体性保护制度都取得了可喜成绩,但都还存在诸多缺陷和不足。相应地,应当通过针对性的弥补和完善措施,以使我国大陆地区形成更完备、合理且成熟的刑事被害人保护制度。     

程序法律论证基本问题研究

获得合理的裁判结论最终是追求实体问题的合理解决,但在司法实践中往往只注重实体问题本身,忽视了程序性证明对实体性裁判结论的影响。法律论证由实体法律论证和程序法律论证组成,通过程序法律论证体系的构建,其所涉及的程序法规范论证、程序性事实论证、逻辑推理方法论证、程序性结论论证等能阐明其论证范围及对实体裁判结论的影响,以获得程序性证明体系的基本内容和方法。     

论我国沉默权制度的构建

沉默权是国际人权法上的一项基本人权。构建沉默权制度,是刑事讼诉中保障犯罪嫌疑人、被告人人权的必然要求。我国应顺应国际趋势、借鉴两大法系有代表性国家的做法,并结合我国的实际情况,建立适应我国国情的有限沉默权制度。