Social Justice and Moral Reasoning: An Empirical Integration of Two Paradigms in Psychological Research

Distributive and procedural justice are of central importance to past and current theories of the psychology of moral development and the social psychology of justice. In order to explicate the relationships among theories, participants responded to both a measure of moral reasoning and a measure of 15 various justice criteria. Analyses showed that each schema of moral reasoning was significantly predicted by different concerns about social justice. Furthermore, individuals' judgments about justice were best represented by four factors, offering a broader definition of justice in relation to moral schemas. The findings were consistent with Kohlbergian theory; moral reasoning appears to proceed from concerns about self-interest to distributive fairness to procedural justice.     

行政行为效力理论之检讨

现有行政行为效力内容的确定不合理,应采取以公定力、实质确定力、形式确定力和拘束力为基础的四分法架构; 其研究方法过于静态,存在“一刀切”弊端,脱离了实践,应从过程性的视角对具体行政行为效力发展进行动态地把握;其研究范围存在局限性,经验对象的选取上存在盲区,导致理论归纳出现一定程度的不周延,应该将行政行为的司法效力也纳入到研究视野中来。     

诉讼证据合法性问题辨析

案件事实只能通过证据来认定.证据事实可能与真实的事实有出入,只是案件事实的假象.较之于其它本质属性,诉讼证据的合法性的主要功能是为诉讼证据的认识提供检验标准,来确定证据事实的法律效力.它不是证据自身的物理属性而是外在的关系属性,它不属于证据的真实性问题而属于有效性问题.诉讼证据合法性体现了立法者对证据的标准的认识,具有主观性和历史性.在现代社会里,论证是认定证据的有效性的检验标准,因而,诉讼证据合法性问题便主要是通过建立具有理想的论证方式来增强诉讼证据的效力,促进合法性与其它属性的真正统一.     

略论我国刑事证据开示制度之重构

修改后的刑事诉讼法实施后,我国的刑事审判方式由审问制转为对抗制,而庭审前的证据开示程序在对抗制的庭审方式中具有极其重要的意义和不容忽视的价值。然而,我国现行刑事立法未能全面反映当代证据开示制度的基本要求,仅有的一些规定只能反映证据开示制度的某些特征。因此,重构我国刑事证据开示制度,将是我国刑事立法和刑事司法改革面临的一项重要任务。     

Procedural Fairness,Blame Attributions,and Presidential Leadership

The removal of the President of the United States from office is a rare and significant event. This study investigated the influence of procedural fairness and blame attributions on punishment and support attitudes during the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton. This study assessed the influence of the procedural fairness of Clinton's behavior, procedural fairness of the Kenneth Starr/Congress investigation, satisfaction with Clinton policies, and blame attributions on punishment attitudes (i.e., whether Clinton should be removed from office) and support attitudes (i.e., whether individuals would vote for Clinton if an election were held today). Both the procedural fairness of Starr/Congress and procedural fairness of Clinton' behavior significantly influenced punishment and support attitudes. Procedural fairness of Clinton had indirect effects on punishment attitudes (through perceived blame of Clinton) and direct effects on support attitudes. Procedural fairness of Starr/Congress had direct effects on both punishment and support attitudes.     

试论仲裁裁决的撤销(上)——兼论我国相关立法的完善

当今,我国市场经济日趋发达,各种民事主体之间的经济往来日益频繁,各种经济纠纷也层出不穷,仲裁作为与诉讼并列的一种纠纷解决方式正因其高效和迅速的特点而日益发挥出重要的作用。仲裁与诉讼的关系也逐渐成为大家关注的焦点,特别是其中的“司法应该在多大程度上干预仲裁的过程和结果”这一问题更是成为核心问题。撤销仲裁裁决制度是司法干预仲裁的重要表现形式,但是在我国,该制度的研究至今仍不完善,导致现实中法院审理撤销仲裁裁决案件没有具体审理程序可以依照,因此实践中存在许多问题亟待解决。笔者在文章中通过理论分析,将撤销仲裁裁决的申请认定为撤销仲裁裁决之诉,并在此基础上对我国审理撤销仲裁裁决案件的程序进行构建。     

论当庭宣判

当庭宣判对于实现实体公正、程序公正以及提高诉讼效率都具有非常重要的意义。在我国,定期宣判被普遍化而当庭宣判则成为例外的做法,这种现象弱化了法庭审判的功能,导致许多案件的一审、二审甚至再审程序被架空,加剧了司法腐败和司法不公,同时妨碍了社会公众对审判活动的监督。这一问题的出现有着复杂的原因:庭前和庭审阶段存在的问题使法官难以当庭宣判;立法上存在的缺陷使法官不愿当庭宣判;错案追究制使法官不敢当庭宣判。要实现当庭宣判制度,必须进行相应的制度改革。     

鉴定结论冲突的程序性规制

鉴定结论冲突是鉴定结论之间存在不一致性,相互对立排斥或者相互干扰。鉴定结论的冲突从某种程度上影响了诉讼的正常进行,但考察其机理,又存在着某种必然性,是一种多元因素的产物。在诉讼中运用鉴定结论,应针对其机理,实行程序性的必要的预防措施,避免其对诉讼的不良影响;此外,面对冲突的鉴定结论,亦可用程序性措施加以规制。     

论专门性问题的诉讼证明

基于我国现行诉讼法关于专门性问题证明的制度缺陷 ,笔者认为 ,应对鉴定人的产生、鉴定活动、鉴定内容和范围的确定以及法庭对专门性问题的审查、判断等问题加以规范和完善 ,允许和吸收其他同行专家参与对专门性问题的证明活动 ,监督和保障专门性问题证明和采信的公开性、科学性、规范性 ,保证证明结果的准确性和公正性。