Which decision‐making arrangements generate the strongest legitimacy beliefs? Evidence from a randomised field experiment

How can democracies satisfy citizens' demands for legitimate decision making? This article reports findings from a randomised field experiment designed to mimic decision making in large‐scale democracies. Natural collectives of individuals with a shared history and future (high school classes) were studied. They were asked to make a decision about how to spend a sum of money under arrangements imposed by the researchers and distributed randomly across classes. Within this setting, empirical support for three ideas about legitimacy enhancing decision‐making arrangements is tested: participatory constitution‐making; personal involvement in the decision‐making process; and fairness in the implementation of arrangements. Throughout the analyses it was found that personal involvement is the main factor generating legitimacy beliefs.     

羁押必要性之检察审查制的程序化构建——兼评新《刑事诉讼法》第93条

最新的《刑事诉讼法》增加了羁押必要性之检察审查制度,这对于解决实践中存在的超期羁押现象起到重要作用,也有利于更好地保障犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的人权。羁押必要性之检察制在我国确立有其必然性,但是该制度也具有一定的内在缺陷,而且我国关于该制度的最新规定也存在诸多漏洞,为了使羁押必要性之检察审查制能够发挥应有的作用,关键在于将该制度进行程序化构建。     

Explaining Majority and Minority Trust in the Police

This article tests the contribution that social capital theory, performance theory, and the procedural justice-based model can make towards explaining the trust of majority and minority group members in the police. The central research questions are: (1) do the same factors determine their levels of trust? and (2) are the effects parallel? To answer these questions, we carried out regression analyses on data collected from majority and minority group members living in Belgium (960 face-to-face interviews). The results show that, although the three theories offer explanatory elements for members of both majority and minority groups, the explanation of their trust in the police is not identical. Implications for research and theorization are discussed.     

The Importance of Perceptions in Restorative Justice Conferences: The Influence of Offender Personality Traits on Procedural Justice and Shaming

Research suggests that restorative justice (RJ) conferences are more just than traditional court processing due to the presence of procedural justice (PJ). These conferences also promote reintegrative shaming which, in contrast to disintegrative shaming, allows offenders to repair their ties with the community. Yet, fairness and the type of shaming experienced may depend on perceptions of the offender. We argue that the personality traits of negative emotionality and low constraint influence offenders' evaluations of the fairness of these conferences, which have implications for their experience of shaming. We test these arguments using data from a sample of 498 offenders involved in the Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments. Results reveal that personality traits affect perceptions of PJ and both types of shaming, and that PJ mediates these effects. The findings support the notion that RJ conferences are perceived to be procedurally just and reintegrative for certain types of offenders.     

监视居住制度评析——以2011年《刑事诉讼法修正案(草案)》为视角

2011年《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法修正案(草案)》(以下简称《修正案草案》)充分注意到了现行监视居住制度在实施过程中所暴露出的问题,并对监视居住制度进行了一系列的改造。《修正案草案》的立法初衷是将监视居住确立为一种减少羁押的替代性措施,但具体的条文设计却使监视居住制度产生了内部的分裂。在嫌疑人、被告人自己住所执行的监视居住可以被认为是一种非羁押性的强制措施,但指定居所的监视居住显然已成为一种羁押性的强制措施。因此,为了防止权力的滥用和充分保障嫌疑人、被告人的人权,对指定居所的监视居住需要进行更为严格的审查与控制。具体的审查、控制方法可以参照对逮捕的审查、控制方法,同时也需要确立对其进行定期羁押必要性审查的制度。另外还需确立错误指定居所监视居住的国家赔偿制度作为最后一道"防线"。     

论我国刑事诉讼客体内容的确定——案件事实及其法律评价的双重确定

作为刑事诉讼基本要素之一的刑事诉讼客体理论内容系统庞杂,但我国理论界对刑事诉讼客体的内容素有争论,时至今日也并未达成一致,这阻滞着公诉变更、法院变更罪名、＂一事不再理＂等问题的解决。应结合刑法与刑事诉讼法规范的目的,并以刑事实体法与刑事程序法为双重基础,确立包含实体内容与程序内容在内的案件事实、对案件事实的法律评价为刑事诉讼客体的内容。     

四代中央领导核心的党的先进性建设思想

党的先进性历来是随着形势和任务的变化而不断丰富和发展的。四代中央领导核心都始终重视加强党的先进性建设。随着时代和实践的发展,他们关于党的先进性建设思想的着力点有继承又有创新,体现了党的先进性建设的不断深化过程。     

司法仪式初探

人们对“法律神圣”的理解和体验首先是从能够看得见的司法仪式中开始的。从广义上说,法律程序的设置和整个法庭的审判都是一种司法仪式。本文从阐明司法仪式作为中国司法改革的课题之一的必要性和必然性出发,进一步探究司法仪式的源与流,以期对构建我国司法仪式提供理路。     

民事诉讼侵害阻断制度释义及其必要性分析

在诉请法院判令对方当事人履行特定行为义务的诉讼中，传统的作法是必须待到判决确定后才能对侵害行为采取措施。在此前，无论是法院还是权利人均没有权利制止侵害的继续发生。这种做法会使权利人的利益蒙受巨大的损失，也会造成社会资源的浪费。因此，有必要针对诉讼中发生的侵害设立阻断侵害以保全现状的制度，避免权利人遭受难以弥利、的损失。我国现行有关侵害阻断的规定，大多属于应急性措施，立法界对其必要性缺乏足够的认识，理论界既有的研究成果中对该项制度的本质与特征也存在着误解。     

Distributive and procedural justice in interpersonal and intergroup situations: Issues,solutions, and extensions

This paper addresses theoretical issues relating to distributive and procedural justice. Specifically, comparisons are made between interpersonal and intergroup situations. Within the realm of distributive justice, two reinterpretations of the ingroup allocation bias are offered. One reinterpretation states that people show this bias to prevent being exploited by the outgroup. The other reinterpretation states that the bias can be regarded as a measure of the perceived worth of the ingroup in relation to the outgroup. The related issue of the procedure used for allocating resources is addressed by extending Tyler and Lind's (1992) Relational Model of Authority to all ingroup members in both interpersonal and intergroup situations. Reinterpretations and extensions offered in this paper lead to new theoretical insights and to several suggestions and predictions for future empirical research.