学习历史与提高领导干部素质

重视历史知识的学习、研究和运用,是马克思主义者的一个传统。在新的历史条件下,广大党员干部必须注意从历史中汲取营养,提高自身素质。     

反行政垄断没必要区分“地区垄断与部门垄断”

如何对行政垄断进行科学分类,是反行政垄断必须解决的问题.目前我国理认界和法律实务界对行政垄断两种形态即地区垄断和部门垄断虽然有较为一致辞的认识,但因两存在较多的交叉重叠,也由于两者在然害性质和然害手段上基本相同,所以无论在实践上还是在理论上,两者的区分意义不大.     

论刑事法的历史分析

历史分析，作为法学重要的研究方法之一，对于刑事法研究具有积极意义。对中国当代刑事法进行历史分析，并非去发现所谓的“民族精神”，而是寻找刑事法律制度得以形成的脉络，以及在法制演进中的政治、经济和文化因素。在刑事法学研究中运用这种分析方法，具体表现为历史比较研究、历史的社会研究以及历史的价值研究。对中国刑事法发展作历史研究，应区分不同时代，并有目的性地进行研究，进而挖掘其中可为当代刑事法发展利用的有益因素。     

警察院校学生英语语言僵化原因分析与对策探讨

警察院校学生语言僵化现象尤为突出，笔者认为这主要是由学生特殊的认知和情感因素、学习环境、课程设置与教材、教学方法等内外因两方面共同作用而导致的。笔者提出，可以转变认知观念、提高文化涵养，克服情感障碍、树立积极的态度，改革课程设置、创新教育理念，开发学生自主学习、研究学习的能力四个方面着手，努力克服僵化，提高学习效果。     

大学的要义

大学是研究高深学问的地方，是创造新科学、新知识、新化的机构；大学是高层次人才聚集的地方，是专家、学们公开追求真知、真理的场所；大学是培养学生健全人格、高尚道德、健康情感、良好的化修养、社会适应能力和职业创造能力的地方。对大学本质和宗旨的误解、误读将使大学的信念扭曲、精神失落、功能异化，使大学不像大学，成为缺少大学品格和精神的职业培训中心。     

无罪推定、沉默权、口供之比较

对无罪推定、沉默权、口供的历史渊源、法律含义以及各自体现的法律思想进行了分析对比和论证,从比较分析中理清了三者之间的关系。通过三者关系的比较得出,沉默权问题实际上是证据规则的告知问题,应当将沉默权置于整个证据体系中来研究。     

中美法庭科学实验室比较研究

本文以中美权威部门发布的统计报告以及有关文献报道的数据为基础,通过比较研究,从实验室分布、规模、人力资源、工作量、专业设置、技术标准化、资金、管理体系和信息化9个方面进行深入分析,找出双方的差异和距离,为我国法庭科学实验室的发展建设提供参考依据。     

The consequences of respondent attrition in panel studies: A simulation based on the Rochester youth development study

Subject attrition is a potentially serious threat to the validity of inferences drawn from panel studies of delinquency and drug use. Prior assessments of this issue produce somewhat conflicting results, with some finding that respondents who leave the panel have higher rates of delinquency and drug use than those who remain, while other studies report little or no differential attrition. Despite these findings, there has been virtually no examination of the extent to which respondent attrition can bias substantive findings in panel studies of delinquency and drug use. The present article addresses this issue by simulating higher levels of attrition in an ongoing panel study that has a low rate of attrition and little differential attrition. It finds that failure to include more elusive respondents (those who are more mobile) would bias estimates of prevalence and frequency of delinquency and drug use as well as results from basic regression analyses. Failure to include less cooperative respondents (those who require more contacts) produces similar, but somewhat smaller, differences. The methodological implications of the results are discussed.     

“说谎权”抑或真实供述义务：沉默权之后的两难选择——规制被告人说谎行为的比较法研究

在法官主持的讯问中,针对被告人的说谎行为刑事诉讼中有两种立法规制,英国规定被告人具有真实供述义务而德国赋予其说谎权。说谎权体现了对被告人人格尊严的尊重,但不利于事实真相的查明、诉讼效率的实现。这与我国对英国和德国的法律特点的总体认识出现背离。通过对英、德两国司法制度的比较,揭示了法律是一个有机的整体,立法要注意与该国其他法律制度相契合,要与本土资源相吻合。进而思考我国在立法规制被告人的说谎行为时应当予以关注的问题。     

Comparing the Validity of Prospective,Retrospective, and Official Onset for Different Offending Categories

Using data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, a prospective longitudinal study of 411 London males, the main aim of this research is to compare the age of onset of six types of offenses according to different methods of measurement – prospective self-reports, retrospective self-reports, and official records – and also to explore self-reported and official onset sequences. Results showed that ages of onset reported in retrospective accounts generally tended to be higher than those reported prospectively. Agreement rates between prospective and retrospective accounts were lowest for minor forms of offending, and highest for more serious offenses such as theft of vehicles. Males with heavy substance use habits were less likely to report the same age of onset retrospectively compared with prospectively. Denial rates were substantial in all comparisons, particularly for minor forms of offending. Comparisons between self-reported and official measures of onset revealed that there was a greater degree of agreement between the two measures for serious offenses. Whereas self-reported onset sequences suggested that minor crimes were committed before more serious offenses, official onset sequences suggested the reverse. The findings show that retrospective reports are not suitable to address research questions requiring detailed information (i.e., most criminal career parameters: age of onset, frequency, age of termination, etc.), for studying minor forms of offending, and for samples of individuals with serious substance use habits. Furthermore, official measures of offending can also produce misleading results, particularly when studying minor forms of offending.