裸刑均值的意义

量刑的实际水平到底低于、等于还是高于法定刑轻重程度，是立法与司法之间诸多关系之一。以21省市77家法院7万多刑事裁量为样本进行观察，可以得出量刑的实际水平显著低于法定刑中线的结论。这个结论可引发一系列理论思考，并成为我国模范判例制度的依据之一。     

刑满释放人员社会安置论略

在现代社会中,刑满释放人员是兼具弱势性与风险性的特殊社会群体。加强刑满释放人员社会安置工作,不仅有利于社会治安综合治理的顺利进行,而且也是体现人文理念的现代社会之必然要求。建国以来,我国刑释安置就业政策经历了一个较长的演变过程,考究刑释安置工作的历史并分析其现状,感觉喜忧参半,任重而道远。     

略论死刑复核中“发回”案件的重新审判

在重新审判“发回”重审死刑案件的司法实践中,对被告人容易产生有罪推定的倾向、依据补强证据再次适用死刑的倾向和漠视侦控行为合法性的倾向,为此重审法院应杜绝片面依据侦控机关提供的不利于被告人的存疑补强证据,对被告人再次适用死刑;对“事实不清、证据不足型”发回重审的死刑案件,如果经过重审认定的案件事实没有发生重大变化,一般也不宜对被告人再次适用死刑。     

法律监督向社区矫正范畴的延伸

社区矫正在全国范围内试行,预示着我国刑罚制度由重刑主义向轻刑主义演化,这种新的行刑方式亦存在许多问题和不完善之处,检察机关须改进法律监督的职能,并向社区矫正全方位延伸,才能使社区矫正工作达到预期的矫正效果。     

巨额财产来源不明罪的梳理与重构

巨额财产采源不明罪的讨论现状是，本罪在立法定位、行为形态、证明责任和法定刑几个方面有着不同的争论焦点，在此基础上作出合乎该罪实质意义的解释．以对立法乃至司法提出可供操作性的建议，从而避免腐败分子钻法律的空子，严厉打击贪污贿赂犯罪．     

主观主义与客观主义之分野及趋同

客观主义从人的共同理性、人格同一性出发 ,以行为为中心 ,注重行为客观社会危害的犯罪评价 ;主观主义从人的超越理性、人格特殊性出发 ,以行为人为中心 ,强调行为人的人身危险性的犯罪评价。 1 9世纪以来 ,主观主义、客观主义由对立走向折衷、调和以至统一 ,形成了折衷主义。刑法典与司法运作折射着其背后的理论蕴含。在当代刑法中 ,量刑不仅要依据行为、实害、故意、过失 ,而且需考虑行为人的人身危险性 ,此为量刑之折衷 ;人身危险性从两个角度介入定罪 ,是为定罪之折衷。     

SEX‐BASED DISPARITIES IN FELONY DISPOSITIONS BEFORE VERSUS AFTER SENTENCING REFORM IN OHIO*

Extending Koons‐Witt's (2002) study of whether sex‐based disparities in imprisonment likelihoods changed under sentencing guidelines in Minnesota, we examined similar models for Ohio with additional analyses of felony conviction likelihoods and sentence length for 5,472 felony defendants from twenty‐four trial courts. The main effects of a defendant's sex on imprisonment were significant during both periods (unlike the Minnesota findings), consistent with a chivalry perspective. Random coefficient models revealed that these effects were similar across the twenty‐four jurisdictions. Analyses also revealed significant postguideline reductions in sentence length disparities based on a woman's race and number of dependent children, yet increased disparities in imprisonment likelihoods postguidelines based on a woman's race and whether she was convicted on drug charges. These and other findings are discussed in the context of the Ohio legislature's implementation of a sentencing scheme that retains considerably more judicial discretion relative to Minnesota's template.     

应理性看待服刑人员的结婚行为

服刑人员虽然被判处刑罚,但结婚权属于未被剥夺或限制的权利之一。但由于人身自由的受限制,在客观上已无法通过自己的行为去实现结婚的权利。因此,这需要有关机关的配合与协助,而理性地看待服刑人员的结婚行为是解决问题的关键。     

法院改变罪名如何运作——兼与提出设置罪名改变通知程序的龙宗智先生讨教

对于法院能否改变罪名的问题学界和实务界争议教很大.龙宗智先生认为因为立法和司法解释已将判决改变罪名的权力明确赋予法院,固而法院改变罪名就不是法院有没有权力的问题,而是如何具体运作的问题,即是一个程序问,从而建言应设置一个罪名改变通知程序来进行具体运作并进一步论证了其合理和可行性.该程序具体运作由于庭审结构畸变导致法理上的不合理,条件上的不支撑,实践上的不可行,实效上的难如愿.对协商无效后作出无罪判决更为理性.     

The judicial response to crime and the criminal: A utilitarian perspective

This paper examines the hypothesis that the sentencing decision of the criminal court is consistent with utilitarian principles and that the judiciary uses the length of incarceration as an instrument for the maximization of societal well-being. A theoretical model is developed, whose principal arguments are offender and offense attributes, resource costs, the availability of alternative sanctions, and the general crime rate. Four questions are considered: (i) How does a utilitarian court respond to a general increase in crime? (ii) How does the availability of alternative sanctions affect the length of incarceration ? (iii) How does a utilitarian court respond to offenders who are more likely to recidivate? (iv) How does the court respond to offenders who commit more serious offenses? The model is empirically evaluated, using cross-sectional data for the state of Georgia for individuals sentenced to prison in 1978 for a UCR index offense. The theoretical model provides few specific behavioral rules for the court to follow. Answers to the foregoing four questions are shown to depend upon both the efficacy of sanctions and the cost of the administration of those sanctions. It is not possible to predict, for example, how a utilitarian court should respond to a rise in crime or how it should respond to offenders who are likely to commit more serious offenses. The empirical analysis shows that, in fact, the sentence length varied inversely with the general offense rate, with the likelihood of imprisonment, and with the length of postprison probation. The evidence also indicates that sentences vary with the individual's original record but not with the offender's age or race. With the exception of possible gender bias, the court's sentencing behavior was consistent with utilitarian principles.