论免受酷刑权的国际标准

免受酷刑权,即保持身体和精神完整性的权利。免受酷刑权国际标准的确立,是人类道德进步的一种象征。充分及真正普遍地实施国际法律文件中所阐述的标准是世界大家庭面临的艰巨任务。禁止酷刑是世界性难题。中国是《禁止酷刑公约》的缔约国,但中国免受酷刑的保障现状与国际标准相比较有很大差距,尤其是在刑事司法领域刑讯逼供现象还很普遍。这与《禁止酷刑公约》所规定的国家禁止酷刑的义务不符合,也导致了大量的司法不公的存在。随着国际社会禁止酷刑的发展,中国依照免受酷刑权的国际标准在国内积极推进禁止酷刑,在国际上全面接受国际监督就尤为迫切。     

共同犯罪实行过限研究

司法实践中，实行过限的一般情形在共同犯罪中比较普遍，认定及处罚的一般标准已形成通说。但我国刑法没有对实行过限问题做出明确规定。在共同犯罪中，行为人的犯罪故意的内容可能随作案环境的变化而在法定条件下发生转化，对组织犯、实行犯、帮助犯、教唆犯、结果加重犯和想象竞合犯等的实行过限进行分析，追究犯罪实行过限的法律责任。     

刑事公诉的法律属性与公诉改革

现代公诉制度的发展渊源、刑事公诉的功能以及价值目标,说明刑事公诉具有法律监督的属性。刑事公诉的法律监督属性又要通过特定程序,借助相关措施和制度方能实现。为强化和突出刑事公诉的法律监督属性,就应当从制度规范上健全证人出庭作证机制、推行量刑建议、明确刑事抗诉的标准以及提高和完善公诉人员的公诉能力。     

浅议我国外观设计法律制度的完善

随着经济的发展和人民生活水平的提高,外观设计法律制度在社会生活中也发挥着越来越重要的作用。我国现行法律对外观设计专利所作的规定,仍存在一些值得探讨和商榷的地方,有待于进一步完善。文章从外观设计专利的授权标准、保护期限、初步审查制度及无效宣告程序几个方面入手,分析目前法律规定的欠缺之处并提出完善建议。     

实践检验认识述要

只有将实践检验进一步区分为事实检验和价值检验,坚持两者的辩证统一,才能保证马克思主义的真理检验观既建立在唯物论的基础上,又充满唯物辩证法的理论色彩,从而既与唯心主义,又与形而上学的真理检验观区别开来。     

司法不公与犯罪控制

司法不公的现状,引人瞩目。文章用犯罪学的眼光,审视社会公正与司法公正的内涵和打击与防范的关系,探讨了立法公正与法律系统的合理性、司法人员素质与司法环境、司法调控机制与公正标准等同司法公正的相关性。着力从民主政治中寻求司法公正和完善法制的途径。     

伪装笔迹实验样本的识别与提取技巧

笔迹样本的质量是关系笔迹鉴定工作成败的一个重要因素,本文即介绍了在实验样本中如何识别伪装笔迹,并针对具体情形提出了在笔迹实验样本收集与提取中应注意的事项及相关技巧,以期对笔迹鉴定工作能够有所裨益。     

浅谈刑法有无明文规定的判断标准--兼论刑法没有规定为单位犯罪的单位危害行为的处理

一个危害行为在刑法中有无明文规定的判断标准是什么,这是罪刑法定原则司法化的核心问题之一.实践中,应以有无完全相符合的犯罪构成,作为某一危害行为在刑法中有无明文规定的判断标准.     

The Quantitative Evaluation Dilemma and the Breakout Path of the Crime of Network Information Security——Reflection and Reconstruction of the Quantitative Standard of Network Information in the Big-Data Era

Currently, the protection status of criminal law protecting the Internet securityis transforming from the operation security of the network to the information security. At the same time of increasing specific crimes for network information security in the updating of criminal legislature, the criminal justice has failed to build integrated quantitative evaluation systems, which become a weak area in the criminal protection for network security. The current quantitative evaluation system of the crime of network information security lacks clear logic mainline, and still uses the dislocated quantitative standard of “traditional legal interest degree” and blurred new quantitative standard of “data scale”, which is unable to meet the requirements of accuracy and the uniformity of the judicial application of specific crimes of network information security, resulting in the judicial dilemma. Eliminating the difference of regulations and technologies, based on the quantitative evaluation as a core, constructing the hierarchical evaluation model of the value of information，and setting the “group information”as a measuring unit, will lead to the rational path of break through the Quantitative Evaluation Dilemma of the crime of network information security in the historical big-data era.     

On the Proof Standard of Arrest

In practice, in order to prevent the dissimilation of arrest measures caused by extreme understanding of arrest conditions, it is necessary to set clear, accurate and operable arrest proof standards. From the perspective of the whole criminal procedure proof system, the proof standard of arrest should be lower than that of prosecution and conviction, and higher than that of filing a case, so as to reflect the progressive and hierarchical nature of the proof standard of criminal procedure. In general, the standard of proof of arrest in China should reach the standard of “clear and credible”, that is, the evidence related to the relevant facts of the case and the situation of the arrested person should be clear and there is no contradiction between the evidences. The prosecutor who decides to arrest should believe that the arrested person has reached the legal arrest conditions. The application of the arrest measures requires a clear standard of proof. The three elements of arrest also require their respective standards of proof based on different characteristics. The inner conviction of the neutral judge in decision-making should be introduced into the standard of proof, so as to clearly express the proof standard of the three elements.