违宪审查模式之比较

发展社会主义民主政治,建设社会主义政治文明,全面建设小康社会是十六大提出的重要目标。作为政治文明的重要标志之一是法治国家的实现。而目前我国当务之急是建构行之有效的违宪审查机构,以结束我国几十年来有宪法无违宪案件的不正常现象。文章对世界三大违宪审查模式进行了利弊比较。     

紧急避险与交通事故责任的承担

在道路交通事故责任中,如果行为人在遭到紧急危难的情况下为救护一个较大利益而采取损害另一个较小利益的行为是紧急避险。文章从民法角度论述了紧急避险行为所引起的法律责任,通过案例分析了紧急避险行为所致的道路交通事故责任的承担。     

《道路交通安全法》第七十六条运行实效考察

《道路交通安全法》第七十六条关于交通事故处理的规定引起社会的强烈关注,其运行实效究竟如何?从法律运行实效的视角,运用法律社会学的法律实效理论的研究路径,根据法律实效评判的内在标准和外在标准,依托权威性的“社会事实”,兼采经验实证与逻辑推理的方法,揭示该七十六条的良好实效,展示该法律在实现社会控制中起到的积极作用,吁请人们树立正确的守法观念和守法意识,坚持依法办事,建构良好的法秩序。     

道路交通事故中骨盆骨折与致伤方式的相关性初步研究

目的　探讨道路交通事故中骨盆骨折的致伤方式 ,从而有助于交通事故的重建分析。方法　对 112例交通事故中已知致伤方式 ,即被撞击、摔跌以及被碾压的伤 (亡 )者骨盆骨折的X线片 ,按照骨盆骨折的分类学进行研究 ,并对有关资料进行统计分析和X2 检验。结果　机动车碾压伤所致骨盆重型损伤发生率明显大于撞击伤 ;机动车撞击伤所致骨盆骨折中 ,耻骨骨折的损伤特征可以反映外力的作用方向。结论　根据骨盆骨折的损伤特征推断致伤方式有助于推断交通事故当事人的交通状态 ,报道如下。     

浅论专门法院出现的原因及对法律现代化的意义

专门法院是法律现代化的重要工具,也是法律现代化的必然产物。不仅大陆法系有正式的、多系列的专门法院审判行政、商事等专门案件,而且英美法系也存在着多种多样的专门法院。与普通法院相比,专门法院对于行政、商事等现代诉讼有很多优势。我国在法律现代化的过程中,应当更多地借鉴专门法院模式,把专门法院与普通法院有机结合起来,为深入的司法改革提供可操作的平台与基础。     

民事审理的集中化研究——以庭审程序为中心

庭审是集中审理的关键,集中审理的主要内容是在开庭审理中得以落实的,审理是否实现了集中化也主要是在开庭审理阶段体现出来。对于我国是否实现了审理的集中化,还存在比较大的争议。但我国立法上并没有严格区分审前程序和庭审程序,虽然有些案件表现出来的是只经过一次庭审即告终结,但这实际上是建立在多次"非正式开庭"基础上的。而且由于"非正式开庭"喧宾夺主成为法官获取案件信息的主要渠道,开庭本身都不具有实质意义,就更谈不上有集中、连续地开庭审理的可能。有鉴于此,为了实现审理的集中化,就需要对现有的开庭审理程序进行改革和完善。     

THE “EYE OF THE BEHOLDER”: PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS ABOUT THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD

Child custody evaluations (CCEs) are a central feature of parenting litigation in many North American jurisdictions. However, there has been little recent research comparing CCE decisions about children's interests with decisions made by judges. This article presents empirical research about the extent to which Ontario judges accept custody and access recommendations from CCEs employed by Ontario's Office of the Children's Lawyer. The central finding was that the judges fully agreed with the CCEs only about half of the time. Possible explanations for this finding are explored, the most salient of which is the effect of delay in Ontario family litigation. In conclusion, the article suggests that a more efficient synthesis of the judicial and CCE decision‐making processes might be more consonant with the best interests of children involved in these disputes.     

“IF I COULD TELL THE JUDGE SOMETHING ABOUT ATTACHMENT. . . .” PERSPECTIVES ON ATTACHMENT THEORY IN THE FAMILY LAW COURTROOM

This article gathers diverse attachment specialists in a far reaching conversation about the utility of attachment assessment and theory for complex family law decision making, and reflections on the thorny question, “If I were the judge . . .?” Inge Bretherton, Professor Emerita, Developmental Psychology at Wisconsin University, is one of a few attachment researchers in the Bowlby/Ainsworth tradition to have completed studies in the divorce field. Seligman, a psychoanalyst and clinical psychologist, Solomon, a clinical psychologist and researcher, and Crowell, professor of psychiatry and psychology, take on some large controversies, and offer well over 100 years combined experience of applying attachment knowledge in complex family matters.     

查明事实、分清是非原则重述

“查明事实、分清是非”是民事诉讼法规定的法院调解应当遵循的原则之一,确立这一原则是为了保障司法调解的公正性。这一原则当下正受到理论和实务界的强烈质疑。我国是以法院为中心规定诉讼调解制度的,法院调解并非诉讼上的和解。调解在性质上仍然是法院的审判行为,调解与判决一样都是完成民事诉讼法所规定任务的手段,加之当事人期待接近裁判的调解结果以及调审合一的程序模式、法院调解的经验教训,这一原则的正当性和必要性具有理论和实践的依据。法院立案调解、对事实存疑案件调解所取得的成功,均不能成为否定该原则的理由。除非将法院调解置换为诉讼上和解,否则继续保留这一原则就有充分的理由。     

Recognition and understanding of goals and roles: The key internal features of mental health court teams

The increasing involvement of people with mental illness in the criminal justice system has led to the formation of specialty programs such as mental health courts (hereafter MHCs). We discuss MHCs and the teams serving these courts. Specifically, we examine team members' perceptions of MHC goals and their own and others' roles on the MHC team. Using a semi-structured interview instrument, we conducted 59 face-to-face interviews with criminal justice and mental health treatment personnel representing 11 Ohio MHCs. Findings from our qualitative data analyses reveal that MHC personnel understand individuals' roles within the teams, recognize and appreciate the importance of different roles, and share common goals. MHCs could foster this level of understanding and agreement by working to recruit and retain individuals with experience in or willingness to learn about both the criminal justice and mental health systems. Future research should explore the impact of MHC team functioning on client outcomes.