Retributivism and Fallible Systems of Punishment

Abstract

I argue for the following, which I dub the “fallibility syllogism”: (1) All systems of criminal punishment that inflict suffering on the innocent are unjust from a desert-based, retributivist point of view. (2) All past or present human systems of criminal punishment inflict suffering on the innocent. (3) Therefore, all such human systems of criminal punishment are unjust from a desert-based, retributivist point of view. My argument for the first premise is organized in the following way. I define what a human system of punishment is. I offer a distinction between retributive and utilitarian approaches to punishment. I distinguish between weak retributivism embodied in the second premise and strong retributivism, which I argue is the basis for the weak version. I argue that on retributivist grounds, each case of punishment is just when it matches the seriousness of the wrongdoing of the offender and that systems of punishment are just from a retributivist point of view when there are no exceptions to this match-up. In making my case, I will use Kant's retributivism as the version of my choice, so I will spend some time showing that recent reinterpretations of Kant (arguing that he was not a thoroughgoing retributivist), even if they are correct, are consistent with my view. Ultimately, however, I argue that the better view is that Kant was a thoroughgoing retributivist.     

“冤案”与司法活动——从卡夫卡《审判》看

冤案研究应从日常司法的关于是否存在冤案的对立认识入手,而非公认冤案。而发生对立认识时,基于角色担当和功能作用的理由,应主要支持司法活动。社会公众及个人,在冤案对立认识及日常活动中,也有自己的行动责任。卡夫卡《审判》是展开这些探讨的极佳素材。     

不当得利的法律适用规则

由于世界各国关于不当得利的法律制度不尽相同,国际民商事交往中不当得利的法律冲突问题日益突出。为保证支配不当得利之债的准据法与当事人的意愿相一致或有最密切的联系,并最大限度地减小因识别或定性不同而带来的难题,不当得利准据法应依序设计为:不当得利起因于合同时,适用该合同的准据法;起因于其他法律关系时,适用调整该法律关系的法律;起因于不动产交易时,适用不动产所在地法;在其他情况下产生,则其准据法为利益发生地所在国的法律。     

Restitution, Rectification, and Mitigation: Negligent Solicitors and Wills, Again

A solicitor, when drafting a will, can owe a duty of care in tort to the intended beneficiary of a bequest under that will. The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that where a solicitor has misdrafted the will, the intended beneficiary can sometimes rectify it, and recover the intended gift. The pattern of this rectification is restitutionary, raising the question analysed in this article of whether an intended beneficiary can have a direct personal action in restitution to reverse the unjust enrichment of an unintended recipient. It seems that, though fraught, such an action may indeed in principle lie.     

我国冤案成因与预防救济———以张高平叔侄案为例

刑事冤案频发的背后,所暴露出的不仅仅是刑事司法制度设计上的缺陷,也从客观上反映了相关司法人员司法理念的严重缺失。要从根本上预防并杜绝这类案件的发生,必须设立严格的刑事司法认定标准并加强对应伸冤纠错机制的建立。     

充实和发展——张闻天与毛泽东思想

本文从张闻天作为党的早期领导人 ,以及离开主要领导岗位以后在实践和理论上的重大贡献入手 ,从几个方面论述了张闻天对毛泽东思想内容的充实和发展。     

对不当得利返还范围的再思考——从不当得利制度的机能说起

不当得利返还范围的确定是实现不当得利制度之机能的关键性问题，然而目前学界关于不当得利返还范围的界定标准存在诸多不完善之处，其主要表现在对不当得利制度机能的机械理解，没有从不当得利的类型化角度出发来细致的考察受益人不同主观状态下不当得利的返还范围，甚至有忽略民法中自己责任这一基本原则之嫌。鉴于此，文章试图对不当得利的返还范围进行再追踪，以求针对这些不足之处给出自己的一孔之见，以期为完善我国不当得利之立法有所裨益。     

《联合国国际货物买卖合同公约》下利率的确定

《联合国国际货物买卖合同公约》仅规定了债权人收取利息的一般权利,利率的确定成了公约中最大的缺漏之一,由此带来的实践混乱减损了公约的统一价值。依据公约第7条的规定,利率应被定性为公约的“法定外缺漏”,从而应依据公约所基于的一般原则解决;多数学者所提出的“充分补偿”原则,不符合通过比较法以及公约本身立法体系所确定的利息救济的功能定位,利率补缺应适用“既给予受害方补偿又不惩罚违约方”原则;因此,利率的确定应以保护受害人的返还利益为起点,剥夺违约方的不当得利。     

对侵占罪犯罪对象的一点思考

侵占罪是以不法取得不属于占有者所有的他人财物为内容的犯罪。我国刑法虽然明文规定侵占罪的犯罪对象为代为保管的他人财物、他人的遗忘物及埋藏物,但是在刑法理论界和司法实务界,针对这三类犯罪对象的内涵与外延问题一直存在较大的分歧,尤其是对涉及民法领域的不当得利、无因管理、遗失物是否可能成为侵占罪的犯罪对象等问题分歧很大。