Prisons or Problem-Solving: Does the Public Support Specialty Courts?

ABSTRACT

Recently, “problem-solving” courts have been developed as an alternative to imprisonment. They are often called “specialty” courts because they process and divert into treatment programs offenders who are seen as different from the general criminal population, such as those with mental health or drug problems, those who are homeless or veterans, and those who engage in domestic violence. Based on a 2017 national survey of 1,000 respondents, the current study examines overall public support for rehabilitation as a goal of corrections and then focuses specifically on support for different types of specialty courts. The analysis reveals that the American public endorses not only the rehabilitative ideal but also the use of problem-solving courts. Further, with only minimal variation, strong support for these courts appears to exist regardless of political orientation and sociodemographic characteristics.     

人民币国际化背景下汇率对工业行业就业的影响——基于跨境贸易结算的影响因素视角

将跨境贸易人民币结算比重引入劳动力市场动态均衡模型,推导出汇率影响就业的全新路径,并利用2000-2018年中国工业行业面板数据进行实证分析。研究发现:通过进出口产品结构贸易路径,汇率对行业总体就业的正向影响最显著,其次是经由汇率变动预期路径,而汇率通过净出口指数路径对就业的负向影响较微弱。人民币汇率对不同行业就业的影响产生差异的根源是不同行业进出口产品结构及产品异质性的差距导致在汇率变动的不同情形下,行业间跨境贸易人民币结算的水平不同,从而造成外贸企业对劳动力的需求具有差异。并且,技术特征及贸易来源地特征是造成行业间就业水平差异的显著因素。     

论互联网时代诽谤罪的公诉范围

我国刑法对诽谤罪采取自诉为主、公诉为补充的双轨制模式。由于刑法但书“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”的公诉依据具有模糊性,同时司法解释本身缺乏解释力和可操作性,存在同义解释、近义解释等问题,加剧了公诉诽谤罪和其他罪名之间的冲突和竞合,特别是当被害人为地方领导干部时,诽谤罪的公诉权在实务中存在被滥用风险,部分限制公诉权的要件在实务中被淡化甚至忽略。从相对狭义的角度看,“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”只有在行为人对侵犯个体法益具备主观故意,但对侵犯社会法益或国家法益不具备主观故意(或无法证明其具备故意)的情形下,才有其独特的法律适用价值并不与刑法其他罪名相冲突。为妥善处理和平衡诽谤犯罪中惩治犯罪和保障人权的关系,适应互联网时代的内外部变化,建议通过修改我国刑法,将诽谤罪区分为情节不严重、情节严重、情节特别严重的三种形态,为充分保障宪法权利,情节不严重的不作为犯罪处罚;为充分保障自诉权,情节严重的为绝对告诉乃论;为依法惩治犯罪,对符合特定形式要件和实质要件,情节特别严重的诽谤犯罪可以依法公诉,以维护网络信息秩序。     

大数据时代日本个人信息保护法探究

个人信息本来是极其隐私的事物,在大数据时代却时刻处于"裸奔"状态,时刻面临被侵犯的风险。特别在新冠肺炎疫情防控中,大数据技术发挥了重要作用,个人信息保护再次引起关注。整体而言,日本个人信息保护法以"个人优先"与"公共优先"的宗旨博弈为出发点,以"个人信息"的概念界定为基础,以个人信息权的保护为核心,以个人信息保护机构的独立设置为落脚点,为个人信息的保护奠定了基础。我国应当积极行动起来,尽快颁布《个人信息保护法》,助力大数据时代个人信息保护和数字经济的发展。     

司法改革方法论的反思性整合——一个实践理性的视角

在全面依法治国的时代背景下,司法改革的推进需要在实践理性的指导下,通过新的方法论体系来予以重新解读和把握。当下司法改革的方法论面临价值理性缺失、工具理性误区和理论范式失衡的现实困境,需要在问题导向的基础上,借鉴和利用多种社会科学方法,透过多种视角探讨如何认识改革、如何推进改革、如何评价改革,在实践建构中实现方法体系的反思性整合。以"制度化的社会回应型司法"为基本目标,协调价值理性与工具理性的冲突,统合国家治理的实践逻辑与法治的价值逻辑,统筹推进司法制度的改革和构建。     

论动产所有权让与中的交付

动产所有权让与中的交付,又称动产所有权出让或转让中的占有的移转,其既为动产所有权让与的公示方法,也通常为动产所有权让与发生物权变动效力的要件,类型上涵括现实交付、观念交付及其他特殊形态的交付。我国民法典物权编对于此等交付的厘定(规定)较为简略或存有阙如,宜结合域外立法成例、法理或学理而予阐释、厘清及释明。透过如是的工作和努力,期冀可以建构起我国动产所有权让与中交付规则或制度的解释论("注释论""评注论")系统,由此使这一规则或制度可裨益于我国的社会生活与经济实践,并进而发挥其具有的积极功用与价值。     

抵押预告登记优先受偿效力的解释论

作为预告登记的一个子类型,按照法教义学的逻辑推演,抵押预告登记并不产生优先受偿效力。但该制度的创设目的在于满足商品房预售交易中当事人的担保需求,若抵押预告登记权利人最终无法实现优先受偿权,这一制度将难以发挥其应有的作用,最终沦为具文。当符合已办理建筑物所有权首次登记且预告登记未失效等条件时,抵押预告登记转本登记的实质条件已满足,允许抵押预告登记权利人直接行使优先受偿权并不违反物权法基本原理。虽然《民法典担保制度解释》最终未对强制执行程序中抵押预告登记的效力作出规定,但不妨碍预告登记权利人依照该司法解释第52条第1款的规定行使优先受偿权。在破产程序中,抵押预告登记权利人行使优先受偿权无须以已办理建筑物所有权首次登记为前提,优先受偿的范围也不应限制在人民法院受理破产申请时抵押财产的价值范围内。     

What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?

In response to research demonstrating that irrelevant contextual information can bias forensic science analyses, authorities have increasingly urged laboratories to limit analysts' access to irrelevant and potentially biasing information (Dror and Cole (2010) [3]; National Academy of Sciences (2009) [18]; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2016) [22]; UK Forensic Science Regulator (2015) [26]). However, a great challenge in implementing this reform is determining which information is task-relevant and which is task-irrelevant. In the current study, we surveyed 183 forensic analysts to examine what they consider relevant versus irrelevant in their forensic analyses. Results revealed that analysts generally do not regard information regarding the suspect or victim as essential to their analytic tasks. However, there was significant variability among analysts within and between disciplines. Findings suggest that forensic science disciplines need to agree on what they regard as task-relevant before context management procedures can be properly implemented. The lack of consensus about what is relevant information not only leaves room for biasing information, but also reveals foundational gaps in what analysts consider crucial in forensic decision making.     

论法官惩戒委员会的法律地位

设立法官惩戒委员会,并由该委员会对法官履职是否构成违法审判提供专业意见,是完善法官惩戒制度的重要内容和制度创新。对法官惩戒委员会的定位与职能,学界的建议与实际的制度建构并不完全一致。各地在设立法官惩戒委员会的过程中,因对其法律地位的理解不深、不透甚至存在偏差,导致其处于“无功能”的状态。作为一个全新的制度设计,在有域外先例可供借鉴的情况下,吸收其有益经验,再根据中国现实国情来建构,是制度建设的有效途径。当前,应根据修订后的我国《法官法》对法官惩戒委员会的相关规定,在明确法官惩戒委员会法律地位的基础上,在设立主体、委员构成、设立模式上下功夫,并做好与其他职能部门的衔接工作,确保法官惩戒委员会依法建构并保证制度得以顺利运行。     

Mobilising the Periphery: Brazil's My House My Life Programme and the Homeless Workers' Movement

Brazil's Movimento de Trabalhadores Sem Teto (MTST, Homeless Workers' Movement) has grown dramatically in recent years. This growth was partly provided for by the use of a large government housing programme, Minha Casa Minha Vida (MCMV, My House My Life), which allowed the MTST to construct housing for its members and swell its ranks with thousands of new members. Yet some have argued that the MCMV programme used by the MTST may compromise the autonomy of civil society organisations. This article, by contrast, argues that while the MCMV programme encouraged bureaucratic practices, it also helped to promote the cultural politics of the MTST.