Juror adjustments to the reasonable doubt standard of proof

The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is based on the law's primary motivation to avoid false conviction even at the expense of increasing the probability of false acquittal. Individual jurors, however, have common sense motivations to make factually correct decisions by avoiding both types of error. As a result jurors may interpret the standard of reasonable doubt correctly but deviate from that interpretation in predictable ways when they apply the standard in court. This study makes three hypotheses: (1) jurors are less confident when deciding on acquittal than when deciding upon conviction, (2) conviction is associated with a downward adjustment of the interpreted stringency of the standard at the time of application, and (3) a highly stringent interpretation of the standard is associated with a severe downward adjustment of that stringency at the time of application. The study asked 260 juror-eligible participants to examine a trial scenario. The participants first interpreted the stringency of the legal standard on a probability scale. They then judged the probability of the defendant's guilt, decided on a verdict, and rated their confidence in that verdict. The findings strongly supported all three hypotheses. Application and implication of the study were discussed.     

关于我国刑事诉讼有罪判决证明标准适用情况的实证研究——兼谈我国有罪判决证明标准的重构设想

有罪判决证明标准问题是我国刑事证据规则研究的重要课题。调查表明,现行证明标准存在理想化、操作性较差、诉讼成本偏高等突出问题。现行有罪判决证明标准是实践中由事实认定所造成错案产生的原因之一,但不能盲目地放大两者之间的因果关系,却忽视整个证据规则体系尚未建立和体制积弊、法治有待生成等具有根本性意义的因素。统计数据表明,司法实务工作者对“排除合理怀疑”的证明标准认同度较高,“案件分类区分标准”观点容易导致司法蛮横对人权的肆意践踏。为了弥补现行证明标准自身不足和解决实践问题,应当在坚持以“事实清楚,证据确实的、充分”为主体证明标准的同时,建立“排除合理怀疑”的辅助性证明标准。要明确区分定罪证明标准与非定罪证明标准所适用的事实范围。     

关于完善我国刑事证明标准体系的若干思考

我国刑事诉讼法关于证明标准的规定仍欠完善 ,传统的证明标准理论也存在诸多不足。论文从诉讼规律出发 ,结合各国相关的法律规定 ,探讨了我国刑事证明标准体系的完善问题。作者否定了“客观真实”说 ,对“诉讼真实”、“法律真实”说进行了论证。对有罪判决的证明标准 ,作者提出了两条思路 ,一是沿袭“犯罪事实清楚、证据确实充分”的既有表述 ,二是改采“排除合理怀疑”的全新表述。论文还对其他刑事证明标准的再造进行了研讨。     

Effects of judicial instructions and juror characteristics on interpretations of beyond reasonable doubt

The standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt (BRD), serves as a threshold for reaching verdicts in criminal cases. Past research has demonstrated that factors such as the wording of judicial instructions defining the standard can influence people's interpretation of it. In addition, there is some concern that instructions may not be effective for the wider jury-eligible population. In an experimental study involving members of the general public, we examined the effect of two commonly used judicial instructions (i.e. sure and firmly convinced) against a situation when BRD was undefined, on people's quantitative interpretations of BRD as well as on their self-reported understanding of the standard and confidence in applying it. We also explored the effect of juror characteristics (i.e. gender, age and education). Compared to when the standard was undefined, the sure instruction helped to reduce inter-individual variability in interpretations of BRD and the firmly convinced instruction increased people's understanding of the standard. However, neither instruction was effective in increasing confidence in applying the standard or in reducing observed individual differences. These findings underscore the importance of developing evidence-based judicial instructions that can benefit the broad jury-eligible population equally and in a variety of ways.     

法条竞合该往何处去——以交通肇事罪与过失致人重伤、死亡罪关系为例

法条竞合的研究主要是探寻与想象竞合如何区分,这不仅是理论问题,更是实践课题。遗憾的是,各种学说的混乱,法条竞合适用已然"伤痕累累"。试图建立起法条竞合的城堡,一劳永逸的阻挡想象竞合的侵犯并不可行。归本溯源,法条竞合存在的价值在于维护罪刑法定,要求司法最大程度的尊重立法,限制想象竞合的滥用。因此,不能再拘泥于法条竞合内涵的完善与统一,应当转变视角,追求一种共识即新的路径:基于罪刑法定,构成要件符合的常识性判断是司法的基础,合理怀疑排斥想象竞合的适用。     

问题意识是监狱警察研究的不竭动力——“监狱人文五论”解读之五

《监狱警察论》是一部系统化、理论化的著作。它很好地总结和归纳了以前的研究成果,涵盖了监狱警察研究领域的基础性问题和实务性问题,并将二者有机地结合起来。在强烈问题意识驱动下,为知识宝库贡献了新知识。培养研究的问题意识,就要把握好特定的历史和社会背景,既要关注制度的局限性也要关注个体的能动性,要掌握适当的理论和方法,要具备怀疑精神。     

“只有被告人供述”案件司法证明的谬误与厘清

我国《刑事诉讼法》第55条规定之目的,在于改善司法机关依赖口供定罪的现状,从而避免刑讯逼供等非法取证行为的发生,真正实现保障人权的基本目标。但是实践中不仅存在仅凭口供定罪的情形,还存在通过异化口供形式或者形式化口供补强,以规避第55条约束的现象。异化的口供形式,本质上仍然是“被告人供述”;形式化的口供补强规则,是以“被告人供述”为中心形成虚假印证。考虑到《刑事诉讼法》的根本目标,应当对第55条进行实质解释,既不能通过异化口供来定案,也不能进行形式化口供补强,将口供作为定案的主要依据。换言之,应当不断降低口供在司法证明中的证明力,积极寻找其他客观性证据,并结合排除合理怀疑的证明要求,从而达到我国的刑事证明标准,才是《刑事诉讼法》第55条的合理适用。     

简析刑、民事诉讼证明标准之差异

针对长期以来 ,我国刑、民事诉讼中均坚持“事实清楚 ,证据确实充分”同一的证明标准。本文通过介绍辛普森案刑、民事诉讼不同的判决 ,指出刑事诉讼应坚持“排除合理怀疑”的证明标准 ,民事诉讼应坚持“优势证据证明”的证明标准。并分析了刑、民事诉讼证明标准差异的原因及坚持刑、民事诉讼不同的证明标准对司法实践和未来证据立法的启示意义。     

重新认识战略机遇期(英文)

The Eighteenth Party Congress pointed out that China is still in an The an important period of strategic opportunity. Many people cast doubt on important on how to perceive and grasp the future period of strategic opportunity, and there has been a significant increase in controversial issues that need to be discussed. The purpose and focus of this article is to discuss these questions.