税法行政责任的归责原则

鉴于税法上对归责原则规定的缺失,文章从税收法律关系的特定性出发建议建立税法上的归责原则,即过错责任原则,并认为过错责任原则是保护纳税人合法权利,保障税务机关公正、迅速处理税收违法行为,体现法律教育与引导功能的合理原则。     

共同危险行为的侵权责任承担——《侵权责任法》第10条之解构与重构

《侵权责任法》第10条并非一个纯正的共同危险行为法条,依据加害人是否确定,在结构上可将其分为两个部分。但其中前一部分与该法第11、12条相关的责任设置并不合理。一般责任和连带责任的归责基础和免责事由均不相同。共同危险行为人承担责任的基础是行为人的主观可责难性和行为的客观危险性,承担连带责任的基础是具有客观危险性的行为之间存在的关联共同。行为与损害之间不存在因果关系只能免除连带责任,如果行为人不能证明其行为不具有客观危险性,仍需承担均等份额内的按份责任,其余不能举证证明行为与损害不存在因果关系的行为人对剩余份额承担连带责任。     

A mock juror investigation of blame attribution in the punishment of hate crime perpetrators

We examined blame attribution as a moderator of perceptions of hate crimes against gay, African American, and transgender victims. Participants were 510 Texas jury panel members. Results of vignette-based crime scenarios showed that victim blame displayed significant negative, and perpetrator blame significant positive, effects on sentencing recommendations. Also as hypothesized, victim and perpetrator blame moderated the effect of support for hate crime legislation. Interaction patterns suggested that both types of blame attribution influence sentencing recommendations, but only for participants disagreeing with hate crime legislation. Three-way interactions with victim type also emerged, indicating that the effects of both types of blame attribution show particular influences when the victim is gay, as opposed to transgender or African American. Implications for attribution theory, hate crime policy, and jury selection are discussed.     

论私法上的合意及其判定

合意是对当事人的客观表示进行解释而形成的一致。在表示内容引起争议时,应对表意人的表达与受领人的信赖附加可归责性要件,以此作为判定合意的价值基础。当事人约定的对能够成为法律秩序所认可的行为达成的一致是合意的最低限度(确定性),其他条款可以透过补充解释以及任意性规范予以填补。"镜像规则"已不能完全适应交易的需要,应对此适当修正。合同意向书的性质应依据其内容是实体性条款还是程序性条款分别予以认定。     

The motivation of European Union mediation in civil conflicts

ABSTRACT

Since the EU has expanded its common security focus in the 1990s, this important regional organisation has become the most frequent mediator in low-level civil conflicts worldwide. Under what conditions is the European Union (EU) likely to become involved in mediation in civil conflicts? Is the participation in mediation only explained by the EU's bias toward its near abroad, or is the EU more strategic? Some scholars have suggested that the EU's regional bias for its near abroad is the key explanation for the onset of EU mediation, but we propose that the reality of EU mediation presents a more nuanced story. We posit three explanations based on mediator bias: regional bias, economic bias, and normative bias. Overall, we argue that the EU will mediate in civil conflicts that are in its near abroad, but also where the EU has economic bias and where the EU can exercise its normative power in highly intractable conflicts. We test our hypotheses using statistical analysis of the UCDP low-level civil conflicts data from 1993 to 2004 and Civil War Mediation data from 1974 to 2005. We find strong support for our hypotheses, determining key factors that reveal the EU's strategic onset of mediation.     

New Media and the Polarization of American Political Discourse

Scholars of political communication have long examined newsworthiness by focusing on the news choices of media organizations (Lewin, 1947 Lewin, K. 1947. Frontiers and group dynamics. Human Relations, 1: 143–153. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; White, 1950 White, D. M. 1950. The “gate keeper”: A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27: 383–390. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Sigal, 1973 Sigal, L. V. 1973. Reporters and officials, Lexington, MA: Heath.  [Google Scholar]; Gans, 1979 Gans, H. J. 1979. Deciding what's news, New York: Vintage Books.  [Google Scholar]). However, in recent years these traditional arbiters of the news have increasingly been joined or even supplanted in affecting the public agenda by “new media” competitors, including cable news, talk radio, and even amateur bloggers. The standards by which this new class of decision makers evaluates news are at best only partially explained by prior studies focused on professional journalists and organizations. In this study, we seek to correct this oversight by content analyzing five online news sources—including wire services, cable news, and political blog sites—in order to compare their news judgments in the months prior to, and immediately following, the 2006 midterm election. We collected all stories from Reuters' and AP's “top political news” sections. We then investigated whether a given story was also chosen to appear on each wire's top news page (indicating greater perceived newsworthiness than those that were not chosen) and compared the wires' editorial choices to those of more partisan blogs (from the left: DailyKos.com; from the right: FreeRepublic.com) and cable outlets (FoxNews.com). We find evidence of greater partisan filtering for the latter three Web sources, and relatively greater reliance on traditional newsworthiness criteria for the news wires.     

The association between the offender–victim relationship,severity of offence and attribution of blame in mentally disordered offenders

Abstract

The aim of this research was to investigate the association between the offender–victim relationship, severity of violence and attribution of blame for a violent act. Data were collected from 65 male psychiatric inpatients from two secure units. Participants were divided into three groups according to how well they knew their victim: victim well-known, victim acquaintance and victim stranger. Violent acts were further ranked according to offence severity. Participants were administered the Quick Test (QT) and the Gudjonsson Blame Attribution Inventory (GBAI). Although there was a trend towards higher guilt attributions when the victim was well-known to the perpetrator, this relationship was complicated by the severity of the violent act. The most severe ranking of offence (i.e. murder/manslaughter) was most common in the offender group who knew their victim well. Furthermore, guilt-feeling attributions were highest in the most severe ranking of offence. The implications of these findings for assessment and intervention programmes are considered.     

Heuristics in causal reasoning and their influence on eyewitness testimony

Abstract

In two experiments the effect of knowledge of the seriousness of an event's outcome on the estimated strength of its causes was studied. In experiment 1 participants (n=87) were shown a video of a homeless man being evicted from a police station by a police officer, during which the evictee fell. One group of participants were told that the homeless man subsequently died; the other group was told that he was uninjured. Participants who thought the homeless man had died more often blamed the policeman for the man's fall. Estimations of the force of the push were not directly related to the outcome of the event, but rather to the attribution of blame, with those who blamed the officer giving higher estimates of the force of the push. In experiment 2, before watching a revised version of the video, the participants (n=88) were assigned to one of four groups. Groups A and B were told that the homeless man had died; groups C and D were told that he had survived. In an effort to counter interference of blame attribution, groups A and C were told that the officer was to blame for the man's fall, and groups B and D that the officer was not to blame. The manipulation of guilt was not successful, but this time a significant relation between event outcome and push force was found, with those who thought the homeless man had died giving higher estimates of the force of the push than those who thought that the man had survived. As in experiment 1, those who thought the homeless man had died more often blamed the policeman and those who blamed the policeman again gave higher estimates of the force of the push. It appears then that the more tragic the outcome of a violent incident, the more blame witnesses tend to attribute to the perpetrator, and the more they tend to overestimate the amount of violence involved.     

Dangerous decisions: the impact of first impressions of trustworthiness on the evaluation of legal evidence and defendant culpability

Abstract

There is little support for the long-standing assumption that judges and jurors can accurately assess credibility. According to Dangerous Decisions Theory (DDT; Porter & ten Brinke, Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 119–134, 2009), intuitive evaluations of trustworthiness based on the face may strongly bias the interpretation of subsequent information about a target. In a courtroom setting, the assessment of evidence provided by or concerning a defendant may be fundamentally flawed if its interpretation is influenced by an initial, spontaneous assessment of trustworthiness. In an empirical test of DDT, participants were presented with two vignettes describing major or minor crimes, accompanied by a photograph of the supposed defendant, previously rated as highly trustworthy or untrustworthy in appearance. Participants evaluated culpability following the presentation of evidence in each case. Participants required less evidence to arrive at a guilty verdict and were more confident in this decision for untrustworthy-appearing defendants. The current evidence supports DDT and has implications for legal decision-making practices.     

Mechanisms underlying response bias in deception detection

Abstract

The present research aims to explore the mechanisms underlying response bias in detection of deception. In addition to examining the predictive value of generalized communicative suspicion (GCS), age, and professional experience, the present approach also investigates the role of error weighting by testing the hypothesis that a greater concern about Misses is associated with a lie bias. In Study 1, we analyzed samples of (a) students, (b) police trainees, and (c) police officers. Results revealed an asymmetrical error weighting as the strongest predictor of response bias. Supporting our hypothesis, participants who were more concerned about False Alarms were particularly truth biased, whereas a lie bias was observed among those who were more concerned about Misses. In Study 2, we manipulated the error weighting in order to test its causal relation to response bias. Results again show the predictive value of asymmetrical error weighting for response bias in deception detection, and indicate that the effects of the manipulation are moderated by individuals' habitual error weighting.