Attorneys and Negotiation Ethics: A Material Misunderstanding?

Our research suggests that a true norm of ethical negotiation behavior exists within the legal profession. This conclusion is tempered, however, with the knowledge that a large minority of our research respondents — at times approaching one‐third of them — engaged in unethical and even fraudulent behavior. Additionally, the survey respondents were not saddled with the pressures that practicing attorneys typically confront (pressures likely to make people behave less, rather than more, ethically). In an attempt to understand the reasons for such a high frequency of unethical negotiation, we have identified three major contributing factors: too many lawyers have only a superficial understanding of rules that are more complicated than they appear; lawyers frequently take their “zealous advocate” role too far, thereby placing client loyalty above other important values such as respect for truth and justice; and the practice of law and the people who are drawn to it are highly competitive. To address these factors, we suggest approaching the problem from several different angles. In the classroom, we suggest a focus on the relevant legal standards, including a focus on the often misunderstood law of fraudulent misrepresentations. Because many students fail to appreciate the differences between “ethical” behavior, the floor of socially acceptable conduct, and the expectations that others have for how they will be treated, we also suggest that lawyer training programs focus on the important role that personal relationships and one's reputation play in the legal profession, and how falling short in these areas can decrease one's negotiation effectiveness. For the profession itself, we also suggest clarifying the attorney rules of conduct and provide a number of tactics and strategies to defend against lying and deception during negotiation. Finally, we recognize there are certain psychological factors at play that can cause people to engage in behavior inconsistent with their personal sense of ethics. We believe the only way to avoid these lapses is to integrate conscious and reflective practices that can bring ethical concerns to the forefront of lawyers' decision‐making and thought processes.     

SENTENCING HOMICIDE OFFENDERS IN THE NETHERLANDS: OFFENDER,VICTIM, AND SITUATIONAL INFLUENCES IN CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT*

Empirical investigations of criminal sentencing represent a vast research enterprise in criminology. However, this research has been restricted almost exclusively to U.S. contexts, and often it suffers from key data limitations. As such, an examination of more detailed international sentencing data provides an important opportunity to assess the generalizability of contemporary research and theorizing on criminal punishment in the United States. The current study investigates little-researched questions about the influence of prosecutorial sentencing recommendations, victim/offender relationships, and extralegal disparities in sentencing by analyzing unique data on the punishment of homicide offenders in the Netherlands. The results indicate that offender, victim, and situational offense characteristics all exert important independent effects at sentencing and that prosecutorial recommendations exert powerful influences over judicial sentences. The article concludes with a discussion of future directions for comparative sentencing research across international contexts.     

有序推进人民调解员职业化 —— 兼评昆山市人民调解员职业化制度

人民调解员职业化有利于提高人民调解专业性,从而提高解决纠纷质量,是创新发展人民调解的重要内容。昆山市在全国率先探索人民调解员职业化道路,取得了显著成绩,同时也存在一些不足。结合职业化基本要求与昆山市实践经验,有序推进人民调解员职业化的制度建设,营造人民调解员职业认同环境。建立人民调解员职业准入制度,通过职业培训,落实薪酬制度,加强人民调解员职业监管建立人民调解员职业伦理制度。     

界分审判权与团体自治权的理论模式——以日本的部分社会论为中心

部分社会论是日本的法官们为界定审判权的范围,通过判例发展出来的一种新的理论工具,其理论基础是"有社会,就有法"的法社会学观点."部分社会"内部发生的纷争,与国家法律没有直接关系,应依据团体内部的自治性规则解决,审判权不宜介入.但实际上,日本各级法院面对有关部分社会的纠纷时,并非简单地固守部分社会论,有时从实体和程序两个方面对团体自律权进行司法审查.在思维方式上,部分社会论首先认定不属于审判权对象的事项,从而间接地确定审判权的对象.部分社会论给予我们的启示是:从宪政的高度,明确"案件"、"审判权"的含义;根据审判权属性,选择理想的受案范围立法模式;以强化说理为着眼点,提高审判水平;以审判为中心,推动法学理论创新.     

论司法鉴定活动中法官的作用

在我国证据种类中,鉴定结论因其较高的证明力,在具体审判工作中起到了举足轻重的作用。我国现今司法鉴定体系较为混乱,在司法鉴定活动中明确法官权限具有重要实践意义。本文从法理上分析了法官在司法鉴定活动中的应有地位,同时借鉴外国立法例,结合我国实际提出了相关的立法建议。     

论法官的解释

以往对法律解释的理解基本上是界定在有权解释的立场上,而很少谈论尤其是承认法官解释。法律解释的转向即法律解释从机关解释向法官解释的转型,使得我们认识到法官解释的重要性。恰恰是法官解释的存在,使得法律所承载的社会正义观念得到了真正的实现。     

刑事诉讼中的法官庭外调查权研究

刑事诉讼包含着一系列的诉讼价值,而不单纯为了实现实体正义。我国法官庭外调查权的根本出路在于诉讼观念的转变,在整体模式方面,应将现行法官的"庭外调查程序"改造成为真正意义上的诉讼程序。     

浅议庭审直播

庭审直播作为一种司法公开化的特殊的审判方式,在各地已经频频出现,但在法学界存在争议。庭审直播是司法公开化的一项重要举措。在中国特定国情和当前的民主法治进程中,有选择、有限制地庭审直播,具有可行性和积极意义。当然,对其弊端则要采取措施,加以克服。     

法律事实与客观事实的契合与背离——对证据制度史另一视觉的解读

神示证据制度、法定证据制度和自由心证的证据制度虽然在事实发现能力上有很大的差异,但它们都是以发现案件的客观事实为目标的,并且在绝大多数案件中,它们所认定的法律事实都能贴近案件的客观事实。但由于受认识手段的影响以及为了限制法官恣意和保护人权等多种原因,法律事实与客观事实经常发生背离。我国证据制度忽视了对法官主观随意性的限制和对人权的保护,应当予以矫正。     

利益衡量及其理论的反思——一个经济分析的视角

利益衡量理论指出,法官裁判中存在实质性判断且也应该进行利益衡量,但它却未能对如何进行实质裁量提供有效的标准与知识。相关标准或理论不但不具有可操作性,且遮蔽了问题的本原,容易使法官陷入"左右为难"的困境,做出错误的选择。与之相对,经济分析理论却有助于帮助法官将实质裁量的依据集中到不同选择的一般性社会后果上,且为后果的预测及评价提供了更为有效的知识与标准。