法治社会下“以德治国“问题探讨

“依法治国“和“以德治国“相结合的治国方略,是对中国古代“礼法结合“治国思想的批判继承.法治社会下的“以德治国“思想继承了传统“德治“思想的精髓,符合时代发展的要求,也是对邓小平“两手抓,两手都要硬“思想的践行和发展,代表了先进文化的发展方向.     

“以德治国“方略的新理念

江泽民同志的“以德治国“思想是对国内外治国经验的科学总结,体现了建立和发展社会主义市场经济的必然要求,是继党的十五大提出的依法治国,建立社会主义法治国家之后,在治国方略上对马克思主义国家学说的丰富和发展.     

"诚信"教育简论

"诚信"这对于向当代学生乃至全民族进行的优秀品质教育,是实现"以德治国",从而把我国建设成为高度文明、高度民主的社会主义现代化强国,同样产生不可估量的巨大推动作用.     

关于"沉默权"问题的理性思考

许多案例表明,如果赋予犯罪嫌疑人以沉默权,将给侦查破案造成不利的影响,最早确立沉默权的英国从多年的司法实践中发现沉默权规定不利于查明案情,于1994年对沉默权制度作了重大修改.美国对实施了30多年的"米兰达规则"也提出了疑问,并通过判例规定了"米兰达规则"的若干例外.我国的"坦白从宽,抗拒从严"政策的精髓在于鼓励有罪的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人坦白认罪,允许其进行无罪或罪轻的辩解,但不承认犯罪嫌疑人、被告人有沉默权.赋予犯罪嫌疑人沉默权,其实际意义就是限制警察的讯问权.我们不主张沉默权,并不意味着警察在讯问犯罪嫌疑人时可以不受任何限制.虽然在某些案件中,口供是必不可少的重要证据,但我们必须坚持严禁刑讯逼供或以威胁引诱、欺骗等非法方式逼取口供.刑事诉讼证据较之民事诉讼中的证据要复杂得多,如果再赋予犯罪嫌疑人沉默权,则无异为侦查工作设置障碍,将造成案件久侦难破.     

论国家干预

国家对社会经济生活的干预是各种类型国家都具有的共同职能。在市场经济下,国家干预的程度、范围和形式较以往都有很大发展,其积极作用也得到更广泛的认同。但国家干预并非万能,它也有缺陷。要克服其缺陷,必须实行国家干预的法治化。国家干预的法治化包括两大基本内容：规范市场经济运行的基本规则和政府干预行为本身,其中,对后者的认识和强调具有更为重要的现实意义。     

行政权的法律导控

分析了中国传统德治主义的价值和缺陷,提出了作为行政法理论基础的法律导控论。     

民众法律认同初探

本文试图从民众的角度来理解法治,认为民众与法治的关系是法治的根本问题。如果法治是以确立民众在法治中的主体地位,确立民众对法律的真诚的信仰作为最终的目标,那么,在中国的传统和观实的压力下,要实现这一目的,民众的法律认同是一个必经的阶段。本文初步探讨了民众法律认同的概念、特点、意义、内容、方式等等。     

Towards a Jurisprudence of Emergency: Colonialism and the Rule of Law

This article revisits an infamous incident in colonial India -- the Amritsar massacre of 1919 -- in order to explore larger questions of the place of martial law and emergency in jurisprudence. By focusing on modes of power in the colonial realm, and the productive role of the colonies in the conception of modern law, it tests the claims of a rule of law and declarations of emergency. The argument tries to show how these two terms are, in fact, relational in theories of colonial discourse and of legal positivism. As such, it reads H.L.A. Hart’s, The Concept of Law and instances from the colonial archive against one another. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

An Evaluation of the Use of Videotaped Evidence for Juvenile Witnesses in Criminal Courts in England and Wales

For the first time, the UK Criminal Justice Act (1991) allowed the videotaped evidence of a child to be substituted for the child's evidence-in-chief in a criminal court. The present study is an evaluation of that legislation. One hundred and fifty children were observed testifying in a criminal court in the UK. The use of the videotaped evidence and subsequent cross-examination of the child witness (usually via the closed circuit television system) was also observed. The data base from the Lord Chancellor's Department of all trials involving child witnesses in England and Wales was also analysed. The results showed that the introduction of the video technology into the criminal courts reduced the levels of stress of child witnesses but did not increase the conviction rates.     

The Investigation and Trial of Criminal Offences in the New Century – The Need for a Radical Change

This is the text of the Liverpool Law Review Annual Lecture 1999. Mr. Justice Hooper speaks about the need for a radical reform of the practices and procedures and rules of evidence in the Criminal Courts in England and Wales. Radical reform is needed at all stages of the process including the investigation stage, the pre-trial stage and at the trial itself. Substantive law reform is also long overdue and there is a real need to consider a new approach by the adoption of a comprehensive criminal code. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.