刑事诉讼专家辅助人制度关键问题探讨

随着2013年《刑事诉讼法》的实施,我国正式确立了刑事诉讼领域的专家辅助人制度.专家辅助人制度虽然在民事诉讼领域已推行了13年,但实践经验乏善可陈,刑事诉讼领域的立法又过于原则,缺乏可操作性.因此,拟对刑事专家辅助人制度的几个关键问题进行讨论回应,以期对该制度在刑事诉讼中的顺利实施提供参考借鉴.首先讨论的是对鉴定意见审查质证的本质问题,其次是专家辅助人的功能及其遴选问题,第三是专家辅助人意见的属性及其管理问题.     

公安机关网络危机公关的泰州模式及其启示

公安机关采取有效对策应对网络公共关系危机,是警察公共属性的体现,有利于密切警民关系,赢得公众的支持配合,这是公安机关履行职责、完成任务的重要保障。借鉴泰州公安机关应对网络公共关系危机的有益经验并正视其不足之处,研究我国公安机关应对网络公共关系危机的有效对策,有助于恢复公安机关的受损形象,强化公安机关的执法权威。     

Safe as Houses? Conservative Social Policy,Public Opinion and Parliament

Social policy is of key importance to contemporary society, accounting for two thirds of public expenditure and, through provision such as the NHS, pensions, benefits, schools, universities and social care, touching on the lives of much of the population on a daily basis. It has also been one of the areas where the Conservative party have sought to change their image, and to some extent policies, under David Cameron. Drawing upon a range of evidence, including interviews with more than ten per cent of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, this article examines the potential challenges for a Conservative government of either stance, focusing on the extent of possible support for the Conservatives' approach to social policy amongst three key groups: the public, MPs, and members of the House of Lords.     

从刑事诉讼法48条谈鉴定意见的证明力

在司法实践中，随着科学技术的发展，鉴定技术的运用越来越广泛。由于鉴定技术的专业性、科学性，法庭很少会去质疑鉴定结论的科学可靠性。但实际上，鉴定结论并无预定的证明力，它本质上应该是一种专家意见，而非绝对的、不容置疑的不变真理。新刑事诉讼法第48条将“鉴定结论”修改为“鉴定意见”，反映出法律更加谨慎、理智地看待鉴定意见证据的证明力。     

网络公众参与:现实反思与秩序重建

网络公众参与对社会的影响是双重的,既有利于推进公共决策的科学化和民主化,又由于存在的问题和非理性趋势而给社会政治环境带来消极效应.必须对网络公众参与中存在的现实问题进行理性反思,并从社会价值预期的合理确立、网络舆论引导机制的构建、网络制度建设和网络伦理建设等几个方面促进网络公众参与沿着理性、有序、规范的轨道发展,使其真正成为弘扬文明风尚、促进社会和谐的积极动力.     

对公共政策制定的政治哲学思考

公共政策制定是社会政治生活中公共决策系统的经常性活动。在现代社会,由于公共政策的巨大作用和影响,公共政策制定问题引起了广泛的关注。从政治哲学的角度审视,以公意为价值取向、以政治权力为基本依托,以政治秩序为最终归宿,才能建立起人民期待的合理、公正、有效的公共政策,从而进一步推进决策的科学化、民主化。     

网络舆论监督与司法公正之平衡

随着网络信息技术的发展,网络舆论监督在新闻舆论监督中占据了重要地位。但舆论是一把双刃剑,在司法裁判过程中,如果运用不当,就可能形成负面影响,如媒介审判。在法制社会中,只有剖析网络舆论的现状与发展趋势,探寻网络舆论与司法裁判的关系,才能平衡网络舆论与司法公正。     

刑事案件精神病鉴定实施情况调研报告

本文以法律职业群体和司法精神病学鉴定专家为调研对象,就刑事程序中的精神病鉴定及相关问题进行了调研,通过运用访谈、问卷、阅卷、调取司法统计数据等实证研究方法对目前我国刑事程序中精神病鉴定的现状、问题及成因展开了研究。研究的主要问题包括司法精神病鉴定主体与鉴定管理体制,鉴定程序的启动,公安司法人员对鉴定意见的审查、判断,对精神病人的强制医疗等问题。     

The power and limitations of televised presidential debates: Assessing the real impact of candidate performance on public opinion and vote choice

A growing literature establishes that presidential candidates can help and hurt themselves through their performance in televised debates. Debate performance, however, is a somewhat elusive concept. Voters' post-debate assessments of the participants may be heavily colored by pre-existing attitudes toward candidates, parties, and the incumbent president. This paper attempts to tease out the “true” impact of debate performance, i.e., those times in which the candidates' superiority or inferiority on stage breaks through voters' cognitive filters. We find that debate performance is responsible for only about half of the variance in viewers' assessments of winners and losers; that it is possible to be declared the winner in the post-debate polls based entirely on factors exogenous to the debate itself; and that even a highly successful performance might yield only a narrow win in the post-debate polls. We also present evidence that, when measured properly, debate performance can actually alter candidate preferences.     

Shot by the Messenger: Partisan Cues and Public Opinion Regarding National Security and War

Research has shown that messages of intra-party harmony tend to be ignored by the news media, while internal disputes, especially within the governing party, generally receive prominent coverage. We examine how messages of party conflict and cooperation affect public opinion regarding national security, as well as whether and how the reputations of media outlets matter. We develop a typology of partisan messages in the news, determining their likely effects based on the characteristics of the speaker, listener, news outlet, and message content. We hypothesize that criticism of a Republican president by his fellow partisan elites should be exceptionally damaging (especially on a conservative media outlet), while opposition party praise of the president should be the most helpful (especially on a liberal outlet). We test our hypotheses through an experiment and a national survey on attitudes regarding the Iraq War. The results show that credible communication (i.e., “costly” rhetoric harmful to a party) is more influential than “cheap talk” in moving public opinion. Ironically, news media outlets perceived as ideologically hostile can actually enhance the credibility of certain messages relative to “friendly” news sources.