公检法三机关分工、配合、制约原则质疑

公检法三机关分工、配合、制约的原则是特定历史条件下的产物,在当时的历史条件下有其合理因素,但不能否认这一原则背离了诉讼的基本原理,也与现代刑事司法价值观不符,已不适应作为基本原则在刑事诉讼中的规定。应重塑公检法三机关的关系,构建一体化的检警关系格局,实行起诉书一本主义,提高犯罪嫌疑人、被告人诉讼地位,扩大辩护律师的刑事诉讼中的参与范围。     

未成年人取保候审程序主体之重构

我国未成年人取保候审程序主体系统在构造上存在权利主体面窄、启动申请主体过少、执行参与主体简单化、独立的救济主体缺位等缺陷。基于未成年人取保候审的特定的程序对象考虑,在借鉴国外少年保释制度运作的经验和考察本国未成年人司法实践基础上,应对未成年人取保候审程序主体系统加以重构。     

再论医疗事故争议纠纷的诉讼管辖

本文从正反两方面论述了医疗纠纷中以“侵权结果发生地”确定管辖权的合理性及必要性。并从司法实践出发,就如何从证据法学角度认定“结果发生地”的相关事实阐述了作者的观点。     

ADOLESCENTS' VIEWS ON THE FAIRNESS OF PARENTING AND FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS AFTER SEPARATION

Interviews were conducted with 60 young people aged 12–19 in Australia, concerning their views about parenting and financial arrangements after separation. Half the young people reported that they had no say at all in where they would live after separation. A quarter said they were never able to see their nonresident parent when they wanted to. There was a strong relationship between young people's perceptions of the fairness of the parenting arrangements and the extent to which they were allowed to participate in making those arrangements. Half said that they did not have enough time with their nonresident parent. Having a continuing and meaningful relationship with both parents and with siblings was very important to them. More than a third favored arrangements of spending equal time with each parent. The young people were also very concerned with issues about fairness between first and second families, both in terms of time availability and financial provisions.     

Disputes in Japan: A cross-cultural test of the procedural justice model

Research on procedural justice has provided ample evidence that people are concerned not only with the outcome of disputes but also with the fairness of the procedures used to resolve disputes. The majority of the studies examining the importance of procedural justice have been conducted in the United States and Western European countries. This study tests the generality of the procedural justice model by examining the importance of fair procedures to people in a non-Western country, Japan. This study also examines the meaning of a fair procedure from a legal perspective. Past studies have drawn the procedural justice criteria considered from social psychology. We examine several additional criteria derived from the legal concept of due process of law. Results indicate that fair procedures are more important to subjects than fair outcomes in both a traffic accident dispute and a breach of contract case. Furthermore, across both types of disputes, fairness concerns are more important than nonfairness concerns. These results are consistent with findings from studies conducted in Western countries. A new finding that emerges from the study is that the clarity with which a procedure is formulated and presented is a strong determinant of procedural justice judgments.     

Opening a window into police internal affairs: Impact of procedural justice reform on third-party attitudes

The study explores the impact of a procedural innovation on justice judgments made by third party observers. The innovation involved the establishment of a review panel with civilian participants to monitor a police department's investigation of allegations of misconduct against its officers. The study distinguishes the impact on racial minority observers from that on racial majority observers. Data suggest that the innovation had a positive, though differing, impact on the justice judgments of both minority and majority observers.     

从社会公平的层次看社会不公平的累积与放大--对中国社会不公平现象加剧的一种认识

社会公平的内容,包括具有明显递进性质的五个层次,即人格公平、机会公平、交易公平、分配公平和心理感受公平.与此相对应,社会不公平的内容也呈现出五个层次.中国社会不公平现象加剧的原因,就在于社会不公平的层次性累积和放大.     

反诉制度适用之反思--兼论民事诉讼公正与效率的最大化融合之途径

反诉作为一项重要的诉讼制度,在民事诉讼实践中并没有得到应有的落实,恰恰相反,反诉制度的适用常常遭遇障碍.导致反诉制度适用遇阻的原因是多方面的,包括反诉立法的制度性缺位、理论研究的不当和法院及法官的自利意识等.反诉制度是实现民事诉讼公正与效率最大化融合的途径之一,因此,必须通过立法的完善、反诉理论研究的深化和法院系统对法律统一实施理念的树立,确保反诉制度的有效适用.     

中国近代民事诉讼法学的诞生与成长

中国近代民事诉讼法学 ,萌芽于 19世纪下半叶 ,诞生于 2 0世纪初叶的清末修律 ,成长于 2 0世纪30年代中华民国南京政府时期民事诉讼立法的基本完成。回顾总结这一段历程① ,不仅有助于我们更清楚地了解中国民事诉讼法学的历史起源 ,也可以进一步深化我们对中国民事诉讼法律传统的理解 ,从而更加自觉地投身于新时期中国民事诉讼法学的创建活动     

论行政证据与行政诉讼证据的相异及衔接

行政证据与行政诉讼证据既相区别又相联系 ,并且存在较多衔接关系 ,从理论和实践上都有正确识别之必要。它们的相异主要表现在 :性质、目的、范围、证明对象、调查取证的阶段等方面。二者的衔接主要表现在 :行政诉讼的一部分证据来源于行政证据 ,二者都具有证据的基本属性、种类划分基本相同。区分行政证据和行政诉讼证据 ,不仅适应了法治行政的潮流 ,而且有助于树立现代法治和正当程序观念 ,促进行政程序价值的实现