论容留卖淫罪、容留吸毒罪的“容留”

容留卖淫罪、容留吸毒罪的"容留"指为卖淫、吸毒者提供行为场所,不包括提供其他便利行为。提供场所后才明知场所使用者有卖淫、吸毒活动不制止或不中止提供场所是否构成容留应具体情况具体分析,不能一概而论。场所的本质特征是行为人有权控制且能控制。共同控制人在共同控制的场所中卖淫或吸毒,其他共同控制人知情不制止、甚至为其放风报信不构成容留,明知场所的共同控制人容留卖淫或吸毒不制止,只有在行为人事先知情事中不制止才构成容留共犯。     

侦查阶段的刑事和解一些问题的分析

公安机关侦查阶段的刑事和解,存在着可能影响司法公正的因素。一方面,辩护律师参与刑事和解时间有限制,在侦查阶段接触到证据,这与刑诉法规定相冲突;另一方面,刑事和解的量刑奖赏对未成年被追诉人吸引力不足。此外,在侦查阶段达成刑事和解的,法律没有规定侦查人员是否可以撤销案件。答案应当是肯定的,但应限于提请批捕之前。建议区分参与诉讼的辩护律师与参与侦查阶段刑事和解的律师,以兼顾对被追诉人和侦查机关的公平对待。公安机关发挥群众力量事先进行民间调解、感化被害人,可以推进刑事和解实现。     

Types of crimes committed by repeat DUI offenders

This study investigates whether repeat driving under the influence (DUI) offenders have more extensive histories of violent, property, and drug crimes than first-time drunk drivers. It also offers an exploratory investigation into the extent of their criminal specialization. Negative binomial regression was performed on arrest and criminal history data from a systematic random sample of 429 DUI arrestees. Analyses controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, and employment found that being a repeat DUI offender increased the total number of violent and property convictions (regardless of severity) and petty misdemeanor/violation property convictions. The results suggest DUI recidivists are generalists rather than specialists and that impaired driving is best viewed as just one manifestation of a host of deviant behaviors. They also illustrate the challenges of rehabilitating and deterring DUI recidivists and the potential differences between first-time and repeat DUI offenders. The findings should not be interpreted as support of enforcement or deterrent DUI policies that focus on repeat offenders, as limited resources are most efficiently directed at the general population of impaired drivers.     

Procedural justice in mental health court: an investigation of the relation of perception of procedural justice to non-adherence and termination

Mental health courts (MHCs) operate on the principles of procedural justice (PJ). PJ highlights the importance of process over outcomes in encounters with authority. Subjective perceptions of having voice, being heard by decision-makers, and being treated with respect and concern by figures of authority are influential in assessment of fairness and in cooperation with decisions, regardless of favorability of the outcome. In this paper, we investigate MHC participant perception of PJ in interactions with MHC staff and the association between perceptions and recidivism (i.e. time in jail, new arrests, and probation violations), treatment adherence, and MHC termination. Participants from two MHC programs (n?=?80) took part in this study. Results suggest that perception of PJ during interactions with the entire MHC team is significantly associated with program termination, but not with participant behaviors during MHC. Implications for MHC practitioners and researchers are discussed.     

Psychiatrists,criminals, and the law: Forensic psychiatry in Switzerland 1850–1950

Between 1880 and 1950, Swiss psychiatrists established themselves as experts in criminal courts. In this period, the judicial authorities required psychiatric testimonies in a rising number of cases. As a result, more offenders than ever before were declared mentally deficient and, eventually, sent to psychiatric asylums. Psychiatrists also enhanced their authority as experts at the political level. From the very beginning, they got involved in the preparatory works for a nationwide criminal code. In this article, I argue that these trends toward medicalization of crime were due to incremental processes, rather than spectacular institutional changes. In fact, Swiss psychiatrists gained recognition as experts due to their daily interactions with judges, public prosecutors, and legal counsels. At the same time, the spread of medical expertise had serious repercussions on psychiatric institutions. From 1942 onwards, asylums had to deal with a growing number of “criminal psychopaths,” which affected ward discipline and put psychiatry's therapeutic efficiency into question. The defensive way in which Swiss psychiatrists reacted to this predicament was crucial to the further development of forensic psychiatry. For the most part, it accounts for the subdiscipline's remarkable lack of specialization until the 1990s.     

苏州7例杀婴案法医学分析

目的探讨和总结杀婴案的主要特征、法医学检验重点和命案现场分析要点。方法收集2008—2013年苏州市发生的7例已破杀婴案的有关资料。分析并归纳其特点。结果杀婴案嫌疑人均为受害人母亲,年龄较轻,多为未婚先孕;均为分娩后杀婴,分娩现场与杀人现场为同一地点;死亡新生儿多为机械性窒息,尸体多无衣着包裹,脐带非医源性离断,胎盘未与死亡新生儿连接。结论杀婴案法医学检验的规范化、标准化和程序化有助于案件的分析和侦破工作。     

强制医疗程序的实施与反思

＂强制医疗程序＂的＂社会防卫功能＂,不仅受到限制刑事责任能力精神病人和接受过治疗精神病人社会危害性的抑制,还会因＂被精神病＂现象而打折扣。破解此困境需从三方面入手：一是参照《精神卫生法》,将涉嫌犯罪的限制刑事责任能力精神病人,纳入＂非自愿性住院治疗＂范围;二是增加精神病治疗资源投入,强化＂强制医疗＂适用与解除的风险防范意识;三是堵塞《精神卫生法》中＂非自愿性住院治疗＂的漏洞,防止其成为＂被精神病＂新生代的寄生区。     

犯罪客体: 曲解、质疑与理性解读———兼论正当事由的体系性定位简

通说将犯罪客体与民事、经济、行政等法律所保护的社会关系严格区分,并将之限定为刑法分则规定的社会关系的整体,是不可取的。否定犯罪客体在犯罪认定中的作用,缺乏说服力。以法益等替代犯罪客体中的社会关系,并不可取。犯罪客体具有事实判断与价值评价双重功能。法律关系是犯罪客体的重要内容。正当事由符合特定法律关系,没有侵犯犯罪客体,不能认定为犯罪。     

法律论证中的权威与正确性——兼论我国指导性案例的效力

法律论证既需要运用权威理由,也需要运用实质理由来证立法律命题。法律渊源是最重要的权威理由,它通过说明法律命题之来源的方式来证明后者的初步有效性。制定法与先例构成了法律论证之权威性框架的主要部分,制定法属于规范权威,而先例属于事实权威,它们在司法裁判中一般只需被指明。同时,法律论证的正确性宣称决定了法律论证也必须运用有效的实质理由,即对法律命题内容的正确性进行证立。这种论证既可以是法律体系内的论证,也可以是超越体系的论证。法律论证旨在于平衡权威与正确性,其中权威论证具有初步的优先性但并非不可推翻,权威性的强度与相关正确性论证的负担成正比。以此来分析,我国的指导性案例介于规范权威与事实权威之间,它的效力是一种"准制度拘束力"。     

类型学的犯罪故意概念之提倡——对德国刑法学故意学说争议的反思

百余年来德国刑法学在故意概念问题上发展出意志要素无用论、意志要素必要论和间接故意与有认识过失合一论三种基本主张的对立,以及十余种标记鲜明的理论学说。学说争议的出发点是为存在构造上具有区别的不同心理现象配置不同的责任,争议焦点在于意志要素无用和有用、行为意志和结果意志、客观危险和主观危险的对立。各种学说部分成功又部分失败的努力,以及彼此之间描述性而非实质性的区别都表明,故意界定的理论发展方向应由实体法视角转向程序法视角,由概念思维转向类型思维。在观念分界的意义上,故意是做成可能侵害法益的意志决定;在事实认定的意义上,提倡建构类型学的故意概念,通过对能够反映认识和意志强度的待证事实的解释性推论,来推断案件事实是否在整体上"充足"故意的类型。