American Criminal Justice Exposed

In The Ethics of Capital Punishment: A Philosophical Investigation of Evil and Its Consequences, Matthew Kramer argues that none of the standard rationales used to justify capital punishment successfully vindicates it and that a new justification, the purgative rationale, justifies capital punishment for defilingly evil offenders. In this article, it is argued, first, that a version of retributivism that adheres to the lex talionis as Kramer understands it does seem to call exclusively for the death penalty. Second, it is submitted that the purgative rationale is over-inclusive inasmuch as Kramer considers it applicable to certain offenders with abusive or deprived backgrounds, some offenders indoctrinated to adhere to pernicious ideologies that have impelled their crimes, and wrongdoers who have sincerely repented. Third, doubts are expressed about whether the purgative rationale justifies the execution of any offenders. Even if it is true that the continued existence of an extravagantly evil offender represents an affront to humanity, as Kramer suggests, a moral obligation to execute him does not follow. Since repentance is intrinsically valuable and since repentance would extinguish the affront to humanity, the community in which an unrepentant evil offender abides is duty-bound to foster repentance on the part of the offender by imposing banishment or life imprisonment, sanctions that afford the offender the most extensive opportunity for repentance. The community is therefore obligated to impose one of these sanctions instead of capital punishment.     

Self-Defense,Punishment and Forfeiture

Abstract

According to the self-defense view, the moral justification of punishment is derived from the moral justification of an earlier threat of punishment for an offense. According to the forfeiture view, criminals can justly be punished because they have forfeited certain rights in virtue of their crimes. The paper defends three theses about these two views. (1) The self-defense view is false because the right to threaten retaliation is not independent of the right to carry out that threat. (2) A more plausible account of the right to threaten says instead that the right to retaliate is primary to the right to threaten, and that the former right in turn arises because aggressors forfeit the right not to suffer retaliation. (3) The “fair warning thesis,” according to which just punishment must be preceded by a threat, is less plausible than first appearances suggest and is therefore no serious obstacle to the view of threats described above.     

刑法视野下的法律拟制新探——价值协调与机制缺失

法律拟制大致经历了从诉讼拟制到实体拟制、从司法拟制到立法拟制、从技术拟制到规范拟制的发展进程,它是工具价值与规范价值相融合的产物,从本质上讲,它是一种有意识的＂立法类推＂。刑法拟制本身并没有是否违反罪刑法定原则的问题,只有法律拟制的工具价值是否受到规范价值的制约并与之协调的问题,对于我国刑法中拟制条款的质疑与检讨就是看其设置是否符合刑法的目的。法律拟制除了规范价值的内在制约外,还需要合宪性审查机制的外在制约。     

Desperate equilibrium: on guilt,law and rationality

Abstract

This paper is about the role of guilt in relation to practical reason. It analyses guilt not as a passive emotion but as a particular kind of strategy at the level of subjective rationality. The concept of guilt occupies a complex and contested semantic space with other concepts, most notably shame. There have been many attempts – philosophical, psychological, sociological – to define these concepts in relation to each other. This paper suggests that whilst guilt is a moral concept that is oriented towards a certain kind of legalism, shame is a moralistic concept. As such, the relations between guilt and shame are discussed in relation to some literary examples, for instance Macbeth's guilt and Conrad's Lord Jim. The conclusion is that on the one hand our confusion over the concept of guilt comes down not least to what may be our confusion over the difficult concept of law and that on the other hand this has consequences that can ultimately be political.     

试论刑法司法解释的发展趋势简

刑法只有经过解释,才能适用于司法实践活动中.具有我国特色的刑法司法解释作为刑法解释中的一种,从其诞生起一直备受争议.现行刑法明确规定罪刑法定原则,刑法司法解释存在就缺乏法律依据,违背罪刑法定原则的精神,更违背罪刑法定原则的出罪功能,其应该退出司法实践活动,取而代之的应为司法刑法解释.     

身份犯的处罚根据论

身份犯的处罚根据问题是身份犯理论研究的基础性范畴,它直接决定了身份犯具体问题的展开。发端于大陆法系刑法中的"义务违反说"、"法益侵害说"以及建立在二者基础之上的"综合说"都不能圆满地说明身份犯的处罚根据;我国学者关于此问题的个别看法也不无纰漏。以"身份法益侵害说"作为身份犯的处罚根据,则是一种合理的选择。     

《吕刑》在中国法律史上的地位与影响

《吕刑》所反映的德刑并举治国思维及刑法制度与原则,直接或间接地影响着后世刑法的构建。在法律思想方面,后世社会的明刑弼教、乱世重典及贤人执法理念与《吕刑》有渊源关系,在法律制度,古老的五刑、五听与赎刑也是后世同类制度的嚆矢。《吕刑》中关于上下比罪、简孚有众、其刑上备等定罪量刑原则又分别成为后世的类推、据众证定罪及重罪吸收轻罪等制度的示范。     

业务过失犯罪处罚问题研究

科学技术的发展在给人类带来巨大的福祉的同时,也使得生产、交通、建筑等高风险领域中过失犯罪的发生率持续上升。为保障社会安全,适应惩治和防范业务过失犯罪的需要,应加重我国刑法对业务过失犯罪的处罚,彻底改变刑法对该类犯罪的处罚轻于普通过失犯罪的普遍现象;适当增加业务过失危险犯;改变多数业务过失犯罪法定刑刑种设置的单一性,增设罚金刑和资格刑。     

互易毒品行为的刑法性质评析

贩卖毒品罪中的卖出行为本质上以买卖关系为基础,互易毒品行为与之存在着性质差别。有偿性交付毒品和买卖毒品是不能划等号的,有偿性只是贩卖毒品的一个特征,而不是买卖行为的独自属性。将互易毒品行为认定为贩卖行为在逻辑上存在着大前提的判断错误。以毒品代物清偿同样不属于贩卖毒品。一概视为贩卖毒品罪违背了罪刑法定原则。只有通过完善立法,将提供毒品行为立法入罪,才能从根本上解决问题。     

论行政刑法规范的适用与罪刑法定原则

行政刑法规范是规定对违反行政上义务的行为予以相应刑罚处罚的法规,在我国仍然是基于刑法上明确规定的罪名而予以制裁的法规。它并不是独立于刑法的其他的特别部分,而是刑法固有的一部分。因而对于违反行政法规的行为,在刑法规定有可以不适用刑法总则的特别规定时,适用该特别规定,而在有关犯罪以及刑罚的基本原则方面仍应适用刑法典的规定。至于空白行政刑法规范,由于犯罪构成事实的基本轮廓以及刑种与刑度已经有明确规定,而只是将其一部分构成要件授权其他法律或行政命令补充,因而并不违反罪刑法定原则的基本要求。