教唆犯在实行过限中的刑事责任认定简

实行过限是伴随共同犯罪的发生而出现的一种特殊犯罪形态.根据过限的范围,—般可分为质的过限、量的过限和转化的过限.目前学界在教唆犯实行过限的认定上提出了超出教唆故意说、未预见说和教唆类型区分说,以其中任何一种学说作为认定过限的唯一标准并不可取.认定教唆犯才在实行过限中的刑事责任应根据主客观相一致的原理,以超出教唆故意说为基本原则,综合运用未预见说和教唆类型区分说予以应对教唆犯罪中实行过限的各种复杂情形.     

浅析中国(上海)自由贸易试验区建设潜在犯罪风险及防范对策简

2013年783日，国务院正式批准建设中国（上海）自由贸易试验区。上海自贸区在试点更加宽松、自由、开放的金融、贸易、投资政策的同时，也给上海公安工作特别是上海公安经侦工作带来严峻挑战。为此，公安机关必须从主动发现、主动预警、主动防控的角度，研判上海自贸区建设进程中可能出现的风险问题，从金融、商贸、涉税等领域分析自贸区可能多发的经济犯罪，并在此基础上，从法律法规、行政管理和刑事打击三个层面，提出预警性、延伸性的打防策略和政策性、体制性、机制性的工作建议，以期为相关职能部门堵漏补缺提供参考，更好地服务改革发展大局、服务上海自贸区建设。     

有组织犯罪侦查策略与方法——从主动型侦查角度切入

随着经济的发展和社会的进步,犯罪形态也发生着巨大变化,尤其是从计划经济到市场经济转轨带来人们价值观念、行为方式的变化,使得行为人的个体行为往往借助群体力量而达到犯罪目的,由此有组织犯罪呈现增长趋势。犯罪形态的变化迫使侦查方式由对个体行为的被动侦查向有组织犯罪的主动侦控转变,侦查模式也相应发生变化。从主动侦查角度切入,对于分析研究有组织犯罪侦查策略具有重大的现实意义。     

非法拘禁作为战争罪在非国际武装冲突中适用的探究

作为国际法的一个分支，国际人道法旨在保护未参与或不再参与敌对行动的人员，并限制作战手段和方法的使用，因此。国际人道法也被称为战争法或武装冲突法。在国际人道法的传统理论观点中，非国际性武装冲突中的平民面对非法拘禁时不受人道法的保护。回顾1995年前南国际法庭上诉庭在塔迪奇一案中的判决所建立的标准，无论是国际武装冲突还是非国际性武装冲突保，面对非法拘禁时，平民均应受到人道法保护。     

影响就业的几个因素及解决方案

促进劳动力充分就业是构建社会主义和谐社会的重要内容和根本要求，也是我们研究经济社会又好又快发展的重大课题。在市场经济条件下，影响劳动力充分就业的因素有许多。诸如城乡劳动力市场的分割、城乡经济和劳动力“二元结构”、就业歧视、劳动力流动存在制度性障碍等。通过分析就业形势，总结影响就业的诸多因素，提出几点意见和建议。     

浅析非法持有毒品罪

关于什么是非法持有毒品罪 ,在刑法理论界颇有争议。笔者比较赞成李文全先生的观点 :非法持有毒品罪 ,是指违反国家毒品管理法律、法规 ,未经主管部门批准或许可 ,私藏或保存数量较大的毒品 ,经查证尚不能认定为其他犯罪的行为。对于吸食、注射毒品者非法持有毒品该如何确定其性质 ,刑法理论界存在几种看法。最根本的还是要解决吸毒罪与非罪问题 ,如果设立了吸毒罪 ,也就不存在这个争论了     

经侦民警职业化培训中案例教学的探索与实践

当前经侦执法中的新情况新问题层出不穷，加强经侦民警职业化培训，不断提高经侦队伍职业化水平已成为各级公安机关经侦部门队伍建设的一项重要任务。案例教学是理论与实践的有机结合体，具有直观生动、浅显易懂；源于实战、贴近实战和便于互动、易于参与的优势，是一项有效的教学手段。将案例教学运用于经侦民警职业化培训，精选真实案例作为教学与训练的素材，采取多种教学形式，带动全警参训，使教学与练兵相得益彰，能够有效地锻炼与提高经侦民警的职业能力，促进经侦专业警种的职业化建设。     

对“技术侦查”价值关联的思考——兼论技术侦查手段的必要性

技术侦查手段在侦查实践中得以广泛使用,具有重要的侦查价值。对技术侦查的研究不能囿于其概念本身,也不能基于理想化的人权保障理念而脱离侦查实际片面强调对技术侦查的限制。应坚持价值中立的态度,从价值关联的角度去考量技术侦查手段的必要性。     

La ñata contra el vidrio: urban violence and democratic governability in Argentina

The article argues that the increase in crime and urban violence in Argentina, especially in Buenos Aires, can be explained as an outcome of the interaction of four factors: the new social relations established by neoliberalism; the incapacity of the state to resolve the social conflicts which have arisen from these new social relations; the failure to democratise the security forces; and the exclusion of a sector of society from the rights of effective democratic citizenship. The increase in crime and urban violence is, thus, analysed as a problem of governability.     

Overview of: “Crime Place and Pollution: Expanding Crime Reduction Options Through a Regulatory Approach”

Research Summary Crime reduction policy has focused almost exclusively on offenders. Recent studies and evaluations show that expanding our policy portfolio to include places may be highly productive. We show that there is considerable research showing that crime is concentrated at a relatively few locations, that high-crime places are stable, that changing places can reduce crime, that displacement is not only far from inevitable but also less likely than the diffusion of crime prevention benefits, and that owners of high-crime places can be held accountable for the criminogenic conditions of their locations. We link these findings to environmental policy, where environmental scientists, economists, and regulators have developed a broad set of regulatory options. The core of this article describes a portfolio of environmental policy instruments directly applicable to crime places. We also discuss major decisions local governments will need to make to implement various forms of regulation, and we list challenges that governments must anticipate in planning for such implementation. We argue that a regulatory approach to crime places has the potential to lower the cost to taxpayers of reducing crime by shifting costs from governments to the relatively few place owners whose actions create crime-facilitating conditions. Policy Implications Taking a regulatory approach to crime places substantially expands the crime policy options under consideration. Regulatory options may increase local governments’ effectiveness at reducing crime while reducing governments’ costs. This is because regulatory approaches have the potential to shift some portion of the financial burden for crime fighting to owners of criminogenic locations. Policy makers can select between means-based anticrime regulations that focus on how place owners manage their locations and ends-based regulations that focus on the number of crimes allowed at places. Both of these approaches contain several alternative regulatory instruments, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Experimenting with various regulatory instruments could lead to the development of a range of new crime reduction policies. In addition, a regulatory approach has implications for the funding of policy research. Means-based regulatory instruments require governments to develop evidence that the means they regulate have the desired impact on crime. Ends-based regulatory instruments shift this burden to the regulated places.