Theorizing Criminal Law Reform

How are we to understand criminal law reform? The idea seems simple—the criminal law on the books is wrong: it should be changed. But 'wrong’ how? By what norms 'wrong’? As soon as one tries to answer those questions, the issue becomes more complex. One kind of answer is that the criminal law is substantively wrong: that is, we assume valid norms of background political morality, and we argue that doctrinally the criminal law on the books does not embody those norms. Another kind of answer is that the criminal law as it stands presupposes certain empirical facts, and yet those facts do not hold. Traditionally, criminal law reform has been informed by both these answers. Analytical theorists examine doctrine for its conceptual structure, and social scientists examine the actual workings of the criminal justice system. This tidy picture is, however, challenged by social constructivist accounts of the criminal law. They challenge the stability and conceptual purity of doctrine, and they challenge the objectivity of social science. On the basis of these challenges, they undermine the ambitions of traditional criminal law reform, and argue that the only reforms to the criminal law that matter are politicized ones—that criminal law reform is pointless unless it serves the interests of the marginalized and the dispossessed. It seems undeniable that in some sense our perceptions of crime in our society are indeed moulded by social forces, and that crime does not exist independently of the social structures and processes that help to define and control it. But why should those insights have the implications for our understanding of criminal law reform that they are alleged to have? How could it follow from those insights that criminal law reform either becomes radicalized or valueless? The aim of this paper is to show that what can legitimately be taken from the emphasis on the social constructedness of crime does not require wholesale abandonment of the traditional picture of criminal law reform, even though it may require some modifications of that picture.     

再议毒品所致精神障碍者的刑事责任能力评定

我国法律未规定毒品所致精神障碍者的刑事责任问题,国内法学界和司法精神病学界对此问题争论的焦点主要集中在吸毒者陷于辨认或控制能力丧失状态下实施危害行为时该如何评定其刑事责任能力上。毒品所致精神障碍者的刑事责任能力评定应从法律的角度来探讨,而不能由司法鉴定人员以精神病学的角度来认定有无刑事责任能力。     

非法侵入住宅罪认定若干问题初探

《刑法》第245条规定非法侵入住宅罪贯彻了宪法的精神,保护了公民的身体与住宅的安宁。鉴于实践中有关非法侵入住宅罪认定存在一些疑难问题,诸如有关住宅的认定、非法侵入的认定、本罪构成的限制情节的认定、本罪与其他入室犯罪的关系等,故需要对其进行探讨并提出标准。     

论刑事执行立法一体化

刑事执行作为与刑罚的观念形态、规范形态、宣告形态相对应的实践形态,在国家刑罚权实现的整个链条中居于最后一链,具有集合和终结的意义。我国目前刑事执行观念上的偏狭以及以监狱法为基干法的刑事执行法律体系暴露出刑事执行实践的诸多问题。实行刑事执行立法一体化是刑事执行社会化、文明化、法制化、科学化的必然选择。     

治安管理处罚法与刑法竞合之研究

发生在刑法和治安管理处罚法之问的法条竞合虽由来已久,但因属不同法律之间的特殊法条竞合,尚未有现成的立法或者理论上成熟的适用规则,造成长期以来执法、司法实践的随意甚至混乱。两法具有的天然的渊源关系和我国立法既定性又定量的传统方法是导致两法竞合的原因。刑法是所有法律的保障法,刑罚是所有法律制裁的最后手段,两法出现竞合时,应当优先适用治安管理处罚法,只有在行为的社会危害性已经达到应受刑罚处罚的程度,才能适用刑法。但是解决两法竞合问题最根本的对策和最可行的办法是最高司法机关出台司法解释,根据不同的罪量要素,明确罪与非罪的界限。     

略论犯罪被害人国家补偿制度

改革开放以来,伴随着中国经济的快速增长,犯罪率也在急剧上升.犯罪不仅侵害了国家安定的社会秩序,阻碍了社会主义市场经济的健康发展,也给人们的社会生活埋下了一片阴霾.我国现行刑法更多地是关注犯罪本身以及对犯罪人的惩罚上,在被害人救济方面,主要是通过刑事附带民事诉讼制度由加害人补偿的.然而,现实是我国每年大约有200万左右的被害人根本不可能从罪犯那里获得赔偿.于是,犯罪被害人国家补偿制度的建立不仅可以更好地保护犯罪被害人的受损利益,也可以提高国家司法的被信任度,还可以通过这一制度的建立完善我国的立法制度.     

The Legal Situation on Stalking among the European Member States

Stalking became a subject of academic and social concern in Europe in the mid-1990s. Shortly afterwards the issue of legislation became the subject of debate in some countries and in 1997 the United Kingdom was the first European Member State that passed anti-stalking legislation. Denmark constitutes an exception because its Criminal Code of 1933 contains a provision which also deals with stalking. Other States that up to now have passed legislation against stalking in Europe are Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Malta, Ireland, Austria and, last in order of time, Italy. Where an anti-stalking law exists, legislators have introduced a new article into the existing Penal Code or have amended an article still in force for similar conduct, or have introduced a specific Act against Harassment or Domestic Violence which is intended to cover not only such conduct but also stalking. In the remaining European countries where an anti- stalking law does not exist, it is possible to prosecute stalking only when the behaviour amounts to crimes prosecutable under other existing norms. This article analyses legal regulations on stalking across European Member States in civil and criminal justice considering specific laws addressing the phenomenon or, alternatively, other laws under which stalking can be prosecuted. In the conclusions some advantages and disadvantages of European anti-stalking laws are discussed and some suggestions are given for future work in order to improve the protection of the victims of stalking.     

割裂下的融合:中国宪法与刑事诉讼法关系解读

当下中国的宪法超脱于刑事诉讼法之上,刑事诉讼法游离于宪法之外,两者之间呈现一种割裂的态势。然而,在割裂的大背景下,"宪政—富强"成为统摄宪法与刑事诉讼法的价值理念,为中心工作服务成为宪法与刑事诉讼法融合的连接点,以为中心工作服务为取向的中国式司法能动主义成为宪法与刑事诉讼法融合的关键因素,二者在这样一个背景下实现了"割裂下的融合"。