论侦查启动之随机性——由儿童失踪立案程序转变透视我国侦查启动模式之利弊

我国刑事诉讼法在侦查程序之前设立了立案程序,并将其作为刑事诉讼的启动程序,这使得我国刑事侦查启动被归于典型的程序性启动模式。然而,实践中,立案程序的设计存在着严重的弊端,由此也产生了许多难以解决的问题。现今大多数国家都采用了随机型的侦查启动模式,且随机型侦查启动模式较之程序型启动模式更为科学、合理,更有利于实现刑事诉讼打击犯罪与保障人权的双重目的。可见,在当下,重构我国的侦查启动程序,已成为一个迫切需要我们解决的问题。     

试论“后悔权”设立之法学证成

作为舶来事物,＂后悔权＂一经浮出水面,即遭受或赞或弹的命运。其中的质疑不无道理,但又有失偏颇。据此,厘清＂后悔权＂之真正意旨,区别相关权利,奠定对其讨论的正确基础实为必须且为必要。此外,＂后悔权＂作为一个货真价实的＂国际惯例＂,无理由将之拒之门外,但为避免＂水土不服＂的尴尬,其设立必须兼顾本土实际,即：一切从实际出发,设立中国特色的＂后悔权＂制度——＂有限后悔权＂制度。     

刑法法律地位在司法中的具体运用——兼论“北大医院教授死亡”案

司法实务对刑法和其他部门法的关系提出了反思要求。刑法的适用,尤其是对行政犯的定罪量刑,必须处理好刑法与其他部门法之间的关系。这一关系取决于刑法成立部门法的理论基础。调整方式的特殊性是刑法成为部门法的理论基础,刑法调整对象的非独立性和刑罚的严厉性决定了刑法的广泛性、最后性和谦抑性,法律的指引作用以及法律的安全价值追究要求刑法必须与其他部门法保持一致。尽管如此,刑法与其他部门法的地位是平等的。刑法的独立基础和刑法与其他部门法之间的关系决定了刑法在法律体系中的地位。刑法在法律体系中的地位不仅影响着刑法制定,同时也对刑法的具体适用具有重大指导作用。     

论刑事推定的适用——以非法持有国家绝密、机密物品罪为例

刑事推定体现了经验法则与逻辑理性、利益衡平与诉讼效率以及法律强制与自由裁量等价值和意义。推定的适用包括表见成立和反驳两个环节,分别有其条件和法律效果。同时,应正视推定存在一定的缺陷,对其应有所规制。我国《刑法》对非法持有国家绝密、机密的文件、资料或者其他物品罪做了特别规定,即在认定该罪名时存在法律推定的适用问题,适用范围仅指对国家绝密、机密的文件、资料或者其他物品来源和用途非法的推定。     

论刑罚惩治毒品依赖行为的几个问题

吸毒作为一种国际性的社会问题,世界各国都对涉及毒品犯罪从刑法上给予严厉的打击。与之相比,我国对吸食、注射毒品行为的处罚显然失之于宽,失之于软。因此,刑罚惩治毒品依赖行为的要求日益凸显。现实操作中应注意:1.打击面不能过宽;2.识别所依赖的毒品种类;3.注意羁押中的毒品依赖人员人身和生命安全问题;4.罪名设置问题;5.刑罚设置问题。     

Custody and Visitation in Families With Three (or More) Parents

New technological and legal developments have enabled the formation of three‐parent families. Now that these families have arrived, families—and family law—must adapt to allocate responsibilities among the responsible adults.     

The Cybercrime Convention Committee's 2017 Guidance Note on Production Orders: Unilateralist transborder access to electronic evidence promoted via soft law

This article provides a critical analysis of the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention Committee's Guidance Note of Production Orders, published on 1 March 2017. The article looks at the legal controversies surrounding production orders with a cross-border element. It explains the Guidance Note's background and origins, the basic provisions in the Cybercrime Convention allowing the law enforcement authorities to order and obtain certain information and discusses the requirements that follow from the relevant provisions of the Convention. This analysis is complemented by four critical remarks on the way the Guidance Note pushes the boundaries of acceptable treaty interpretation on the necessity of the Guidance Note, its position in regard to extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction and sovereignty, its reticence towards fundamental rights and its refusal to define or clarify the important notion of “subscriber information”. The article argues that unilateralism is not a solution. Instead of soft law plumbing, what is needed is an agreement between sovereign states checked by their constituencies.     

‘The Sky is Falling!’ – Responses to the ‘Going Dark’ problem

The shared concern expressed in the two quotes below is that modern technologies provide criminals with a capability to evade investigation. This comment piece examines some of the policy and legal options available to governments and law enforcement agencies to try to address this concern. While accepting the claim that this phenomenon represents a real challenge to law enforcement agencies, we currently have insufficient evidence to show the true extent of the problem. What this piece does not accept is the implication contained in the quotes, and often made explicit by others, that the use of encryption represents a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power between criminals and their investigators from what previously prevailed. Such claims tend to lack historical perspective, which is one of the themes of this 200th issue of Computer Law and Security Review.     

Asia Pacific news

This column provides a country-by-country analysis of the latest legal developments, cases and issues relevant to the IT, media and telecommunications' industries in key jurisdictions across the Asia Pacific region. The articles appearing in this column are intended to serve as ‘alerts’ and are not submitted as detailed analyses of cases or legal developments.     

Law enforcement access to personal data originally collected by private parties: Missing data subjects' safeguards in directive 2016/680?

Access by law enforcement authorities to personal data initially collected by private parties for commercial or operational purposes is very common, as shown by the transparency reports of new technology companies on law enforcement requests. From a data protection perspective, the scenario of law enforcement access is not necessarily well taken into account. The adoption of the new data protection framework offers the opportunity to assess whether the new ‘police’ Directive, which regulates the processing of personal data for law enforcement purposes, offers sufficient safeguards to individuals. To make this assessment, provisions contained in Directive 2016/680 are tested against the standards established by the ECJ in Digital Rights Ireland and Tele2 Sverige on the retention of data and their further access and use by police authorities. The analysis reveals that Directive 2016/680 does not contain the safeguards identified in the case law. The paper further assesses the role and efficiency of the principle of purpose limitation as a safeguard against repurposing in a law enforcement context. Last, solutions to overcome the shortcomings of Directive 2016/680 are examined in conclusion.