试论零星贩毒案件的证据认定

由于毒品犯罪手段的隐蔽性 ,决定了毒品犯罪证据收集的困难性 ;而毒品犯罪证据的特点 ,又决定了毒品犯罪证据的复杂性。对此 ,我们在零星贩毒案件中 ,就要以抓获经过材料为基本证据 ,毒品鉴定结论 ,多人证实为根据 ,在此基础上 ,全面考虑犯罪嫌疑人、被害人的供述和辩解 ,证人证言等证据 ,加以综合认定     

4种硅藻检验方法的比较研究

目的比较硝酸乙醇法、酶消化法、“破机罐”法和Soluene-350法在检验硅藻中各自的优缺点,为法医实际办案提供理论依据。方法取家兔肝、肾和骨髓3种组织各2g,分别用上述4种方法消化,比较4种不同方法分别将组织这些完全消化所需要的时间、消化能力、对硅藻的检出率以及对硅藻的破坏程度。结果消化时间以Solu-ene-350法耗时最长,其次是酶消化法,硝酸乙醇法和破机罐法耗时最短。4种方法消化能力的强弱依次是“破机罐”法、硝酸乙醇法、酶消化法、Soluene-350法。对梅尼小环藻(淡水)和桥弯藻(淡水),酶消化法的检出率最高,硝酸乙醇法其次,“破机罐”法和Soluene-350法最低。对舟形藻(海水),酶消化法的检出率高,其余3种方法几乎没检测到。扫描电镜观察:酶消化法对硅藻结构几乎没有破坏。其余3种方法对硅藻均有不同程度的破坏。结论从降低成本、提高检测效率角度,应选择“破机罐”法和硝酸乙醇法;从安全性和环保角度,或可疑水样为海水及硅藻密度较小时,应选择酶消化法;Soluene-350法因耗时长、成本高且硅藻检出率低,不适于在基层法医中推广。     

论犯罪心理痕迹的研究利用

犯罪心理痕迹是犯罪人犯罪心理及其行为活动的产物和反映。依据犯罪行为与犯罪心理及其有关因素之间关系的心理学原理对其进行研究利用 ,对分析案情、刻画罪犯、确定侦查方向和范围有着重要的作用。因此 ,要重视和开展犯罪心理痕迹的研究利用。     

审前准备程序设计中的几对关系问题

确定争点与固定证据是审前准备程序的基本内容 ,二者处于诉讼进程的同一阶段 ,但具有不同的任务 ,在功能和时序上存在逻辑上的先后关系 ,从立法来看 ,目前急需设置和完善整理固定争点的程序 ,为固定证据提供前提。审前准备程序中应当建立预审制 ,实行准备法官与庭审法官的分离或相对分离 ,并采举证时效制 ,审前准备程序并非所有案件的必经程序。审前准备程序中应当充分发挥当事人的作用 ,采当事人主义 ,法官实施程序管理并通过行使释明权对当事人进行适当的协助。应当建立审前调解制度 ,破除查明事实、分清是非的理念 ,并在此基础上强化审前调解     

The Evidentiary Introduction of Psychopathy Checklist-Revised Assessed Psychopathy in U.S. Courts: Extent and Appropriateness*

We examine the application of Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) assessed psychopathy in U.S. courts from the time of the introduction of the PCL-R in 1991, through the end of 2004, and consider the PCL-R in light of relevant evidentiary standards and the empirical support for the construct of psychopathy. Our review of the Westlaw legal database indicates that the evidentiary introduction of PCL-R assessed psychopathy extends across state and federal jurisdictions, and has increased considerably in recent years. We identify nine contexts in which PCL-R evidence has been introduced and examine the appropriateness of such introduction. In most contexts the PCL-R was considered with regard to the prediction of violence in the community, and in such context the introduction of PCL-R scores appears appropriate, at least with regard to European American male offenders. However, PCL-R assessments may not meet relevant evidentiary standards with regard to the prediction of institutional violence and violence among females, adolescents and ethnic minorities.     

德国刑事诉讼法中的证据使用禁止

本文从批判性的视角概述了德国刑事诉讼法中关于证据采纳或者说是关于证据禁止的问题。证据禁止区分为非自主性证据使用禁止和自主性证据使用禁止。非自主性证据使用禁止可能是由于公诉中初步侦查时的取证错误导致的。就是否适用非自主性证据使用禁止这一问题，德国司法官会从几个方面加以考虑，例如，犯罪的严重性或者是取证错误的严重性。自主性证据使用禁止是由于侵犯了个人隐私。例如，私人日记不能作为证据使用。     

The legal classification of identity-based signatures

Identity-based cryptography has attracted attention in the cryptographic research community in recent years. Despite the importance of cryptographic schemes for applications in business and law, the legal implications of identity-based cryptography have not yet been discussed. We investigate how identity-based signatures fit into the legal framework. We focus on the European Signature Directive, but also take the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures into account. In contrast to previous assumptions, identity-based signature schemes can, in principle, be used even for qualified electronic signatures, which can replace handwritten signatures in the member states of the European Union. We derive requirements to be taken into account in the development of future identity-based signature schemes.     

犯罪人特征描述在网络犯罪侦查中的应用

在全球范围内,随着计算机技术和网络技术的发展,网络犯罪案件数量也迅速增长,并成为一个严重的社会问题。人们普遍关注高科技在应对网络犯罪中应发挥的作用,却常常忽略传统侦查手段的应用,如在犯罪人特征描述领域。有证据表明,在网路犯罪领域确实通常存在着一些区别性的特征,这是犯罪人特征描述适用的基础。应针对网络犯罪和犯罪人特征描述的内容,探讨两者结合的可能性和方式,并分析其中存在的问题及未来的发展。     

英美法国家科学证据的历史沿革评述

从18世纪到20世纪,英美法国家有关科学证据的法庭运用,所表明的基本思想是,将科学证据评价的事实问题,通过三种方法转化为法律问题,以此保证法官在科学证据评价中承担更多的审查义务,以减少陪审团在科学证据判断上出错的可能性。这三种法律转化方法分别是,专家资格审查、专家证言的形式审查、专家证言的实质审查。这在20世纪的美国审判中,表现得更为突出。     

Computer use monitoring and privacy at work

The rapid growth of new developments in communication technology has brought electronic monitoring to the forefront of today’s workplace concerns. This is an area that in recent years has drawn considerable attention amongst the media, academia and legal scholars demanding that employers do not intrude into employees’ online privacy via electronic monitoring in the workplace. However, electronic monitoring at work is not one-sided and it is arguable that employers have legitimate reasons to justify their action. This paper aims to examine employers’ justification for conducting electronic monitoring by highlighting the potential risk of financial and legal liabilities that employers may incur as a result of employees’ misuse of online services at work.