长江河道非法采砂刑事处罚的难题及解决简

河砂属于矿产资源,对严重的非法采砂行为予以刑事打击具有充分的法律及行政法规依据。定罪时必须严格依照犯罪构成要件,量刑时需分清各行为人在共同犯罪中所起的作用。行政执法机关在收集证据时要格外慎重,实体和程序都要符合法律及司法解释规定。目前长江河砂主管部门不能出具鉴定意见。但可以对专门性问题向司法机关提供检验报告。     

毒品犯罪证据问题研究简

近年来,毒品犯罪案件高发,对社会有着较大的负面影响。在司法实践中,对毒品类犯罪案件在处理过程中往往在案件的证据方面呈现出证据困境,从而导致对行为人的定罪量刑存在一定阻碍。通过分析毒品犯罪类案件证据困境的根源,以提出解决证据问题应当坚持的原则和具体的实践路径。     

乌克兰政局突变原因及影响(英文)

As a geopolitical pivot in the Eurasian grand chess game, Ukraine has As has been vacillating between the West and East, eking out a living amid fierce contest between Europe and the US as one side and Russia as the opposite. The impact of the geopolitical rivalry on Ukrainian domestic politics, The politics,coupled by economic, social and ethnic factors, resulted in the sudden coupled sudden change in the Ukrainian political situation.     

电子证据的相关问题

在美国,使用电子证据已经成为法庭上非常普遍的现象。陪审团审案时,试图使用电子证据的检察官要想使得初审法官采纳该电子证据必须克服一些阻碍。一些证据标准被设计来限制陪审团的事实发现过程。检察官可要求法院启动庭前审理程序来决定电子证据是否可以被采纳。建立一个电子证据保管链和专门处理电子证据的既定机构程序是检方工作的关键环节,这样能确保法庭调查中获得陪审团的信任。挑选能认同电子证据重要性的人员担任陪审团成员非常重要,同时还要避免选择那些想要根据自己专业知识来主导陪审团决议的人员。     

一篇难得的刑法学优秀博士论文——邱兴隆《关于惩罚的哲学——刑罚根据论》序

《关于惩罚的哲学———刑罚根据论》是一篇难得的刑法学优秀博士论文 ,其结构合理 ,内容丰富 ;文论新颖 ,颇多创见 ;锐意开拓 ,构建新说 ;论证充分 ,论据有力 ;文笔畅达 ,清新可读。     

加拿大电子证据法对英美传统证据规则的突破

电子证据对传统英美证据规则的挑战主要涉及最佳证据规则、鉴证规则和传闻规则.加拿大<统一电子证据法>直接以"电子记录"和"电子记录系统"来界定电子证据,突破了传统最佳证据规则对"原件"的要求,新创设"系统完整性"标准来解决电子证据中有关最佳证据的问题,规定鉴证只需验证电子记录系统的完整性与可靠性即可,并对传闻规则中的宣誓和交叉询问作出了新的规定.中国有必要借鉴国外的先进立法经验,讨论有关电子证据的立法模式与立法内容问题.     

Cloud forecasting: Legal visibility issues in saturated environments

The advent of cloud computing has brought the computing power of corporate data processing and storage centers to lightweight devices. Software-as-a-service cloud subscribers enjoy the convenience of personal devices along with the power and capability of a service. Using logical as opposed to physical partitions across cloud servers, providers supply flexible and scalable resources. Furthermore, the possibility for multitenant accounts promises considerable freedom when establishing access controls for cloud content. For forensic analysts conducting data acquisition, cloud resources present unique challenges. Inherent properties such as dynamic content, multiple sources, and nonlocal content make it difficult for a standard to be developed for evidence gathering in satisfaction of United States federal evidentiary standards in criminal litigation. Development of such standards, while essential for reliable production of evidence at trial, may not be entirely possible given the guarantees to privacy granted by the Fourth Amendment and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Privacy of information on a cloud is complicated because the data is stored on resources owned by a third-party provider, accessible by users of an account group, and monitored according to a service level agreement. This research constructs a balancing test for competing considerations of a forensic investigator acquiring information from a cloud.     

规范语境下口供补强规则的解释图景

补强规则中的口供是指证明案件主要事实的被告人供述,补强证据是口供外的其他法定证据,与口供没有同源性。借鉴域外的“罪体标准”和“可信性标准”,根据补强对象的不同可将口供补强模式划分为罪体印证补强模式、隐蔽性证据(细节)补强模式和口供事实补强模式。我国不宜采口供事实补强模式,但可结合罪体印证补强模式与隐蔽性证据补强模式,将补强对象范围限定在“结果、犯罪行为和主体同一”三个客观面。三个客观面的补强意味着案件事实认定上的两大效果:一是可判断“犯罪已发生,该人有参与”,以降低假案冤案出现的风险;二是口供的可信性得到补强,所涵盖的主要犯罪事实可推断为真。然而“部分为真则全部为真”的推断逻辑仍不免产生质疑,但口供补强规则是定罪规则,并不排斥仅有口供仍可认定案件的部分事实或情节。当然,为确保口供补强规则适用的可靠性,可从口供合法性以及供述动机等外部保障机制再行审查。     

Dueling experts and imperfect verification

In the Dueling Experts Game, adversarial experts strategically produce “good” or “bad” evidence to support their partisan testimony. Good evidence is probative while bad evidence has no evidentiary value. The new feature of this Game is that Judge sometimes erroneously identifies good evidence as bad evidence and vice versa. Along the Game’s equilibrium path, each partisan expert produces only good evidence if it supports his side. When favorable good evidence is unavailable, an expert produces bad evidence to support his testimony. Hence, dueling experts always contradict one another. Despite their conflicting testimony, one of the experts invariably produces the available good evidence for Judge. Therefore, Judge always receives the available good evidence. A central result is that the quality of experts, including their ability to persuade judges using available good evidence, and the quality of judges – their ability to distinguish good from bad evidence – determine the accuracy of verdicts. Remarkably, the likelihood that experts are endowed with good evidence does not matter provided that this likelihood is not identically zero or one.     

论动产用益物权的法制完善--从《物权法》第117条说起

在我国,动产能否设置用益物权一直是学界争论的议题。这主要因为我国物权体系学习大陆法系,而东西方大陆法系国家对动产用益物权采取了两种截然不同的立法态度,东亚国家普遍不予设置。这也是我国持废弃观点学者的一大理由。我国2007年《物权法》第117条承认了动产的客体地位,但并未确立完善的动产用益物权制度。随着经济的发展,对物利用需求的深化,市场主体开始自觉不自觉地运用动产用益物权的原理来解决资源紧缺和交易安全的问题。确立完善的动产用益物权制度的条件日渐成熟。