关于破坏监管秩序罪的认定

破坏监管秩序,是罪犯在监狱及其他监管场所服刑期间时有发生的行为,破坏监管秩序,情节严重则构成犯罪。我国《刑法》第315条规定了破坏监管秩序罪的构成及其刑事责任。破坏监管秩序罪,是指被依法关押在监管场所服刑的罪犯,殴打监管人员,组织其他被监管人破坏监管秩序,聚众闹事,扰乱正常的监管秩序,殴打、体罚或指使其他人殴打、体罚其他被监管人,情节严重的行为。破坏监管秩序罪,处3年以下有期徒刑。     

谈计算机犯罪的侦查与取证

为严厉打击计算机犯罪,有必要着力研究计算机犯罪的概念和特点,利用科学的手段确立计算机犯罪的形式,采取有力的措施进行侦查与取证。     

试论我国商标犯罪中的商标范围

对商标犯罪对象的甄选 ,反映了立法者的认识能力、立法时的犯罪态势以及立法者对社会利益的综合衡量。目前我国刑法中商标犯罪的犯罪对象均为注册商标 ,对未注册商标不予保护。在注册服务商标的保护方面 ,我国刑法仍然存在漏洞。借鉴WTO规则以及其他国家和地区的相关规定 ,结合我国商标犯罪的现状及发展趋势 ,进一步扩大商标犯罪之“商标”范围。但同时应注意刑事司法应当恪守罪刑法定原则 ,不能超越刑事立法任意扩大犯罪圈。     

当代刑法溯及力原则的考察--试对新刑法第12条理论重构

刑法的溯及力的出发点和归宿是人权保障 ,是相对罪刑法定精神的体现。肯定我国刑法从旧兼从轻的溯及力原则的基础上 ,引入外国立法例阐释溯及力与既判力的关系 ,进一步完善我国刑法溯及力的立法。     

"被害人自愿"与诈骗罪认定

行为人通过实施欺诈手段取得财产的行为不一定构成诈骗犯罪。诈骗犯罪中的欺诈手段和其他侵犯财产罪中实施的欺诈手段的根本区别是 :诈骗犯罪中的欺诈手段使被害人产生错误认识 ,其基于意志自由“自愿交付”财产。区分诈骗罪与盗窃、抢夺、抢劫、敲诈勒索等其他以实施欺诈手段侵犯财产的犯罪 ,必须从被害人在受到欺诈时的认识因素和意志因素两个方面来进行。     

再析侵占罪的几个问题

自新刑法颁布以来,刑法学界对侵占罪的相关问题一直有较大争议,司法实践中在认定侵占罪时标准也各不相同。     

对当前国际警务合作方式的探讨

国际警务合作是跨国界的执法活动,一国警察可以跨越国境在另一国行使侦查权。我国应　　在国际刑警组织的框架内开展国际警务合作,运用国际侦查协作、刑事司法协助等警务合作方式与有关　　国家开展合作。     

东亚-北美经济失衡与再平衡分析

本文从国别结构和产品结构分析了20世纪90年代以来东亚—北美经济失衡的变化,认为美国贸易逆差不断扩大是其对外产业转移的结果,东亚地区贸易顺差与日俱增是其承接产业转移的结果。其中,东亚内部再次产业转移导致中国顺差迅速膨胀。为了实现东亚—北美经济再平衡,美国需要采取一些措施扩大出口,控制过度的信贷消费,并对美元采取更加负责的政策;东亚地区需要努力实现由外需驱动型向内需驱动型增长方式的转变,加快产业调整与升级,并把产业链向其他地区延伸。     

A Comparison of Four Presumptive Tests for the Detection of Blood on Dark Materials

Detection of blood on dark materials is difficult for crime scene examiners so presumptive tests are used to assist. This study compared the ability of luminol, leuko crystal violet, tetramethylbenzidine, and Combur Test®E to detect whole, diluted blood (1:100) and a key‐shaped blood transfer stain (1:10), on dark cotton sheeting, tea towel, socks, synthetic carpet, and car mats. Powdered bleach was used to evaluate specificity of the blood detection tests. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall misclassification rate (OMR) assessed the quality of the blood tests. Luminol was the preferred test for diluted blood having the highest sensitivity (79%–96%), NPV (66%–93%), and the lowest OMR (3%–15%). Luminol was also found to be most efficient with a testing time on 25 items of 2 h 50 min compared with up to 8 h. Overall, luminol was the most effective method, also providing information on bloodstain patterns.     

Globalization and regulatory change: The interplay of laws and technologies in E-commerce in Southeast Asia

Electronic commerce has brought about business and technological changes globally, and these global changes have given rise to major legal reforms across nations. In the fast-changing global digital economy, states need strategies to maintain competitiveness of their markets while simultaneously ensuring the secure and effective use of technologies involved in conducting electronic transactions. This paper examines how the use and recognition of electronic signatures are regulated in Southeast Asia – the region that has shown the most significant growth in global e-commerce in past few years. Based on a comparative analysis of the laws of four representative ASEAN member states – namely Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam, this paper argues that there is a regional trend towards adopting more liberal and technology-neutral standards for electronic signatures. Electronic signature regulation in Southeast Asia is now built upon limited technological neutrality (or the so-called “two-tiered” approach) as a shared regulatory understanding, but this approach is operationalized differently in each state due to distinctive national contexts. Within the common legal framework, each state has developed its own system of control and management with respect to higher-level signatures (using advanced technologies). The principle of technological neutrality, a concept originally developed for the regulation of technologies in response to the liberalization of telecommunications market, has been the central theme of discussions on the e-transactions policy-making scene. As the author shows, in the process through which states localize the global standards of technological neutrality, ASEAN as a vehicle of regulatory change has played an essential role in translating this principle to the national context.