To Spank or Not To Spank: The Effect of Situation and Age of Child on Support for Corporal Punishment

This study examined college students' attitudes toward spanking as a function of the situational context and age of the child. As expected, respondents were more likely to find spanking appropriate for preschool (ages 3–4) and early school age children (ages 7–8) than for older children (ages 11–12). Physical punishment was also viewed as more suitable when the child's misbehavior was disrespectful (talking back to a parent), or violated strongly held norms (hitting a playmate, stealing), and less appropriate for age-related or less serious misbehavior. Gender and race differences emerged, with males and blacks showing more support for corporal punishment than females and whites. In general, findings revealed strong support for spanking, although there was evidence of some ambivalence, especially among white and female respondents. Implications of the findings are discussed.     

Symbolic Racism and Whites’ Attitudes Towards Punitive and Preventive Crime Policies

This study analyzes the determinants of Whites' support for punitive and preventive crime policies. It focuses on the predictive power of beliefs about race as described by symbolic racism theory. A dataset with 849 White respondents from three waves of the Los Angeles County Social Survey was used. In order to assess the weight of racial factors in crime policy attitudes, the effects of a range of race-neutral attitude determinants were controlled for, namely individual and structural crime attributions, perceived seriousness of crime, crime victimization, conservatism and news exposure. Results show a strong effect of symbolic racism on both types of crime policies, and in particular on punitive policies. High levels of symbolic racism are associated with support for tough, punitive crime policies and with opposition to preventive policies. Sub-dimensions of symbolic racism qualified these relationships, by showing that internal symbolic racism (assessing perceived individual deficiencies of Blacks) was most strongly predictive of punitiveness, whereas external symbolic racism (denial of institutional discrimination) predicted opposition to structural remedies. On the whole, despite the effects of race-neutral factors, the impact of symbolic racism on policy attitudes was substantial. Thus, White public opinion on both punitive and preventive crime policies is at least partially driven by racial prejudice.     

Why We Punish in the Name of Justice: Just Desert versus Value Restoration and the Role of Social Identity

Two different notions of justice might motivate people to demand punishment of an offender. The offense could be seen as lowering the victim’s and community’s status/power position relative to the offender, requiring a degradation of the offender to restore a moral balance (just desert). Or, the offense could be seen as questioning community values, requiring a reaffirmation of those values through social consensus (value restoration). Two studies referring to tax evasion and social welfare fraud yielded supportive evidence. Just desert was related to traditional punishment, especially when participants did not identify with a relevant inclusive community (Australians). Value restoration was related to alternative (restorative) punishment, especially when community values were regarded as diverse and requiring consensualization. It tended to be related to traditional punishment when community values were regarded as clear and consensual.

共犯的处罚根据与共犯的认定

关于共犯的处罚根据,理论上存在着各种学说,其中,惹起说﹙因果共犯论﹚具有理论的合理性。但是,在惹起说内部,又存在着混合惹起说和修正惹起说的对立,这两种学说的对立直接反映出结果无价值论和二元论的对立,不能将这两种学说视为一种学说,予以折中调和。应该从刑法理论的基本立场、共犯是否具有固有的可罚性、共犯和违法性的关系、共犯和构成要件的关系等方面,正确看待混合惹起说和修正惹起说在理论上的本质对立,但在实务中认定共犯的时候,根据这两种理论可能会得出相同的结论,只是在片面共犯和中立的帮助行为等特殊场合,才会得出不同的结论。     

认罪认罚从宽制度实施风险及程序控制——基于美国辩诉交易制度实施风险的展开

我国认罪认罚从宽制度吸纳了我国试点的成熟经验和借鉴了美国辩诉交易等认罪协商制度的有益做法。而作为程序上先行先试的制度,在实施中既需要通过程序来避免无辜者被迫认罪和权权交易、权钱交易等,更要防控美国辩诉交易等协商性刑事司法折损正当程序衍生出的量刑失衡以及冤案的风险。认罪认罚从宽制度的程序完善需要针对制度实施极易产生风险的节点予以程序上特别控制,也需要完善相应风险控制的程序机制和救济制度,避免因程序简化可能带来的实体不公,保障我国这一制度的预期目标得以实现。     

认罪认罚从宽制度实施中的五个矛盾及其化解

认罪认罚从宽制度在实施过程中暴露出以下五个矛盾:一是认罪认罚的自愿性前提与压制型法之间的矛盾,二是认罪认罚从宽的合意基础与实体真实原则之间的矛盾,三是不规范的从宽处罚与刑事法基本原则之间的矛盾,四是“检察官司法”与法官中立裁判原则之间的矛盾,五是简化、速决的一审程序与续审制的上诉审构造之间的矛盾。出现这五个矛盾的原因在于,作为认罪认罚从宽制度运行环境的基础性诉讼制度不健全,认罪认罚从宽制度的设计缺乏系统思维和整体考虑,相关的配套措施不完善。要化解上述矛盾,必须深入推进以审判为中心的刑事诉讼制度改革,努力提高刑事程序正当化水平;进一步完善认罪认罚从宽制度,健全公正与效率总体平衡的制度规范体系;完善相关配套措施,确保不因追求司法效率而损害司法的基本公正。     

论刑法上的"从重处罚"

从重处罚必须具有从重处罚的情节.从重处罚情节包括犯罪情节与非犯罪情节.将非犯罪情节作为从重处罚的根据是法律明文规定的.非犯罪情节中,只有法定从重处罚情节、不存在酌定从重处罚情节.对"坦白从宽,抗拒从严"的刑事政策,应有一个法治时代的新认识;"抗拒从严"不能简单地理解为抗拒从重.<刑法>对首要分子、主犯的处罚仍然体现了"从重处罚"的精神,但与1979年<刑法>相比较,表现为一种"隐性从重".     

刍议洗钱罪的立法完善

纵观当今立法现状,应从以下几个方面对洗钱罪进行立法完善：将洗钱罪的上游犯罪扩大为所有的严重犯罪;明确洗钱罪的主体包括上游犯罪本犯;间接故意和过失也可以构成洗钱犯罪;修正洗钱罪的客观要件;将洗钱罪归属于“妨害司法罪”中;适当加重洗钱罪的刑事责任。     

人权保障原则在疑罪从无实例中的缺失——一起疑罪案件审理引发的人权保障思考

宪法确立的国家尊重和保障人权原则为刑事诉讼法提供了宪法依据和指导,在疑罪从无案件中遵循正当程序,重新审视刑事诉讼程序过程中司法权力与公民权利之间的关系,注重国家刑事赔偿这一公民权利救济程序,是人权保障制度的要求。在宪法的程序性条款、刑事诉讼程序及国家刑事赔偿救济条件等方面逐渐完善疑罪从无制度,有利于人权保障宪法原则的实施。     

论量刑公正的一般标准

在近代刑法学术史上,西方国家曾经围绕报应刑论与目的刑论的对立,就刑罚价值取向和量刑公正标准量刑进行过激烈的争论:报应刑论认为"刑罚轻重应当与罪行轻重相适应",目的刑论认为"刑罚轻重应当与人身危险性相适应"。最后在两者之间形成折中主义刑罚论,认为"表明行为社会危害性和行为人人身危险性事实情况都是影响刑罚轻重的因素",此说为多数学者所赞同并为多数国家刑事立法所采纳。根据现行刑法第五条规定,我国量刑公正标准属于折中主义刑罚论,表现为"罪责刑相均衡",其精髓在于:刑罚的宽严程度应当与行为的社会危害程度以及行为人的人身危险性程度"相互适应",因此,正确处理法定刑、量刑情节与宣告刑三者之间的数量关系,是实现量刑公正的唯一途径。