At the Court of the Strange God

This article revisits the decision of the Australian High Court in Mabo (No. 2)for the purpose of determining what, in the legal thought displayed in the judgments, makes the category of sovereignty exclusive of the sovereignty of aboriginal peoples. Having regard to the téchnē of legal thought, it locates this exclusion in the substitution of nation for property relations of class, sex and race and, more specifically to sovereignty as a category of a still colonial law, in denial of the partiality of the standpoint of legal thought. This article proposes the need in Australia to attend to, thoughtfully, a fantastic and reconciliatory moment in the idea of sovereignty. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

They See Dead People (Voting): Correcting Misperceptions about Voter Fraud in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

The 2016?US Presidential election was unique for many reasons, especially the widespread endorsement of falsehoods about the candidates and the electoral process. Using a unique experiment fielded the week prior to the election, we examine whether correcting information can overcome misperceptions about election fraud. We find that providing counter information is generally ineffective at remedying misperceptions and can, depending on the source, increase endorsements of misperceptions among Republicans. Although information from a fact-checking source is generally unconvincing, when given with evidence from an unlikely source – in our experiment, Breitbart News – both Republicans and Democrats decrease beliefs in voter fraud.     

法律的意义模糊及其救济方法

模糊不明,即法律词汇表达的意思不明确,是一切法律都可能存在的病灶之一,这是人类思维的固有缺陷造成的。法律的统一性、明确性和规范性,不能放任法律意义的模糊,因此,寻求法律意义的明晰和确定,是法律人必须完成的使命。法律解释的基本任务即通过语言、文字或行为的方式交代,明晰因法律意义模糊而产生的困惑,其效力基础在于有权解释的强制性以及人们对法定权威的接受性。但在疑难、复杂案件中,当案件事实与规范之间的对接与沟通出现困难时,法律解释无能为力,此时需要法律推理出场。疑难案件中,对法律可能存在多重意义的理解,法律论证可使案件的读者能够有自身的选择,这是一种更深层次的理解和阐释法律的活动。     

通过司法解决法律权利之间的冲突———卡尔.威尔曼等美国学者及美国最高法院对典型案例的司法推理简

权利冲突是法治领域中的一个世界性问题，如何解决权利冲突也就成为世界各国所要竭力面对的问题。一般来讲，通过立法和司法是解决权利冲突问题的有效手段。本文以美国学者卡尔·威尔曼的《真正的权利》一书中所列举的典型案例为据，系统地介绍威尔曼和其他美国学者以及美国最高法院“通过司法解决法律权利冲突问题”时，对这些典型案例的推理过程及其所阐发的精彩论证。这些推理过程及其论证和论点是笔者最感兴趣的部分，也是中国学术界和司法界在研究和解决权利冲突问题时较为缺乏的。通过这些推理，我们来看看他们是如何通过司法来解决有关权利冲突问题的。     

迈向“言说”理性的法律会话推理

法律推理是理性的过程,具体而言是一种实践理性.法律实践是一种“言说”的实践,特别是在司法过程中,任何一个环节都离不开“言说”这种会话模式.法律推理的过程就是在法律会话实践中选择最适合结论的过程,它包括一定法律行为正当化的论证和相对于一定目的的最佳手段的确定.法律会话推理①正是从多主体“言说”角度寻找正当性的法律推理方法,是一种“言说着”的理性,其以话语为媒介,以法律当事人之间的会话沟通为方式,通过各方对话语意图理解找到解决问题的最佳行为方法,从而对推理结论进行正当性论证,这里的正当性建立在主体间性的基础上,因而具有主体间的可接受性和社会层面的合理性.     

规制量刑权的路径探析

量刑权属于德沃金言下的弱自由裁量权，具有实现个案事实与刑法规范无缝对接、彰显社会正义与保障人权的价值。量刑虽是一项具有浓郁能动司法色彩的活动，但量刑权的行使却不能简单地基于正当、合理的名义。而是首先应遵循一套实体规则，这个实体规则以责任刑法为价值基础，背靠法律人经验，思维步骤符合认知规律且历经实践检验；同时为确保实体规则得以一体遵循，还须设置和运行量刑程序，最终促使法官判罚说理，提高司法信度和效度。     

非法占有目的的刑法定位及认定完善

基于占有学说的不同选择,占有的民刑涵义有所不同.刑法上占有概念以萨维尼学说为理论基础,认为占有心素是据为已有的意图.与民法上占有心素要求,即仅支配、控制意图相比,刑法之所以强调据为已有的意图,目的在于增加行为对占有法益的侵害以达到值得科处刑罚的程度.由此,在认定非法占有目的不同刑法学说中,排除权利者意思说无疑具有合理性.目前,司法推定作为认定非法占有目的的重要方法,在非法占有目的属于主观超过要素基础上,显现出一定的不合理性.强化被告人针对司法推定予以证伪是消解司法推定存疑的完善方法.     

试论刑法学中类推解释与扩大解释的区别

类推、类推解释和类推适用,三者之间是什么样的关系,是否具有相同的涵义,在大陆法系和英美法系具有不同的理解。正确地理解三者的关系,对于认识类推解释与扩大解释的区别具有很大的帮助。类推解释与扩大解释的区分,是刑法学解释中一个重要的、复杂的问题。探究类推解释与扩大解释的区别标准,一直是刑法学家努力的目标。     

盗窃犯罪模糊推理与侦查专家系统

警务信息系统开发是当前计算机应用研究的重要领域,特别是盗窃侦查自动推理软件的开发,具有较大的应用前景和市场空间。依据Fuzzy逻辑推理与专家系统的软件设计原理,运用C++程序设计语言与V-Ari tyProlog的结合,可以开发刑侦自动推理软件工具,通过仿真模拟达到预想的效果。     

Explaining the Origins of the Iran Hostage Crisis: A Cognitive Perspective

Psychological approaches have long been utilized to try to understand the mindsets of terrorists, but much of this literature has drawn on Freudian-inspired psychoanalytic approaches derived from the field of what is sometimes known as abnormal psychology. Building upon recent work which has largely dismissed the value of this kind of approach, this article suggests that we ought to draw more actively than hitherto upon newer, cognitive-based approaches to the study of terrorism. Stressing the importance of analogical reasoning in normal human reasoning, this article seeks to explain the actions of the Iranian students who stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran in November 1979. Cognitive images of “another 1953,” it is argued, played an especially decisive role in the hostage takers' decision-making processes. While analogical reasoning represents only one cognitive approach to decision-making, future research in the field of terrorist studies should utilize more up-to-date “mainstream” approaches to understanding the psychology of terrorist decision-making.