Individualizing the Reasonable Person in Criminal Law

Criminal law commonly requires judges and juries to decide whether defendants acted “reasonably.” Nevertheless, issues of reasonableness fall into two distinct categories: (1) where reasonableness concerns events and states, including risks of which an actor is conscious, that can be justly assessed without regard to the actor’s individual traits, and (2) where reasonableness concerns culpable mental states and emotions that cannot justly be assessed without reference to the actor’s capacities. This distinction is significant because, while the “reasonable person” by which category-1 cases are assessed is a disembodied and impersonal ideal that consists of nothing but the uncompromising values of the jurisdiction, the reasonable person by which category-2 cases are measured must necessarily incorporate some of an actor’s individual traits or risk blaming the blameless. Courts and commentators have thus far approached the task of individualizing or subjectivizing reasonableness in category 2 by trying to determine in advance which individual traits are generally relevant and which are not. I propose an alternative approach that, in addition to applying to negligence and voluntary manslaughter cases alike, derives its content from the social practice of blaming. I propose that a reasonable person in category-2 cases consists of every physical, psychological, and emotional trait an actor possesses, with one exception—the exception being that he possesses proper respect for the values of the people of the state as reflected and incorporated in the statute at hand.

前科制度的理论根据探讨

前科制度的理论根据问题是前科制度研究中的基础性问题。前科制度的 理论根据是报应根据和功利目标的内在统一。报应是前科制度的正义性根据,功 利是前科制度的目的性根据。前科制度的刑罚价值并非补偿前次犯罪之刑罚在量 上的欠缺和不足,追求刑罚的特殊预防效应,而是用以消除再次犯罪人的人身危 险性,追求刑罚的特殊预防效应和一般预防效应的手段。     

民法典应确立二元民事主体结构--以"非法人团体"问题为中心

“非法人团体”主要是立法政策导致的“法人”概念未能涵盖所有团体主体所致 ,并非因为存在自然人、法人之外另有民事主体的观念。“法人”概念应指代所有作为法律主体之团体 ,我国由于特定立法目的限缩了“法人”概念的指代范围 ,导致了我国“非法人团体”问题的特殊性。民法典应采用“大法人”概念 ,将非法人团体归入“法人”之中 ,建立自然人、法人的二元民事主体结构。     

论对内幕交易行为的法律规制

规范的公司治理结构 ,完善的信息披露制度 ,以及有力的证券监管机制 ,是规制内幕交易的法制环境。纵观各国证券立法 ,均采取各种法律手段进行预防与控制 ,其中一些成熟的制度 ,对我国仍有重要的借鉴意义。     

单位共同犯罪若干问题探讨

目前,刑法学界对单位犯罪的概念、构成条件、处罚等问题皆作了较为深入、成熟的探讨,但对单位共同犯罪问题尚缺乏深入的分析,本文对单位参与犯罪能否构成共同犯罪、单位共同犯罪的特征以及单位共同犯罪司法认定中的若干重点、疑难问题作了详细的分析.     

Responsibility Determination: Free Will and Legal Responsibility in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Free will is the foundation of determination of responsibility. Genetic enginnering represented by technologies of gene editing, artificial medical devices and AI have fundamentally challenged the concept of free will and so have significantly influenced determination of legal responsibility. These challenges are fundamental, not instrumental, and can be divided into two aspects in legal philosophy. First, the direct challenge, that is, the emerging technology represented by genetic engineering and artificial narrow intelligence (ANI) has challenged the concept of free will. Second the would-be ultimate challenge, that is, presented by an artificial general intelligence (AGI) agent that is considered to reach humanlevel free will, can be a legal subject, thus taking full legal responsibility. The direct challenge constitutes a new “forgiveness” condition for taking responsibility. The would-be ultimate challenge deserves significant attention, because the concept of free will is not only about human responsibility, but also about human dignity.     

行政相对人程序参与权利评析

在现代行政程序中,行政相对人成为主要程序主体的地位理应受到尊重。而通过行政程序法确认相对人程序参与权利正是弘扬权利保障这一时代主旋律的具体体现。行政相对人行使程序参与权有其深远的民主与法治基础。行政程序法不仅要明确规范确认行政相对人具体的程序参与权利,而且要对行政相对人行使程序参与权利提供法律上的保障。     

人工智能技术应用会减少制造业企业的就业机会吗？ ——以珠江三角洲制造业企业为例

在人工智能背景下，智能化转型成为许多企业的发展方向，然而在智能化设备代替人类工作者的过程中，新技术是否会带来失业问题成为社会讨论的焦点。本研究通过对珠江三角洲部分制造业企业进行问卷调查，并从智能化升级前后的员工总体数量变化、具体部门人数变化、员工工资收入变化以及企业的人力资源需求变化等四个方面进行分析。研究结果显示： (1)人工智能技术对企业员工存在一定程度的替代效应，但 效果并不明显；(2)人工智能技术对部门结构进行重塑，将员工引向与人工智能技术相关的工作岗位上： (3)人工智能技术在企业中的应用对转岗员工收入的提升起到积极作用： (4)人工智能技术的各项优势以及在企业中起到的积极作用并不意味着劳动者被淘汰，反而增加了企业的劳动力需求。     

人工智能与公共管理研究:技术可能性、议题重构和治理创新

人工智能对于人类社会的变革影响引起了公共管理领域的普遍重视,但在强人工智能以及人工智能必然导致自动化、智能化社会形态的前提假设下,相关研究可能继承了技术决定论的局限思维,从而低估了人工智能对于人类社会的潜在贡献。自然科学视角对于强人工智能的否定揭示了人工智能所具有的多种技术可能性,在此基础上从个体、组织、全球三个层面的议题重构更多强调人类自身以及人类社会活动的产物对于人工智能发展及其社会变革过程的影响,而由此启发学科、制度、政策三方面治理创新进而推动相关理论和实践以更为开放的态度面对新技术带来的变革与影响。     

On the Legal Regulation of Algorithms

Increasingly, algorithms challenge legal regulations, and also challenge the right to explanation, personal privacy and freedom, and individual equal protection. As decision-making mechanisms for human-machine interaction, algorithms are not value-neutral and should be legally regulated. Algorithm disclosure, personal data empowerment, and anti-algorithmic discrimination are traditional regulatory methods relating to algorithms, but mechanically using these methods presents difficulties in feasibility and desirability. Algorithm disclosure faces difficulties such as technical infeasibility, meaningless disclosure, user gaming and intellectual property right infringement. And personal data empowerment faces difficulties such as personal difficulty in exercising data rights and excessive personal data empowerment, making it difficult for big data and algorithms to operate effectively. Anti-algorithmic discrimination faces difficulties such as non-machine algorithmic discrimination, impossible status neutrality, and difficult realization of social equality. Taking scenarios of algorithms lightly is the root cause of the traditional algorithm regulation path dilemma. Algorithms may differ in attributes due to specific algorithmic subjects, objects and domains involved. Therefore, algorithm regulation should be developed and employed based on a case-by-case approach to the development of accountable algorithms. Following these development principles, specific rules can be enacted to regulate algorithm disclosure, data empowerment, and anti-algorithmic discrimination.