刑法解释方法位阶性的质疑

文义解释有诸多局限,需要其他解释方法来印证和检验,因此其并不具有优位性。客观目的解释的功能具有多面性,其仅在目的性缩限时具有绝对优先性,因此不能一概认为其有决定性;主观目的解释仅在提供不处罚的立法资料时具有特殊价值。在刑法解释的商谈、试错过程中,方法的采用有"各取所需"的特点,采用何种解释方法取决于对处罚必要性的判断;解释是一种结果,通常是在结论确定之后再选择解释方法,为法官定罪与否提供"事后注脚";由于司法裁判必须考虑国民的认同感,且要接受后果考察,刑法适用就必须兼顾大量解释方法自身难以涵括的各种复杂因素。因此,如何立足于法条用语的通常含义,将犯罪论体系、规范保护目的、国民的规范认同、处罚必要性等内容一并考虑,并且坚持实践理性,选择对个案最为合适的解释方法,将实质解释的结论限定在特定时代能够接受的范围内,从而平衡好惩罚犯罪和保障人权的关系,是比刑法解释方法的位阶性更为重要的问题。     

当代中国刑法法典化研究

刑法的法典化是统一刑法典的制定和完善过程。当代中国刑法的法典化程度,与中国社会形势的变迁、法治的整体发展水平、立法技术的提升密切相关。中国刑法的法典化是历史与现实的必然选择,具有重要的法律文化价值、比较法价值、社会价值、现代法治价值和规范价值。中国应综合运用外部和内部策略,制定和发展形式合理、内容全面、科学的统一刑法典。     

论容留卖淫罪、容留吸毒罪的“容留”

容留卖淫罪、容留吸毒罪的"容留"指为卖淫、吸毒者提供行为场所,不包括提供其他便利行为。提供场所后才明知场所使用者有卖淫、吸毒活动不制止或不中止提供场所是否构成容留应具体情况具体分析,不能一概而论。场所的本质特征是行为人有权控制且能控制。共同控制人在共同控制的场所中卖淫或吸毒,其他共同控制人知情不制止、甚至为其放风报信不构成容留,明知场所的共同控制人容留卖淫或吸毒不制止,只有在行为人事先知情事中不制止才构成容留共犯。     

侦查阶段的刑事和解一些问题的分析

公安机关侦查阶段的刑事和解,存在着可能影响司法公正的因素。一方面,辩护律师参与刑事和解时间有限制,在侦查阶段接触到证据,这与刑诉法规定相冲突;另一方面,刑事和解的量刑奖赏对未成年被追诉人吸引力不足。此外,在侦查阶段达成刑事和解的,法律没有规定侦查人员是否可以撤销案件。答案应当是肯定的,但应限于提请批捕之前。建议区分参与诉讼的辩护律师与参与侦查阶段刑事和解的律师,以兼顾对被追诉人和侦查机关的公平对待。公安机关发挥群众力量事先进行民间调解、感化被害人,可以推进刑事和解实现。     

Types of crimes committed by repeat DUI offenders

This study investigates whether repeat driving under the influence (DUI) offenders have more extensive histories of violent, property, and drug crimes than first-time drunk drivers. It also offers an exploratory investigation into the extent of their criminal specialization. Negative binomial regression was performed on arrest and criminal history data from a systematic random sample of 429 DUI arrestees. Analyses controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, and employment found that being a repeat DUI offender increased the total number of violent and property convictions (regardless of severity) and petty misdemeanor/violation property convictions. The results suggest DUI recidivists are generalists rather than specialists and that impaired driving is best viewed as just one manifestation of a host of deviant behaviors. They also illustrate the challenges of rehabilitating and deterring DUI recidivists and the potential differences between first-time and repeat DUI offenders. The findings should not be interpreted as support of enforcement or deterrent DUI policies that focus on repeat offenders, as limited resources are most efficiently directed at the general population of impaired drivers.     

Procedural justice in mental health court: an investigation of the relation of perception of procedural justice to non-adherence and termination

Mental health courts (MHCs) operate on the principles of procedural justice (PJ). PJ highlights the importance of process over outcomes in encounters with authority. Subjective perceptions of having voice, being heard by decision-makers, and being treated with respect and concern by figures of authority are influential in assessment of fairness and in cooperation with decisions, regardless of favorability of the outcome. In this paper, we investigate MHC participant perception of PJ in interactions with MHC staff and the association between perceptions and recidivism (i.e. time in jail, new arrests, and probation violations), treatment adherence, and MHC termination. Participants from two MHC programs (n?=?80) took part in this study. Results suggest that perception of PJ during interactions with the entire MHC team is significantly associated with program termination, but not with participant behaviors during MHC. Implications for MHC practitioners and researchers are discussed.     

Psychiatrists,criminals, and the law: Forensic psychiatry in Switzerland 1850–1950

Between 1880 and 1950, Swiss psychiatrists established themselves as experts in criminal courts. In this period, the judicial authorities required psychiatric testimonies in a rising number of cases. As a result, more offenders than ever before were declared mentally deficient and, eventually, sent to psychiatric asylums. Psychiatrists also enhanced their authority as experts at the political level. From the very beginning, they got involved in the preparatory works for a nationwide criminal code. In this article, I argue that these trends toward medicalization of crime were due to incremental processes, rather than spectacular institutional changes. In fact, Swiss psychiatrists gained recognition as experts due to their daily interactions with judges, public prosecutors, and legal counsels. At the same time, the spread of medical expertise had serious repercussions on psychiatric institutions. From 1942 onwards, asylums had to deal with a growing number of “criminal psychopaths,” which affected ward discipline and put psychiatry's therapeutic efficiency into question. The defensive way in which Swiss psychiatrists reacted to this predicament was crucial to the further development of forensic psychiatry. For the most part, it accounts for the subdiscipline's remarkable lack of specialization until the 1990s.     

强制医疗程序的实施与反思

＂强制医疗程序＂的＂社会防卫功能＂,不仅受到限制刑事责任能力精神病人和接受过治疗精神病人社会危害性的抑制,还会因＂被精神病＂现象而打折扣。破解此困境需从三方面入手：一是参照《精神卫生法》,将涉嫌犯罪的限制刑事责任能力精神病人,纳入＂非自愿性住院治疗＂范围;二是增加精神病治疗资源投入,强化＂强制医疗＂适用与解除的风险防范意识;三是堵塞《精神卫生法》中＂非自愿性住院治疗＂的漏洞,防止其成为＂被精神病＂新生代的寄生区。     

犯罪客体: 曲解、质疑与理性解读———兼论正当事由的体系性定位简

通说将犯罪客体与民事、经济、行政等法律所保护的社会关系严格区分,并将之限定为刑法分则规定的社会关系的整体,是不可取的。否定犯罪客体在犯罪认定中的作用,缺乏说服力。以法益等替代犯罪客体中的社会关系,并不可取。犯罪客体具有事实判断与价值评价双重功能。法律关系是犯罪客体的重要内容。正当事由符合特定法律关系,没有侵犯犯罪客体,不能认定为犯罪。     

类型学的犯罪故意概念之提倡——对德国刑法学故意学说争议的反思

百余年来德国刑法学在故意概念问题上发展出意志要素无用论、意志要素必要论和间接故意与有认识过失合一论三种基本主张的对立,以及十余种标记鲜明的理论学说。学说争议的出发点是为存在构造上具有区别的不同心理现象配置不同的责任,争议焦点在于意志要素无用和有用、行为意志和结果意志、客观危险和主观危险的对立。各种学说部分成功又部分失败的努力,以及彼此之间描述性而非实质性的区别都表明,故意界定的理论发展方向应由实体法视角转向程序法视角,由概念思维转向类型思维。在观念分界的意义上,故意是做成可能侵害法益的意志决定;在事实认定的意义上,提倡建构类型学的故意概念,通过对能够反映认识和意志强度的待证事实的解释性推论,来推断案件事实是否在整体上"充足"故意的类型。