浅谈劳动争议诉讼与民事诉讼的区别

作为实体法的民法与劳动法是两个独立的法律部门,它们所调整的劳动关系和民事关系的性质不同,由此导致作为解决劳动争议的诉讼程序与解决民事争议的诉讼程序有十三种区别,区分这些差别对于解决劳动争议有着特别重要的意义。     

论电子证据的独立地位

在《中华人民共和国民事证据法》的起草过程中,电子证据问题一直存在着较大的争议。本文在立足于电子证据与我国传统证据形式比较研究的基础上,针对电子证据地位的各种学说表达了自己的一些看法,并提出立法上的建议,以期确定电子证据的独立证据地位,同时也希望借此文与关心电子证据立法工作的广大同仁交流意见,互相学习,促进我国民事证据立法工作的顺利、健康发展。     

Pulse Variations of a Conducted Energy Weapon (Similar to the TASER® X26 Device): Effects on Muscle Contraction and Threshold for Ventricular Fibrillation*

Abstract: Conducted energy weapons (such as the Advanced TASER X26 model produced by TASER International), incapacitate individuals by causing muscle contractions. To provide information relevant to development of future potential devices, a “Modifiable Electronic Stimulator” was used to evaluate the effects of changing various parameters of the stimulating pulse. Muscle contraction was affected by pulse power, net/gross charge, pulse duration, and pulse repetition frequency. The contraction force increased linearly as each of these factors was increased. Elimination of a precursor pulse from X26‐like pulses did not have a significant effect on the normalized force measured. Muscle‐contraction force increased as the spacing increased from 5 to 20 cm, with no further change in force above 20 cm of spacing. Therefore, it is suggested that any future developments of new conducted energy weapons should include placement of electrodes a minimum of 20 cm apart so that efficiency of the system is not degraded. In the current study, the 50% probability of fibrillation level of X26‐like pulses ranged from 4 to 5 times higher than the X26 itself. Relatively large variations about the X26 operating level were found not to result in fibrillation or asystole. Therefore, it should be possible to design and build an X26‐type device that operates efficiently at levels higher than the X26.     

Strength of Evidence,Extraevidentiary Influence,and the Liberation Hypothesis: Data from the Field

To examine relationships between strength of evidence (SOE) and extraevidentiary variables in the context of Kalven and Zeisel’s (The American Jury, 1966) liberation hypothesis, post-trial questionnaire data were collected from judges, attorneys, and jurors associated with 179 criminal jury trials. SOE ratings were strongly correlated with jury verdicts on the three most serious charges against the defendant, and several extraevidentiary variables (i.e., pretrial publicity, trial complexity, charge severity, and foreperson demographics) were moderately correlated with verdicts. Extraevidentiary-verdict relationships remained significant when SOE was controlled, although extraevidentiary variables yielded only modest improvement in classification accuracy beyond SOE. In partial support of the liberation hypothesis, several case-related extraevidentiary variables were significantly related to jury verdicts only when the prosecution’s evidence was rated as moderately strong.     

非目的片段对mtDNA测序影响的实验观察

目的通过重新设计引物,去除非目的片段对mtDNA测序的影响。方法在目的片段原引物内侧重设计引物,用该引物替代原引物进行测序,其测序图谱与原图谱进行对比。结果重新设计引物后,获得了清晰的序列图谱。结论通过重设计引物消除了非目的片断对mtDNA测序的影响。     

荧光定量PCR技术研究线粒体DNA nt16519单核苷酸多态性

目的应用荧光定量PCR技术,建立mtDNA nt16519位点的PCR分型方法。方法应用Primer Express3．0软件,设计1对Taqman MGB探针和1埘扩增引物,在探针的5’端分别标记FAM和VIC报告荧光,应用7500荧光定量PCR和直接测序两种方法,分别榆测62份血样和18份毛发样本的mtDNA nt16519单核苷酸多态性,比较二种方法结果的一致性。结果62份血样和18份毛发样本均得到了可靠的mtDNA nt16519分型结果。结论建立的荧光定量PCR的分型方法操作简单、结果准确,适用于法医DNA检案。     

排除民事非法证据的伦理基础

以侵害他人合法权益或者违反法律禁止性规定的方法取得的证据是非法证据,在民事诉讼中应当予以排除。排除民事非法证据首先具有群体性的伦理基础,目的在于维系用于凝聚社会和传承民族时代精神的伦理善观念;其次具有个体化的伦理基础,为平等保护双方当事人人格尊严和权利的个体化伦理善观念所必要;最后是程序正义的法伦理的内在要求。     

以人为本视野下的高职生自信心教育与培养

目前,高职院校大学生普遍存在的自信心缺失问题,严重影响了他们的健康成长和发展。高职生自信心缺失的主要原因在于自我认可度差、社会认可度差和心理素质差。解决这一问题的关键需要教师坚持以学生的发展为本,对他们施以人文关怀和智慧启迪,在积极肯定和不断激励中唤起高职生的发展自信。     

试论毒品走私犯罪的证据收集——从海关监管的视角进行分析

近年来毒品走私犯罪已成为危害社会的一个突出问题,并且表现出很大的社会危害性。其在走私毒品手段上表现出明显的多样化、复杂化、暴力化、国际化特征,这就使得反毒品走私的难度加大,给海关侦查过程中证据的收集和认定带来了相当的困难。有鉴于此,有必要对走私毒品犯罪的证据问题进行深入的研究,从而为刑事过程中追究这类走私犯罪提供有力支持。     

WTO争端解决程序中的证据问题

WTO争端解决程序中举证责任和证据的可接受性问题具有重要的实践意义。除了各国都普遍接受的“谁主张谁举证”的原则之外,文章还分析了下列情况下的举证责任分配问题:被申诉方援引例外条款时、争端涉及具体协定时、争端双方关于执行报告的期限有争议,以及双方就败诉方的执行是否符合专家组和上诉机构报告的争议。关于证据的可接受性问题,提交证据的主体、证据的种类和提出时间问题是最关键的方面。