The Evolving Structure of the Environmental Justice Movement in the United States: New Models for Democratic Decision-Making

Over the last two decades in the United States, mainstream environmental organizations have reduced, rather than increased, democratic participation by citizens in environmental problem-solving. The environmental justice movement, on the other hand, has served to enlarge the constituency of the environmental movement by incorporating poorer communities and oppressed people of color into environmental decision making process; build community capacity by developing campaigns and projects that address the common links between various social and environmental problems; and facilitate community empowerment by emphasizing grassroots organizing over advocacy. This paper outlines the different components in the environmental justice movement. It is our contention that if researchers and policymakers continue to conceive of the ecological crisis as a collection of unrelated problems, then it is possible that some combination of regulations, incentives, and technical innovations can keep pollution and resource destruction at tolerable levels for more affluent socioeconomic populations. However, poor working class communities and people of color which lack the political–economic resources to defend themselves will continue to suffer the worst abuses. However, if the interdependency of issues is emphasized as advocated by the environmental justice movement, then a transformative environmental politics can be invented.     

Distributive Justice and Crime

The heavy concentration of crime on a few areas, and the concentration on the chronically victimised within those areas, together illustrate the gross inequality of the risk of crime victimisation. This inequality also characterises other hazards of life. Criminology has too often reduced the problem of crime to the problem of the offender. Recognising crime hazard as an issue of distributive justice requires a different mind set. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 recognises the drivers of crime as lying outside criminal justice, but does not put in place a panhazard analysis of the kind required, community safety being presented as a type of crime prevention. Movement towards panhazard thinking may well be somewhat facilitated by the workingthrough of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, actions flowing from section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, and a reconsideration of how emergency services might work.     

Questioning Appeals to Community within Crime Prevention and Control

This article casts a critical eye over some of the (often ignored) assumptions which underlie recent appeals to community in crime prevention and control. The article considers the philosophical origins, ambiguities and tensions within such appeals. In so doing, it draws explicitly upon the growth of community safety and to a lesser extent restorative justice in Britain and considers some of the implications to which this shift may give rise. In particular, it focuses upon the manner in which appeals to community converge and collide with changing social relations which may undermine their progressive potential. Specific attention is given to the implications of: increasing social and spatial dislocation; the commodification of security; and policy debates about a growing underclass. It is argued that there is much confusion as to how, and to what extent, communities can contribute to the construction of social order. Within the dynamics of community safety and crime control practices there are dangers that security differentials may become increasingly significant characteristics of wealth and status with implications for social exclusion. This questions the extent to which crime is an appropriate vehicle around which to (re)construct open and tolerant communities.     

论机动车之价值贬损

价值贬损的赔偿日益成为实践中突出的问题。在属性上,价值贬损属于直接、客观、现实损失。在支持与反对赔偿价值贬损的意见中,全部赔偿原则倾向于支持赔偿;而政策考量提出了现实的忧虑,技术因素也成为赔偿的"软肋"。但采用经济分析可提供解决思路——有限赔偿。在根本上,司法承认价值贬损是侵权法进步的方向,同时也是主体利益受保护程度提高的标志。     

远离民愤抑或迁就民愤——论民愤在刑事司法中的角色定位

民愤影响定罪量刑是中国刑事司法的现实图景。民愤作为外在的监督力量能够促进司法的良性运作,我们应该正视民愤,杜绝打击、压制民愤,让民愤得到充分表达;但是,司法有其独有的运作规律,民愤与司法在案件的具体裁量上存在着种种冲突与矛盾,民愤不应干涉到个案的具体裁量。     

让司法走进民间——澳大利亚邻里司法中心

随着我国基层法制化进程不断发展,社区司法建设也被赋予重要的地位。邻里司法中心作为一个社区司法中心,是澳大利亚司法体系的革新,也是一种首创。邻里司法中心旨在提高所有参与人(包括受害者、被告、证人以及社区居民)对司法制度的信任,成为澳大利亚社区司法的成功典范,其经验值得借鉴。     

侦查到案制度:从现实到理想——一个实证角度的研究

传唤、拘传、口头传唤、留置、抓捕构成了实践中的侦查到案措施体系。对三个典型地区公安机关的调研表明,法定到案措施与非法定到案措施的适用明显错位。根据研究资料分析:审批程序耗时与到案期限紧张这两个因素造成了法定到案措施适用率低下;相比而言,非法定到案措施具有适用条件灵活、适用机制简便、适用手段具有不同程度的强制性以及适用期限弹性较大等特点,由于这些特点,侦查人员较愿选择非法定到案措施。实践中到案措施体系的犯罪控制功能显而易见,从程序正当角度评价,这一体系的运行既有权力控制的倾向,也有权力滥用、不当限制权利的倾向。侦查到案制度的改革应坚持犯罪控制与人权保障相平衡的理念,汲取实践中的理性做法,适当参考国外同类制度,建立一个逻辑严密、协调一致,能够充分应对各类案件特点和证据条件的到案措施体系。     

论罗尔斯的正义观及其借鉴意义

罗尔斯的正义观是一种普世化的正义观,主要是为了解决社会不公平问题,在保证大多数人利益的前提下,力求保证最少受惠者的最大利益。对罗尔斯的正义原则进行重新探讨和分析,从中汲取合理的因素,有助于重建社会公平。辩证地解读罗尔斯的正义观有助于我们正确把握正义的内涵从而为构建社会主义和谐社会提供有益的启迪,而且对完善社会主义市场经济和解决弱势群体问题也有一定的借鉴意义。     

舆论监督与司法公正的关系

舆论监督与司法公正的博弈是社会主义法治建设中的必然现象,也是制衡权力与权利的必要途径,本文从司法公正和舆论监督的概念出发,讨论了二者在现实层面的矛盾表现,并对其原因进行分析,论述了舆论监督与司法公正在社会公正这一共同价值追求下的统一和互补。     

公正审判标准与我国刑事诉讼法再修改

近年来，尽管我国刑事诉讼在公正审判方面已经取得了很大进步，但同《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》所确定的公正审判权标准相比仍然存在较大差距。如何改革我国刑事诉讼制度，以便贯彻落实《公约》所规定的公正审判权，已经成为我国亟待解决的重大理论课题和现实问题。要想使我国真正地实现《公约》所规定的公正审判权标准，不仅需要紧紧围绕公正审判权进行刑事诉讼制度改革，而且需要对其他与之相关的制度进行配套改革。