行政判决与民事判决既判力根据之比较

既判力的根据所探讨的是当事人为什么受到既判力约束的问题.民事判决既判力的根据,理论界主要有制度效力说、程序保障下的自我归责说、双重根据说和国家审判权说.在行政诉讼中,由于行政相对人和行政主体是两种性质不同的当事人,因此,行政相对人和行政主体受既判力约束分别存在不同的根据.     

社区警务与社区治安控制

有效的社区治安控制是开展社区警务的根本目的。社区警务是否有效,取决于社区治安控制手段和目标的一致性。对社区治安的预测必须转化为社区警务的决策,才能为社区治安控制提供支撑,实现社区治安控制的目的。     

浅议扁平化管理

传统的层级结构在新经济条件下遇到强大挑战,解决这一难题的有效办法是组织进行扁平化管理,扁平化管理一方面由于管理层次减少而管理幅度增加能促进企业快速决策,但同时也可能带来部门经理的越权行为.     

Rape law reform and the effect of victim characteristics on case processing

Rape law reforms enacted during the past 20 years were designed to shift the focus of a rape case from the victim to the offender. Reformers and criminal justice officials speculated that changes in the rules of evidence and enactment of rape shield laws would result in less suspicion of the claims of rape victims and would make it less likely that the character, reputation, and behavior of the victim would affect decision making about the case. In this paper we examine the impact of rape law reform on the factors affecting the outcome of sexual assault cases bound over for trial in Detroit. We find little support for our hypothesis that the effect of victim characteristics on case processing decisions declined in the postreform period. Most of the victim characteristics did not have the expected effects on the likelihood of case dismissal, charge reduction, conviction, or incarceration. We did, on the other hand, find that the proportion of cases involving evidence of risk-taking behavior on the part of the victim or questions about the victim's credibility increased in the postreform period.     

专家的局限性及其控制——政府决策咨询视角

政府公共事务决策要广泛听取专家的意见和建议,这对决策的科学化、民主化起着重要作用.由于专家也存在着局限性,对此各级政府决策机构必须引起足够的重视.本文试图通过对专家局限性问题分析,探索关于如何克服专家局限性的有效对策,以便为政府公共事务管理决策提供参考.     

Mock Jurors’ Reactions to Selective Presentation of Evidence from Multiple-Opportunity Searches

Prior to trial, litigants sometimes conduct broad investigations in which there are multiple opportunities to find supportive evidence by chance alone. During trial, litigants may selectively present only the most helpful evidence uncovered by their investigations. Two experiments examined whether mock jurors appreciate that the evidence they hear at trial may be a selective and unrepresentative sample of underlying facts. The data suggest that people do understand the significance of multiple-opportunity searches for legal inference. However, they may not consider the possibility that evidence was strategically selected from a larger sample space of facts unless that sample space is identified.     

Two items of evidence, no putative source: an inference problem in forensic intelligence

Intelligence analysts commonly associate cases on the basis of similarities found in compared characteristics of scientific evidence. The present paper studies some of the inferential difficulties associated with such operations. An analysis is proposed that breaks down the reasoning process into inference to common source, and inference to case linkage. The former requires an approach to the difficulty associated with evaluating the similarities of items of evidence from different cases with no putative source being available. The latter requires consideration to be given to the relevance of evidence. Throughout the paper, probability theory is used to describe the nature of the proposed inferences. Graphical models are also introduced with the aim of providing further insight into the dependence and independence relationships assumed to hold among the various propositions considered. Notions from decision theory are used to discuss ways in which intelligence analysts may assist investigators in deciding whether or not cases should be considered as linked.     

Do Jurors “Know” What Isn’t So About Child Witnesses?

Are expert witnesses needed in child sexual abuse cases to educate jurors about children’s memory, suggestibility, and reactions to abuse, or do jurors already know what such experts could tell them? To cast light on this question, we surveyed jurors and jury-eligible college students and compared their beliefs with what is known via scientific research regarding children’s memory and ability to testify, reactions to interrogation, and reactions to sexual abuse. We also asked participants to infer results of four widely cited studies of children’s suggestibility. Participants’ beliefs were consistent with findings from research on some issues (e.g., that children can be led to claim that false events occurred) but diverged from the scientific consensus on other issues (e.g., whether children can remember painful events in infancy). Similarly, participants sometimes overestimated and sometimes underestimated the level of suggestibility observed in empirical studies. Individual differences in accuracy were related to participants’ gender, education and ethnicity, and there was considerable disagreement among participants on many questions. Implications of findings for the admissibility of expert testimony in child abuse cases are discussed.     

The Use of Religion in Death Penalty Sentencing Trials

Both prosecutors and defense attorneys have presented religious appeals and testimony about a defendant's religious activities in order to influence capital jurors' sentencing. Courts that have objected to this use of religion fear that religion will improperly influence jurors' decisions and interfere with their ability to weigh aggravators and mitigators. This study investigated the effects of both prosecution and defense appeals. Prosecution appeals did not affect verdict decisions; however, use of religion by the defense affected both verdicts and the weighing of aggravators and mitigators. These results could be due to differences in perceived sincerity and remorse that are conveyed in the various appeals.