论毛泽东的战略思维与领导艺术

毛泽东是伟大的战略家,他的战略思维和高超的领导艺术对于中国革命的胜利具有关键作用,至今仍有重大现实意义。他善于处理全局与局部的辩证关系、主观能动性和客观规律性的关系。在指导中国革命和建设的实践中善于未雨绸缪,尽早确定战略目标;在重大转折关头随机应变,及时转变战略重心;实施战略时稳扎稳打,稳步推进战略步骤。毛泽东的决策方法和艺术是从实际出发,认真进行调查研究,统揽全局,驾驭全局,抓住中心和关键环节。     

DETERRENCE AND DETERRABILITY*

The first forays into Western criminological theory came in the language of deterrence (Beccaria, 1963 [1764]). The paradigm itself is simple and straightforward, offering an explanation for crime that doubles as a solution (Pratt et al., 2006). Crime occurs when the expected rewards outweigh the anticipated risks, so increasing the risks, at least theoretically, will prevent most crimes in most circumstances. If deterrence describes the perceptual process by which would-be offenders calculate risks and rewards prior to offending, then deterrability refers to the offender's capacity and/or willingness to perform this calculation. The distinction between deterrence and deterrability is critical to understanding criminality from a utilitarian perspective. However, by attempting to answer “big picture” questions about the likelihood of offending relative to sanction threats, precious little scholarship has attended to the situated meaning of deterrability. This article draws attention to this lacuna in hopes of sensitizing criminology to an area of inquiry that, at present, remains only loosely developed.     

Two Meanings of ‘Reasonableness’: Dispelling the ‘Floating’ Reasonable Doubt

The ‘reasonable doubt standard’ is the controlling standard of proof for criminal fact finding in several jurisdictions. Drawing on decision theory, some scholars have argued that the stringency of this standard varies according to the circumstances of the case. This article contends that the standard does not lend itself to the ‘sliding‐scale’ approach mandated by decision theory. This is supported through investigation of the concept of ‘reasonableness’. While this concept has mostly been studied as it operates with reference to practical reasoning, scant attention has been given to the meaning that it acquires when referred to theoretical reasoning. Unlike in the former case, reasonableness does not in the latter depend on the reasoner's attitudes in favour of the outcomes of a decisional process. Therefore, since criminal fact finding is an instance of theoretical reasoning, the question whether in this enterprise a doubt is reasonable is not susceptible to a decision‐theoretic approach.     

论法官的选择——谈学习社会主义法治理念的体会

社会主义法治理念,是我国法官在处理个案时应遵循的指导性原理,这具体表现在辩证处理调解与判决、客观真实与法律真实、严格规则主义与司法能动主义、裁判文书的审美价值与说理价值等各种复杂关系的过程中。这需要强化和提升法官的司法素养、司法能力和司法伦理水平。     

论中国行政战略体系下行政决策机制的改革与完善

行政管理体制改革是深化改革的重要环节,加快行政管理体制改革,建设服务型政府,有必要通过行政战略来推动全社会发展。在我国,现行行政决策机制存在一些尚待完善的问题,因此必须改革和完善行政战略体系下民主决策和行政决策权责一体的机制。     

Naturalistic decision making in forensic science: toward a better understanding of decision making by forensic team leaders

This study uses the naturalistic decision-making (NDM) perspective to examine how Dutch forensic team leaders (i.e., the officers in charge of criminal forensic research from the crime scene until the use of laboratory assistance) make decisions in real-life settings and identifies the contextual factors that might influence those decisions. First, a focus group interview was conducted to identify four NDM mechanisms in day-to-day forensic decision making. Second, a serious game was conducted to examine the influence of three of these contextual mechanisms. The results uncovered that forensic team leaders (i) were attracted to obtain further information when more information was initially made available, (ii) were likely to devote more attention to emotionally charged cases, and (iii) used not only forensic evidence in the decision making but also tactical, unverified information of the police inquiry. Interestingly, the measured contextual influences did not deviate significantly from a control group of laypeople.     

“IF I COULD TELL THE JUDGE SOMETHING ABOUT ATTACHMENT. . . .” PERSPECTIVES ON ATTACHMENT THEORY IN THE FAMILY LAW COURTROOM

This article gathers diverse attachment specialists in a far reaching conversation about the utility of attachment assessment and theory for complex family law decision making, and reflections on the thorny question, “If I were the judge . . .?” Inge Bretherton, Professor Emerita, Developmental Psychology at Wisconsin University, is one of a few attachment researchers in the Bowlby/Ainsworth tradition to have completed studies in the divorce field. Seligman, a psychoanalyst and clinical psychologist, Solomon, a clinical psychologist and researcher, and Crowell, professor of psychiatry and psychology, take on some large controversies, and offer well over 100 years combined experience of applying attachment knowledge in complex family matters.     

THE “EYE OF THE BEHOLDER”: PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS ABOUT THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD

Child custody evaluations (CCEs) are a central feature of parenting litigation in many North American jurisdictions. However, there has been little recent research comparing CCE decisions about children's interests with decisions made by judges. This article presents empirical research about the extent to which Ontario judges accept custody and access recommendations from CCEs employed by Ontario's Office of the Children's Lawyer. The central finding was that the judges fully agreed with the CCEs only about half of the time. Possible explanations for this finding are explored, the most salient of which is the effect of delay in Ontario family litigation. In conclusion, the article suggests that a more efficient synthesis of the judicial and CCE decision‐making processes might be more consonant with the best interests of children involved in these disputes.     

过错认定的标准与规则——以学生伤害事故案件学校过错的司法认定为分析对象

在学理上,过错的认定标准有主观说和客观说之分,两种学说提出了不同的过错认定规则。从本文研究的学生伤害事故案件司法判决看,我国法院对过错的认定,大多数判决采用客观标准,通常采用两步认定规则：先判断行为人是否有注意义务以及注意的程度,再判断行为人是否实际履行了该注意义务。采用主观标准的判决,过错认定的标准及规则,是行为人对致害行为或者损害结果有无预见或是否应当预见以及所持的态度。