沉默权的类型化研究

尽管国内学者对沉默权问题进行了深入的研究,但主要是从内涵挖掘历史演变的角度出发,缺少从外延方面的类型化探索。沉默权从不同标准出发主要可以分为绝对的沉默权和相对的沉默权、行为意义上的沉默权和结果意义上的沉默权、明示的沉默权和默示的沉默权、显性的沉默权和隐性的沉默权以及审讯沉默权和审判沉默权。我国事实上已经确立了结果意义上的、默示的、隐性的、相对的沉默权制度,在现阶段没有必要引进行为意义上的、明示的、显性的审讯沉默权制度。     

行为犯可以构成结果加重犯

承认行为犯可以构成结果加重犯,是行为犯发生现实危害结果时的必然归宿,是我国刑事立法实践的初步概括,也是罪责刑相适应原则的内在要求。     

论犯罪分子实施犯罪后的反常行为与侦查破案

犯罪分子在实施了犯罪行为后,往往会出现各种各样的反常,这主要是由人的心理因素所决定的。犯罪后的紧张心理是造成反常的主要因素。同时,反常也受到犯罪人的个性特点、个人交往以及案件情况、侦查活动等因素的制约和影响。在侦查中,要注意反常的各种行为表现和假象反常,分析反常产生的原因,为侦查提供线索,以发现嫌疑对象。     

应理性看待服刑人员的结婚行为

服刑人员虽然被判处刑罚,但结婚权属于未被剥夺或限制的权利之一。但由于人身自由的受限制,在客观上已无法通过自己的行为去实现结婚的权利。因此,这需要有关机关的配合与协助,而理性地看待服刑人员的结婚行为是解决问题的关键。     

Why procedural justice in organizations?

This article reviews the existing research and theory on procedural justice and considers how it may be applied to the study of organizational behavior. It begins by distinguishing between the concepts of distributive justice and procedural justice and noting the historical contexts within which they emerged. Existing conceptual contributions and the research inspired by them are reviewed. The few existing studies applying procedural justice notions to organizational contexts are summarized, and the contributions of the articles to the present issue of this journal are reviewed relative to these efforts. The article closes by discussing the dual benefits of studying procedural justice in organizations: the enhanced understanding of the concept of justice and the behavior of people in organizations.     

类似“性变态”的流氓性犯罪1例

类似“性变态”的流氓性犯罪１例场涛，高保林（上海司法部司法鉴定科学技术研究所；上海２０００６３）ＤＩＦＦＥＲＥＮＴＩＡＴＩＯＮＯＦＶＯＹＥＵＲＩＳＭＭＮＤＲＯＧＵＥＲＹＢＥＨＡＩＯＲ￥ＴａｎｇＴａｏ；ＧａｏＢａｏｌｉｎｇ（ＩｎｓｔｉｔｕｔｅｏｆＦｏｒ...     

对《刑法修正案（七）》第八条的理解与适用

《刑法修正案（七）》第八条将组织未成年人进行盗窃、诈骗、抢夺、敲诈勒索等违反治安管理活动的行为规定为犯罪,文章在罪名、客观行为方面以及此罪与彼罪的区分等问题上作了分析,以期更准确地理解和适用这一条款。     

THE INTERACTION OF ANTISOCIAL PROPENSITY AND LIFE‐COURSE VARYING PREDICTORS OF DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR: DIFFERENCES BY METHOD OF ESTIMATION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY*

Recent criminological research has explored the extent to which stable propensity and life‐course perspectives may be integrated to provide a more comprehensive explanation of variation in individual criminal offending. One line of these integrative efforts focuses on the ways that stable individual characteristics may interact with, or modify, the effects of life‐course varying social factors. Given their consistency with the long‐standing view that person–environment interactions contribute to variation in human social behavior, these theoretical integration attempts have great intuitive appeal. However, a review of past criminological research suggests that conceptual and empirical complexities have, so far, somewhat dampened the development of a coherent theoretical understanding of the nature of interaction effects between stable individual antisocial propensity and time‐varying social variables. In this study, we outline and empirically assess several of the sometimes conflicting hypotheses regarding the ways that antisocial propensity moderates the influence of time‐varying social factors on delinquent offending. Unlike some prior studies, however, we explicitly measure the interactive effects of stable antisocial propensity and time‐varying measures of selected social variables on changes in delinquent offending. In addition, drawing on recent research that suggests that the relative ubiquity of interaction effects in past studies may be partly from the poorly suited application of linear statistical models to delinquency data, we alternatively test our interaction hypotheses using least‐squares and tobit estimation frameworks. Our findings suggest that method of estimation matters, with interaction effects appearing readily in the former but not in the latter. The implications of these findings for future conceptual and empirical work on stable propensity/time‐varying social variable interaction effects are discussed.     

高校管理行为及其可诉性探讨

高校管理行为是高等院校在享有教育管理权利,履行教育管理义务时所实施的行为。近年来,有些高校在实施高校管理行为中侵犯其它法律主体合法权益的事情常有发生,加上我国现有的法律法规对该行为的法律性质规定不明确,由此,产生纠纷后,法律主体能否提起诉讼,如何提起诉讼等问题,没有法律依据。本文主要就有关高校管理行为的法律性质及可诉性问题进行探讨,并以求教于法学界同仁。     

论确定的一罪中的复合行为犯罪

根据犯罪客观方面所表现出的行为可以将确定的一罪分为单一行为犯罪和复合行为犯罪,根据复合行为犯罪的概念,可以归纳出复合行为犯罪的四个特征。以复合行为犯罪中两个以上行为的地位、相互关系和法律的规定为标准,可以将复合行为犯罪分为并列的复合行为犯罪、必要的复合行为犯罪和任意的复合行为犯罪三种情形。我们可以在概括提出并列复合行为犯罪和必要复合行为犯罪的定罪与处罚的一般原则后,来着重分析目前在认定任意复合行为犯罪未遂与既遂、中止和共同犯罪问题上的难点、分歧及矛盾,并在此基础上提出处理这些问题的原则和理由。