行政处罚听证主持人刍议

关于行政处罚听证主持人 ,有三个问题值得讨论 :一是关于主持人的产生和人数问题。主持人应从行政机关的法制部门工作人员中指定产生 ,人数以三人最为适宜 ;二是关于听证主持人的回避问题。回避的理由中应包含法律偏见和个人偏见 ,而不能仅仅局限于“与本案有直接利害关系” ;三是关于听证主持人的职责问题。其主要职权应包括决定权、对事实和证据的认定权、许可与制止权、建议性裁决权等 ,主要责任应包括维护听证活动的正常进行、保证听证的公正性、及时提交听证报告等     

The Effects of British and American Trial Procedures on the Quality of Juror Decision-Making

Compared to American trial procedures, British procedures provide a less distracting environment in which jurors can process trial evidence. Relying on theories of persuasion, it was predicted that jurors viewing British procedures would be less affected by extra-evidentiary cues and would be more sensitive to evidence strength variations than jurors in American trials. Participants (N = 245) viewed a mock trial in which trial procedure, judge's nonverbal behavior, and evidence strength were varied. Participants judged the British procedures to be more civil and fair than American procedures but were less likely to find for the plaintiff. Although jurors recalled more trial facts when they viewed British procedures, they were not more sensitive to variations in evidence strength. There was some evidence that British procedures may increase the influence of judge's nonverbal behavior on juror judgments. The relative benefits of different trial procedures are discussed.     

The Changing Role of the Youth Court Judge

The last century has witnessed the creation of a number of strategies regarding youth justice and the young offender. With each change in policy has come a redefinition of the role of the youth court judge. This article discusses the traditional role of the judge, the unique role of the youth court judge, and how history has and is likely to continue to define and influence this role.     

Opting Out of Political Discussions

Methodological limitations have hindered our ability to understand the conditions that make individuals seek or avoid political discussions. We introduce a methodological approach to assess communication preferences in contexts where these choices are difficult to measure. We conduct three experiments to examine how the characteristics of the people in a discussion, as well as its topic, influence an individual’s “price” to participate. Participants indicated how much they would need to be compensated to participate in a short discussion about a randomly assigned topic (political or nonpolitical) under different group compositions (co-partisans, out-partisans, or a mixed group). We find that individuals demanded significantly more compensation to engage in a discussion with out-partisans than with co-partisans, for both political and non-political topics.     

基层法官司法知识的开示(续)

基于对中国基层司法的调查和研究 ,本文试图概括地总结中国基层司法中经常运用的一些在现有的法律知识体制中未予以足够重视的知识和技术 ,并予以初步的理论分析。     

我国刑事法官庭审指挥权之探讨

近年来我国的刑事审判方式改革一直强调弱化法官在庭审中的职权,而主张学习英美当事人主义模式下法官的消极克制。但是,弱化法官职权并让法官消极克制并不意味着可以取消法官在庭审中的能动性。为实现审判之目的,保障庭审公正、高效和有序,必须赋予法官庭审指挥权。庭审指挥权包括诉讼许可和禁止权、程序异议裁决权、庭审引导权和告知权、证据调查指挥权、诉讼进程控制权和庭审秩序维持权。在我国,应当建立科学合理的庭审指挥权体系以及控辩双方权利救济机制,促进法官行使自由裁量权的客观化和检察官地位的当事人化,并通过转变司法观念和提高法官素质保障庭审指挥权的正当行使。     

论行政立法回避制度的正当性

行政立法回避制度是我国行政立法程序发展与完善的重大突破.该制度是行政立法机关主动探寻防止部门利益法制化途径的一次尝试,作为一种新生制度,其是否具有法理上的正当性和制定法上的合法性是法学界首先必须予以解决的理论问题.     

避税与反避税立法思考

在税法领域,征税与避税两者永远相互对立、难以调和,但又无法避免、客观存在。如何通过立法等手段,规制避税行为的发生,维护国家税收利益、保障纳税人之间的公平性,是一个重要的研究课题。文章通过对避税行为性质的界定以及税收法定主义原则的分析,探讨二者之间的关系,以期对我国的反避税立法提出一点借鉴。     

内地藏族初中生学业求助的特点及相关因素研究

用问卷调查法对江苏省常州市西藏民族中学240名初中生学业求助的特点及其相关因素进行研究。结果表明:内地藏族初中生学业求助水平较低;在工具性求助上存在显著的性别差异,男生得分明显低于女生;而在执行性求助和回避求助上不存在显著的性别差异;在三种求助方式上均存在极其显著的年级差异;成就动机、成就目标取向、学业价值怀疑与学业求助行为有显著关系;自我效能低的学生不愿意求助或选择执行性求助,支持脆弱假说。     

FEDERAL SENTENCING AS A COMPLEX COLLABORATIVE PROCESS: JUDGES,PROSECUTORS, JUDGE–PROSECUTOR DYADS,AND DISPARITY IN SENTENCING

Investigations of how criminal justice actors contribute to variation in sentencing typically focus on the role played by the judge. We argue that sentencing should be viewed as a collaborative process involving actors other than the judge and that the role of the prosecutor is particularly salient. We also contend that the courtroom workgroup literature has suggested that sentences may vary depending on the particular judge and prosecutor to whom the case is assigned. By using a unique data set from three U.S. district courts (N = 2,686) that identifies both the judge and the prosecutor handling the case, we examine how the judge, the prosecutor, and the judge–prosecutor dyad contribute to variance in offender sentences. We do this by employing cross‐classified random‐effects models to estimate the variance components associated with judges, prosecutors, and judge–prosecutor interactions. The results indicate that disparity attributable to the prosecutor is larger than disparity from the judge. Moreover, the role that the judge plays is moderated by the prosecutor to whom the case is assigned, as the judge–prosecutor effect is consistently larger than other random effects across the models. We also find that results vary by judicial district.