司法运作中未成年人犯罪预防探析

近年来未成年人犯罪率不降反增的现象仍然困扰着世界各国。在法律的直接作用面临缺位或者虚伪的时候,将犯罪预防理念提前到案件受理和侦查起诉阶段,对非犯罪性行为、虞犯行为与犯罪行为进行合理的区分以及执行期间和刑满释放的特殊干预,可以实现未成年人犯罪的有效预防。因此,未成年人的犯罪预防理念应被纳入到司法运作过程中的各个阶段。     

中国司法考试制度的启动与法学教育

国家统一司法考试是一种法律职业化的资格性考试 ,它对我国高校法学教育提出新的促进要求 ;司法考试形式、内容等都影响到法学教育方向问题 ;高校法学教育为了适应司法考试 ,应加强法学本科生的理论性教学、实务性教学、实践性教学和应试教学等。     

何谓合宪性解释：性质、正当性、限制及运用

法律的合宪性解释是指法律有两种甚或多种解释可能时,择取其中与宪法不相抵触的解释。合宪性解释是一种法律解释方法,更是一项法律解释要求。此种解释方法对于维护国家法秩序的统一与稳定不可或缺,其正当性源于权力分立原则下的司法自制理念。合完性解释有其运用上的限制,对于字义本身违宪之法律适用合宪性解释是对此种解释方法的滥用与误用。在美国、德国等实行宪法审查的国家,合宪性解释方法在其司法实践中得到了广泛运用。具有实效性的宪法审查制度在我国尚未真正建立,合宪性解释方法在我国的司法裁判中有无适用空间值得商榷。     

论“坦白从宽”的法律化

本文针对社会上流行的“坦白从宽,牢底坐穿;抗拒从严,回家过年”的悖论和实践中存在的“侦查破案用政策,审判处理难兑现”的困惑,以及在沉默权制度冲击下法律界和舆论界对“坦白从宽,抗拒从严”政策的质疑,试图结合实践与理论,为“坦白从宽”正名,探讨在我国建立坦白从宽的法律制度的意义,引导法律立足现实的价值取向,实现刑罚惩治和预防犯罪的最佳效应。     

论建立我国判例制度

本文论述了建立我国判例适用制度的现实需要和可行性 ,并对我国判例制度的具体建立进行了初步构想。     

试论我国法官的精英化

现代社会精英是在民主政治、知识理性和社会分工潮流等因素共同作用下 ,通过开放、流动的社会竞争机制形成的卓越阶层。现代法官群体属于现代社会精英的一部分 ,它在构筑经验正义 ,推进民主与法治 ,维护法律统一实施等方面发挥着不可替代的作用。造就人文主义模式的精英法官群体是我国法官职业建设的目标 ,未来应通过保障宪法意义上的司法独立 ,改革法官选任制度 ,保持法官规模精当适度 ,以及防止法官异化等途径 ,推进法官精英化目标的实现     

Turkey’s Judiciary and the Drift Toward Competitive Authoritarianism

Turkey has always been considered an “illiberal democracy”, or in Freedom House’s terms, a “partly-free” country. In recent years, however, there has been a downward trend toward “competitive authoritarianism”. Such regimes are competitive in that opposition parties use democratic institutions to contest seriously for power, but they are not democratic because the playing field is heavily skewed in favour of incumbents. One of the methods employed by competitive authoritarian leaders is the use of informal mechanisms of repression. This, in turn, requires a dependent and cooperative judiciary. Thus, in Turkey the year 2014 can be described as a period when the governing AKP (Justice and Development Party) made a sustained and systematic effort to establish its control over the judiciary by means of a series of laws of dubious constitutionality.     

Justifying Gender Equality on the Bench: WhyDifference Won't Do

The case for gender equality on the bench wouldseem too uncontroversial to requirejustification. Yet the practical realities ofthe slow progress of women towards equality ofparticipation both quantitative and qualitativein the judiciary testifies to the continuingneed to argue the case for change. To date, theprimary rationale for promoting gender equalityhas been that women will bring a uniquecontribution to the bench as a result of theirdifferent life experiences, values andattitudes. Such arguments derived fromdifference theory have had a strong appealsince they appear to give legitimacy to theundervalued attributes traditionally associatedas feminine while also promoting the meritprinciple by claiming to improve the quality ofjustice. However, this article argues thatdifference theory arguments are theoreticallyweak, empirically questionable andstrategically dangerous. Instead, it argues forthe adoption of a rationale for gender equalitybased on equity and legitimacy; that equalparticipation of men and women in the justicesystem is an inherent and essential feature ofa democracy without which the judiciary willlose public confidence. This approach, thoughless immediately appealing, is ultimately moresound.