分析实证法学研究的新视角——以纯粹法理论为样本

分析实证法学的研究无法摆脱或超越分析实证法学理论"标签"的限制。在这样的研究局势下,研究成果将永远无法自我扬弃。通过讨论纯粹法理论,揭示其所包含的不可避免的政治因素,从而启示后来的研究者:如果以此种不同以往的进路进行研究,分析实证法领域将展现出一种超越"标签"之外的多面向的研究新境界。     

主体建构理论及其一般机制——基于“提供性服务歌厅”老板言及“小姐”时自我呈现的社区考察

基于对提供性服务歌厅的相处式社区考察,文章从主体和情境视角分析了歌厅老板对"小姐"的建构与言说及其不一致的现象,通过解读老板在言及他人时进行信息控制的感性意识和理性选择,阐述了主体建构的理论要点和一般机制:(1)主体建构是内化了社会建构的再建构;(2)当社会建构呈贬抑时,主体建构对内呈顺向弱化或逆向否定建构,对外呈顺向强化建构;(3)当社会建构呈褒扬时,主体建构对内呈顺向强化建构,对外呈顺向弱化或逆向否定建构;(4)主体建构与言说的不一致,是主体在情境中的自我呈现策略。     

抢劫罪适用死刑的司法控制

法理上将抢劫罪区分为基本类型的抢劫罪、结果加重类型的抢劫罪与情节加重类型的抢劫罪,这种划分符合我国刑法关于抢劫罪死刑设置的原意,且更有利于运用加重构成理论以及其未遂形态来限制死刑的适用。在司法实践中,适用死刑必须严格遵守死刑程序用尽原则。在对抢劫罪进行死刑司法控制时,应遵循罪刑法定原则,综合考虑犯罪嫌疑人的犯罪手段、犯罪动机、犯罪对象等,同时必须考虑其是否存在酌定量刑情节,通过刑事和解结案,不仅可以有效缓解社会矛盾,而且还可以起到限制死刑的作用。     

‘Fat cat’ lawyers and ‘illegal’ migrants: the impact of intersecting hostilities and toxic narratives on access to justice

ABSTRACT

This article examines how three spheres of hostility intersect to prevent effective access to justice for those living with insecure immigration status. The neoliberal governance model, the barren justice landscape and the hostile environment are supported by the cynical construction of the ‘fat cat’ lawyer and the toxic ‘folk devil’ narrative of the ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. To the extent that the judiciary have frustrated the more obvious, ideologically driven, attempts to restrict access to justice for migrants, the austerity predicated measures pursuant to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) have completely altered the legal landscape. The analysis is informed by the findings of the ‘Legal advice and support for persons with insecure status’ project (hereafter LAPIS) in Nottingham which explores the challenges faced by service providers and the lived experiences of those with insecurity of status. It is clear that access to justice is a passport to the realisation of other rights, yet participants struggled to access a remedy because legal advice is too often out of reach.     

Lost in space? the role of place in the delivery of social welfare law advice over the telephone and face-to-face

ABSTRACT

Advice that is provided exclusively over the telephone has been promoted by government as more convenient and accessible than face-to-face appointments. The resulting push towards telephone-only provision, as implemented by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, challenges the long history of association between social welfare law advice and local delivery within disadvantaged communities. This article reports on qualitative research comparing telephone and face-to-face advice which uncovers the continuing relevance of place in the dynamics and mechanics of social welfare law provision. Familiarity with the geographical location, knowledge of local policies and procedures, relationships with opponents and allies, and an understanding of the ‘local legal culture’ mean that face-to-face advisers are often able to conduct their legal casework more effectively. Conversely, local knowledge is unlikely to be available to Community Legal Advice telephone advisers. This research suggests that, in addition, telephone-only advisers may be developing a more narrow understanding of the essential qualities of casework. These findings are particularly significant in view of the likely future expansion of remote methods of delivery in legal aid work.     

论公安机关侦查人员法律素养的差异化培养*--以教育培训为侧重

十八届四中全会以来，依法治国成为整个社会发展的主题。刑事侦查领域也提出了侦查法治化的思想，其中加强刑侦队伍正规化建设，提升刑侦队伍执法素养成为一个重要的环节。应该剖析侦查人员法律素养的内涵，立足于侦查人员不同的学习背景，提出差异化培养的思想，并通过有针对性的教育培训等途径提高侦查人员的法律素养，推动侦查工作的法治化进程。     

美国诱惑侦查制度及对我国的启示

美国社会执法实践中广泛存在诱惑侦查的使用，关于诱惑侦查的法律和制度规制经过长期演变和经验积累，形成了较为完整的诱惑侦查制度。本文通过对美国诱惑侦查制度的法律规定和具体实践的探究，以期为完善公安机关执法工作提供一些参考。我们应借鉴美国关于诱惑侦查方式运用的有益经验，加快有关诱惑侦查领域的立法进程，明确具体的法律规定。公安机关在执法实践中应正确认识诱惑侦查的合理性，慎用诱惑侦查手段，严格遵循程序执法，规范自身执法行为，积极改进执法方式。     

浅析拐卖人口案件侦查之买方市场的防控

拐卖人口现象屡禁不止,根本原因之一是买方市场的存在及发展.本研究基于对拐卖人口买方市场存在发展的背景条件以及当前形势和防控难点进行分析研究,指出买方市场组成结构的复杂性与单方面打击不协调等问题.针对当前背景下采取系统作战方式应对拐卖人口新特点的重要性,通过咨询专家、文献研究以及与主要案发地区一线民警深入沟通,给买方市场防控措施提出相关建议,以期望对拐卖人口案件侦查有一定借鉴意义.     

论缓刑的法律性质--兼评缓刑考验期满后再犯罪成立累犯的合理性

缓刑在不同的刑事诉讼阶段所表现的主要特性是不同的,因而对其性质进行分阶段的界定也就有了现实的依据和合理性。从决定是否对犯罪分子宣告缓刑的意义上来说,缓刑有刑罚裁量的性质;从对犯罪分子具体适用缓刑的各项规定的意义上来说,缓刑又具有刑罚执行的性质。缓刑,兼具刑罚裁量和刑罚执行两重性质。在明确缓刑具有刑罚执行的法律性质的前提下,认定缓刑考验期满后再犯相应之罪的犯罪分子为累犯,就有了理论以及法律上的合理性。此种处置,从一般预防和特殊预防的角度来看,既符合中国社会重视行为人主观意志的现实,又能更好发挥刑罚预防犯罪的功能,也是符合我国现行刑事政策和法律规定的。