Rape investigation and prosecution: Stuck in the mud?

Abstract

This paper evaluates the Stern Review of rape in the context of public responses to rape, in England and Wales. The piece is based on an anti-rape feminist approach and so weighs a woman-centred approach to rape responses against the mainstream justice model. Overall, the argument made is that nothing much is really changing in public responses to rape. The work outlines problems with the Stern contention that the conviction rates for rape need to be calculated differently, and takes issue with the claim that the “policies are right”. Stern's call for greater support for women who have been raped is welcomed, but the effectiveness of the review process itself is questioned. These discussions illustrate the process of attrition as it is variously understood by feminists and by Baroness Stern. It is suggested that reviews themselves may be little more than a dampener, brought in when claims for change create a need to be seen to be doing something. A preferred alternative might be some form of ongoing body, reviewing and challenging practice and policy; however, it is recognised that this could be difficult to achieve amid the current spending cuts. The paper then turns to evaluate trends in support for survivors and notes that the more “professional” models of the Sexual Assault Referral Centre and the Independent Sexual Violence Advisers have held sway for some time. However, under the new coalition, government funding is also being directed towards women-only Rape Crisis centres, and this move is warmly welcomed here. The work concludes that much does indeed remain the same, despite positive signs in terms of respect for this survivor-centred model.     

论审查起诉阶段刑事和解模式的构建

2013年1月1日生效的新《刑事诉讼法》在特殊程序一章中,首次确立了当事人和解的公诉案件诉讼程序,这标志着运行多年的刑事和解制度在立法上获得了确认。审查起诉阶段的刑事和解是刑事和解制度的重要组成部分,也是检察权运行的重要载体。基于对该阶段检察机关作用的实践考察,刑事和解实践模式可分为检察机关参与模式和主导模式。通过对这两种实践模式的理论分析,指出未来审查起诉阶段刑事和解应当以能动监督模式作为发展方向。     

从执法公信力角度谈公诉人如何提高维护公平正义能力简

当前社会转型时期呈现出主体多元化、矛盾复杂化的特点,在这一新执法环境的作用下,对检察机关中依法承担审查起诉职责的公诉人提出了新的要求。公诉工作执法公信力建设与公诉人维护公平正义能力建设是公诉工作的重要命题,因为公信是公诉工作的基础土壤。也正是得到民众信任的支持,公诉工作才能得以健康发展,也正是因为公诉工作更好地维护了公平正义,公诉工作才真正赢得了民众的信任,进而有效提升检察机关的执法权威。从影响公信力的因素、公信力的来源对公诉公信力进行分析,可以对如何全面提升公诉工作公信力,如何提升公诉人维护公平正义能力提出建设性的意见。     

论破产法上债务人高管人员民事责任的追究

The Enterprise Bankruptcy Law has designed the regime for debtor’s senior managers to bear civil liabilities, while the framework design concerning the prosecution mechanism of civil liabilities is still unclear. How to establish a prosecution mechanism of civil liabilities of debtor’s senior managers in line with the purposes of the bankruptcy regime is a substantial issue during the implementation of Enterprise Bankruptcy Law. The realization of the civil liabilities regime of debtor’s senior managers depends on the establishment and operation of a relatively well-developed prosecution mechanism of civil liabilities. The focus of the prosecution mechanism of civil liabilities is to determine the subject of prosecution of civil liabilities, the way to realize civil liabilities, and the special hearing proceedings and authorities of the court. Taking steps to clarify and improve the prosecution mechanism of civil liabilities focusing on the subjects of prosecution (debtor’s senior managers) and authorities of the court, is the essence and systematic safeguard of realizing the civil liabilities regime of debtor’s senior managers in the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law. Gan Peizhong, Ph.D, is a professor of law and director of the Research Center for Enterprise and Company Law at Peking University. Prof. Gan is a recognized expert on economic law, company law, bankruptcy law and the reform of state-owned enterprises in China. He has released numerous articles on Chinese law journals and published many books. His major publications include Encyclopedia of Chinese Economic Law (vice editor-in-chief), New Studies on Economic Law (co-editor), New Studies on Enterprise Law (author), Studies on Chinese Economic Adjudication (editor-in-chief), Studies on Foreign Economic Law in Beijing (editor-in-chief), General Theories on Economic Law (co-editor), Legitimate Exercise of the Corporate Control Rights (author). Moreover, he was named the “leading young and middle-aged jurist” by Beijing Law Society in 1999. In addition, Prof. Gan is the deputy-president of the Securities Law Association, a member of the Standing Committee of the Economic Law Association under China Law Society. He also serves as the consultant of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the NPC Standing Committee and Beijing Municipal People’s Congress, as well as the Haidian District Court of Beijing.     

比较法视野下我国的侦检关系及其完善

只了解一国法律制度的人,不可能真正认识本国的法律制度。当今世界,无论是实行＂侦检分离＂的英美法系国家,还是实行＂侦检一体＂的大陆法系国家,侦检关系不再是绝对的＂分离＂或＂一体＂,而都强调侦检双方的协助与合作。针对我国现行侦检关系的暴露出来的诸多问题,以检警双方的＂适当结合＂为核心,建立一种＂检察引导侦查＂新型侦检关系,于理有据,于实有利,符合中国的国情和现代刑事诉讼制度的发展规律。     

程序正义与控辩平衡制度构建

程序正义理念的发展经历了漫长时期。随着人类文化的融合,人们对程序正义的认识逐渐趋同并集中体现在国际公约所确认的众多司法准则之中。无论是学者的理论还是国际公约,平等价值映照下的控辩平衡是程序正义最重要的制度设计。与国际刑事司法准则相较而言,我国刑事诉讼制度控辩关系失衡,应进行制度上的构建。     

行政起诉期限制度的缺陷与完善

考察现行行政起诉期限的各种规定 ,指出其中存在的问题 ,建议通过建立保护行政相对人的诉权能充分实行的基本起诉期限制度、建立最长期限制度、合理衔接行政复议申请期限与起诉期限以及确立期限中断和延长制度来完善行政诉讼的起诉期限。     

民事公诉制度质疑

近来不少学者主张在我国应尽快建立民事公诉制度,赋予检察机关在一定范围内的民事起诉权,而从保护社会公益、解决群众性纠纷、保护弱者和加强法律监督四个方面分析,民事公诉制度在理论上存在着误区和在实际运作上可能陷入困境.其不具有存在的合理性、合法性和必要性,解决相关问题应加大行政执法力度,加强检察监督,赋予检察机关民事诉讼参诉权.     

民事抗诉制度探析

随着审判制度改革的不断深入,民事诉讼领域中审判权与检察抗诉权之间的冲突已日益彰显,影响了法治目标的实现,因民事抗诉制度的改革势在必行。本文拟在分析和评价当前民事抗诉制度的几种主要说法的基础上．从理论和实践两个方面探讨我国抗诉制度的应有品格,以期为今后民事抗诉制度之立法完善提供认识论基础．     

侦查实验相关问题探讨

作为侦查学原理中必须涉猎的内容,侦查实验在诸多方面尚缺乏全面、系统的研究。本文通过对侦查实验的界定,侦查实验的分类,侦查实验与审判实验和审查起诉实验的异同,侦查实验的法律规制等相关理论问题的粗浅探讨,希望对其理论甚至实践操作体系的日臻完善,能有抛砖引玉之效。