未成年人取保候审程序主体之重构

我国未成年人取保候审程序主体系统在构造上存在权利主体面窄、启动申请主体过少、执行参与主体简单化、独立的救济主体缺位等缺陷。基于未成年人取保候审的特定的程序对象考虑,在借鉴国外少年保释制度运作的经验和考察本国未成年人司法实践基础上,应对未成年人取保候审程序主体系统加以重构。     

论刑事法的公正、功利价值

公正与功利是刑事法追求的两大价值目标。处理公正与功利关系应建立在两项原则基础之上 :一是刑事法各具体原则的运作都应以保障最低限度的公正与最低限度的功利为基础 ;二是公正与功利价值关系的定位因刑事法的内部关系不同而有异 ,在刑事实体法中 ,追求的是“功利优先 ,兼顾公正” ,而在刑事程序法中 ,则是“公正优先 ,兼顾功利”。     

再论医疗事故争议纠纷的诉讼管辖

本文从正反两方面论述了医疗纠纷中以“侵权结果发生地”确定管辖权的合理性及必要性。并从司法实践出发,就如何从证据法学角度认定“结果发生地”的相关事实阐述了作者的观点。     

论侦查程序中的辩护——基于联合国刑事司法准则的视角

辩护权是刑事诉讼中犯罪嫌疑人的一项最为重要的防御性权利.侦查程序中的辩护与审判中的辩护具有同样重要的意义,但在我国刑事诉讼中侦查阶段的辩护较为落后,这使得犯罪嫌疑人的权利难以得到保障,有碍司法公正.联合国刑事司法准则对刑事审前程序中的律师辩护作出了规定,我们应予以借鉴,以完善我国侦查程序中律师辩护制度.     

农民上访、法律援助与司法公平

信访是一种低效率的和具有人治性质的救济方式,但农民却对此乐此不疲,其中重要的一个原因是:司法是一种昂贵和复杂的救济机制,由于我国法律援助的供给严重不足和分配不平衡,这使很多贫困农民无法获得公平的司法救济,从而踏上上访之路。在建设新农村与和谐社会的过程中,国家一定要重视法律援助工作。     

谈恢复性司法之利弊

恢复性司法是以对被害人的赔偿为前提,以对犯罪人的悔罪基础,以对被破坏的社会关系的修复为目的对传统的报复性司法进行检讨的基础上衍生出来的一种替代性刑事案件解决机制。笔者从中国国情从发,重点对恢复性司法之利弊关系进行粗浅的探讨。     

刑法解释的正义性追问

刑法解释作为联结刑事立法和刑法适用的桥梁和纽带,是揭示作为法理念的正义的重要途径。作为法律的评价体系和评价标准,正义内生于法律文本之中,而外现于法律解释之外。刑法解释的正义化要求做到:为符合解释的实质性正义,刑法解释应以理性的、客观的、公正的视角去看待并观照刑法,以达人性化和谦抑性的要求;为符合解释的形式性正义,刑法解释应满足刑法文本字义的最大射程,并在字义不能自足时,以历史和社会的眼光遵从解释的程序性原则规定;为最大化地实现刑法解释实质正义和形式正义的统一,解释者亦应维护刑法的安定与理想,促成刑法正义的实现。     

试论协同型民事诉讼模式的建立

本文侧重论述了未来民事诉讼模式的建立问题。文章认为,长期的职权主义或超职权主义现象应当结束。根据中国的国情、民事诉讼与生俱来的社会公益性以及各国改革的经验,未来的民事诉讼不应该是纯粹当事人主义而应该是协同型民事诉讼模式。     

Disputes in Japan: A cross-cultural test of the procedural justice model

Research on procedural justice has provided ample evidence that people are concerned not only with the outcome of disputes but also with the fairness of the procedures used to resolve disputes. The majority of the studies examining the importance of procedural justice have been conducted in the United States and Western European countries. This study tests the generality of the procedural justice model by examining the importance of fair procedures to people in a non-Western country, Japan. This study also examines the meaning of a fair procedure from a legal perspective. Past studies have drawn the procedural justice criteria considered from social psychology. We examine several additional criteria derived from the legal concept of due process of law. Results indicate that fair procedures are more important to subjects than fair outcomes in both a traffic accident dispute and a breach of contract case. Furthermore, across both types of disputes, fairness concerns are more important than nonfairness concerns. These results are consistent with findings from studies conducted in Western countries. A new finding that emerges from the study is that the clarity with which a procedure is formulated and presented is a strong determinant of procedural justice judgments.     

Bread and roses: Justice and the distribution of financial and socioemotional rewards in organizations

Two studies tested the hypothesis that organizational decision makers attempt to counterbalance contribution-based distributions of financial/material rewards (a “merit” system that creates monetary inequality) with need- and equality-based allocations of socioemotional rewards, in effect allocating “roses” in lieu of more “bread”. Experiment 1 had a two-factor design (Reward Type × Magnitude of Income Inequality); 67 subjects were given a managerial in-basket exercise in which they expressed their preferences for a variety of distributive justice rules for seven different types of rewards. Experiment 2 (N=39) had the same design, with a stronger manipulation of magnitude of inequality. Results of the two experiments were consistent with the counterbalancing hypothesis, irrespective of magnitude of income inequality; financially related rewards (e.g., profit sharing, office space, company cars) were distributed with more emphasis on contribution rules (i.e., performance, status), while more socioemotional rewards (e.g., help for an employee's spouse, friendliness) were allocated with more emphasis on equality among individuals, equality across groups, and personal need.