论能动司法的检察监督

能动司法在目前已成为我国人民法院审判实务中比较重要的理念,但是如果不把握好能动司法的＂度＂,它极有可能造成司法专横,侵犯公民、法人或者其他组织的合法权益。加强检察机关对人民法院审判实务中能动司法活动的监督非常必要。而检察监督必须遵守实效原则、刚性原则、合法原则,并且监督要以对审判主体、诉讼过程以及裁判和执行方面的监督为重点。     

以严为主 辅之以宽——初议职务犯罪中的刑事司法政策？

刑事政策是刑法的核心和灵魂,刑事司法政策是刑事政策在司法活动中的具体体现。直接关系到国家控制犯罪目标的有效实现。职务犯罪中的刑事司法政策根植于我国当前和谐社会背景下宽严相济刑事司法政策的总体框架之中。基于对我国职务犯罪形势的基本判断,在相当时期内职务犯罪的刑事司法政策应“以严为主,辅之以宽”,且应避免从严过度、不依法从严和无节制擅法宽大的错误倾向,做到严格依法办案,公正文明高效执法,努力实现对职务犯罪的有效控制,为构建和谐社会提供法治保障。     

恢复性警务理论溯源

恢复性警务是警察在执法过程中、执行相关法律政策时,尽力考虑弥补受害人及受害单位、社区等损失,依法促成社会关系的修复,达到责任人自我悔悟、真诚悔过认错的一种警务执法活动。恢复性警务理论不仅来源于恢复性司法,还来源于自然法理论与和谐社会理论。恢复性警务不仅是一种执法理念,更是一种与恢复性理念相契合的警务制度。恢复性警务应在社区矛盾调解、治安案件和解、刑事侦查、轻微刑罚执行等方面对警务执法活动进行制度化改造,建立起完善的恢复性警务模式。     

司法的和谐之境

和谐司法是司法权良性运行的理想状态和科学概括,强调一种平衡、折中、矛盾中的统一,价值追求与运行过程的统一,通过法律至上与人权至上、司法公正与司法效率、程序公正与实体公正、司法独立与司法约束、司法精英化与司法社会化、司法刻板化与司法人性化的统一来达致和谐的司法境界。和谐司法理念具有普适性。     

论社会管理创新中的和谐司法机制建设

与其他领域相比,司法在社会管理方面所面临的矛盾更加复杂,加强和创新社会管理,应重视树立现代司法特别是能动司法理念,强化司法民主和保障民生的意识,强化司法公平与效率意识,增强矛盾纠纷的司法调处能力,完善相关诉讼制度,健全大规模侵权损害赔偿基金制度,确保加强和创新社会管理的各项工作依法推进。     

以恢复性司法理念构建我国刑事和解制度

反映恢复性司法精神理念的刑事和解制度体现了对被害人与犯罪人双方主体地位的尊重,寻求司法公正与效率的利益价值最大化,它被认为是在刑事诉讼价值多元化的理论指导下,为实现平抑社会冲突、修复被破坏社会关系、对被害人权益救济的一种理论选择。     

论我国刑事和解制度的完善

新刑事诉讼法在借鉴各地试点以及规范性文件的基础上,设置了当事人和解公诉案件诉讼程序这一特别程序。但该程序使用范围过窄以及无法与自诉案件和解与调解程序相衔接等缺陷而导致被架空。因此有必要从广义上去解释刑事和解这个概念,并把公诉案件和解、自诉案件和解与调解、附带民事诉讼调解都纳入到刑事和解之中,在现行刑事诉讼法框架之下,重构刑事和解制度,使刑事和解的三个有机组成部分协调衔接,有效融合,消除法条之间的矛盾与冲突,进而增加刑事和解的可适用性以指导司法实践。     

Aboriginal youth with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and enmeshment in the Australian justice system: can an intercultural form of restorative justice make a difference?

Aboriginal youth with Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) are overrepresented in the justice system. FASD results from prenatal alcohol exposure, and may lead to cognitive, social and behavioural difficulties that increase susceptibility to contact with the justice system. This paper explores the potential contribution of restorative justice in creating diversionary options for Aboriginal youth with FASD, and related cognitive impairments, to prevent enmeshment in the justice system. The lesson from work in Australia and New Zealand is that restorative justice and Indigenous justice are different, but not irreconcilable, projects. We suggest that there is the potential for creating rich intercultural engagement spaces ‘in between’ restorative practices and Indigenous processes: provided that restorative justice – as an essentially Eurocentric paradigm of the Global North – does not attempt to colonise Indigenous justice. An appropriate model would have Aboriginal people engaged in the planning and management of diversionary options, with greater focus on diversion into place-based, Aboriginal owned and managed services. Restorative justice needs to engage with the historical demands of Indigenous peoples for their land and their way of life; though constantly imperilled by forces of neo-liberalism and colonialism, Indigenous peoples remain resilient and provide a vision of an alternative to Euro-modernity.     

司法鉴定基本理论之再检讨

司法鉴定应当具有主体特殊性、对象专门性、启动被动性和结果科学性四个基本特征 ,为此 ,建立鉴定人资格确认和审查制度十分必要 ;限定鉴定对象的范围也应成为鉴定制度的要素。强调鉴定程序启动的被动性有利于保持鉴定的中立性 ,并划清鉴定权和司法权的界限 ;强调鉴定结果的科学性则有利于确定鉴定的效力制度。     

The “Independent Variable” in Restorative Justice: Theory-Based Standards for Evaluating the Impact and Integrity of Victim Sensitive Process (Part II)

For almost two decades restorative justice practices have demonstrated positive impacts on crime victim satisfaction when compared to court and other adversarial processes. Although these practices have by no means addressed the myriad needs of crime victims, researchers and policy makers have puzzled about how to interpret these generally positive findings. We suggest that remaining difficulties in concluding that positive findings are a result of restorative process rather than some other factor (e.g., procedural justice) are due largely to (1) the lack of clear standards for gauging the integrity, or “restorativeness,” of interventions and (2) the failure to articulate logical mechanisms (i.e., intervention theories) that connect practices to immediate and intermediate outcomes, and these outcomes to long-term changes in the well-being of victims, offenders, and communities. In part 1 of a two-part discussion previously published in this journal, we described alternative definitions of restorative justice and outlined three core principles that provide a useful normative theory of restorative justice. In part 2, we focus on the “intervening variable” in restorative justice, utilizing qualitative data from a national case study to illustrate some potential immediate and intermediate outcomes of restorative justice practice on victims. We also discuss the implications of these outcomes for intervention theory and future research.