论疑罪的“中间”形式判决——关于恩里科·菲利“证据不足”判决方案的评论

恩里科·菲利主张,在悬疑案件应保持司法存疑,法官应以"证据不足"方式做出介于有罪判决和无罪判决之间的"中间"判决.菲利的观点与我国传统的"实事求是"论在原则态度上、具体方案上、是否承认选定权利上都不一样,因为他言论上支持无罪推定;它也不同于德国、法国和我国代古历史上任何存疑方案,他的方案似乎是诉讼存疑中"最好"的方案.由于它的诱惑力及与我国刑事存疑判决现实现象的关联,须指出菲利的理性不彻底--它漠视公民一般政治权利的清白假定,把无罪推定降低到心理假定的地位,无法消除我国司法界、理论界的困惑.菲利的这种"最好"的方案,其实质是在关键处放弃无罪推定,它不是真正的中间方案,不能改变推定上的"非此即彼"抉择.     

论被害人谅解对量刑的影响

犯罪是对被害人的直接侵害,在遭受犯罪行为侵害的过程中,被害人对犯罪行为给自己带来的伤害有着切身的体会和直观的感受。法院在审理案件过程中应该听取被害人的意见,并在量刑时加以考虑。但被害人谅解是否对于法院有必然的约束力则不能一概而论。笔者从被害人谅解影响量刑的依据、限度、条件及监督保障等方面对被害人谅解与刑罚适用的关系进行了讨论,并提出只要从制度上加以规范和保障,将被害人谅解作为量刑的酌定从轻或者减轻处罚情节,是可以促进社会的和谐与稳定的。     

刑罚演进的他者视角——对福柯《规训与惩罚》的刑法学解读

福柯在《规训与惩罚》中运用谱系学方法和自身建构的微观权力理论分析了从中世纪末期到近当代的刑罚演进历史,指出所谓监狱与刑罚制度的改革不过是在人道和人权的幌子下所作的规训方式的的进化,这一观点显然有别于传统的刑法学观点,因此有必要从刑法学角度探讨福柯论证的内在理路及其见识。     

减轻处罚若干问题探讨

减轻处罚是在法定刑以下减轻,包括刑种和刑期的减轻。减轻处罚的性质是从主刑及于附加刑,但应依法适用。对于附加刑,应视具体情况考虑如何减轻或是否并处。对于减轻处罚的幅度和限制,以及主刑如何减至附加刑等具体问题,均应在立法中作出明文规定。     

Response to Tudor: Remorse-based Sentence Reductions in Theory and Practice

Steven Tudor defends the mitigation of criminal sentences in cases in which offenders are genuinely remorseful for their crimes. More than this, he takes the principle that such remorse-based sentence reductions are appropriate to be a ‘well-settled legal principle’—so well settled, in fact, that ‘it is among those deep-seated commitments which can serve to test general theories as much as they are tested by them’. However, his account of why remorse should reduce punishment is strongly philosophical in character. He sets to one side the many practical difficulties in implementing such reductions in the real world of criminal justice institutions so that he can focus on the question of whether a plausible account of sentencing can show that remorse should mitigate punishment. I contend that Tudor’s defense of such reductions is unpersuasive in certain respects. Yet even if it can be made more persuasive, I argue that the conditions that would have to be satisfied for remorse-based sentence reductions to be justifiably implemented are so many and various that they would likely exceed our abilities to responsibly grant them in real world legal contexts. I therefore claim that Tudor has failed to provide a defense of the ‘remorse principle’ that serves to explain or justify existing legal practices.

看守所留所服刑犯监管工作现状浅析与思考

对留所服刑犯的教育改造是公安机关监管工作的一项重要职能。但受职能定位和法律性质不明、缺乏监管设施和专业警力不足等不利条件所限,看守所至今无法形成统一规范的监管标准和管理模式。调整监区布局,重组监区警力,建立一个全市留所服刑犯集中改造的场所,是现阶段提高看守所监管效能的一套行之有效的措施。     

略论法定刑的制约性

法定刑本身属性决定了刑事立法应该接受其内在精神的制约，做到同害同罚，异害异罚，不同犯罪法定刑应该达到平衡，法定刑的设置应该为司法适度解释提供保障，另外不能超越法定刑本身作出司法解释，其具体包括以下内容：最高司法机关作出的司法解释应该受到法定刑的制约；司法机关在运用刑事法律的时候，对于法律条文的理解也必须接受法定刑的制约。司法适用中对想象竞合犯罪、转化犯罪的认定也应该接受法定刑的制约。     

量刑事实的证明与认定-以人民法院刑事裁判文书为样本

以人民法院的200份生效刑事裁判文书为样本,分析量刑事实的证明与认定。在样本中,对量刑证据的证据能力的要求较为宽松。证据证明、推定和司法认知在量刑事实的证明中都得到了运用。量刑事实与定罪事实适用了相同的证明标准,即“证据确实、充分”。罪重事实的举证责任由控方承担;罪轻事实根据其类型的不同,举证责任分别由控方和辩方承担。量刑事实认定说理存在遗漏应当认定的量刑事实、简单罗列量刑证据、说理武断和对适用的量刑事实遗漏认定环节等问题。辩护人对于量刑事实的证明起着非常重要的作用。上述样本中反映出的量刑事实证明与认定现状对于研究量刑证据理论和其他相关问题具有重要意义。     

Severe personality disorder,treatment engagement and the Legal Aid,Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012: what you need to know

Empirical research has demonstrated a link between legal coercion and treatment engagement following conviction among those with severe personality disorder. Legal coercive pressures were often applied by the Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP), until it was replaced by the Extended Determinate Sentence by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. In this paper, it is proposed that use of the new determinate sentence will lessen motivation for treatment engagement. One effect of treatment refusal may be greater reliance by the Secretary of State for Justice on his jurisdiction to transfer prisoners due for release to secure hospital transfers under the Mental Health Act 1983. Not only will this risk posturing undermine the principal aim of the Offender Personality Disorder Implementation Pathway to improve treatment engagement among the target group, it will also have negative implications for medical practitioners working in secure forensic hospitals. To demonstrate what is at stake, the paper briefly recapitulates empirical findings familiar to readers of the journal, before drawing on original unpublished data.     

Bridging the gap between judges and the public? A multi-method study

This article examines the gap between Dutch judges and the public in terms of preferred severity of sentences. It focuses on one particular explanation usually given for the gap: the lack of case-specific, detailed information on the part of the general public. Findings from three studies are reported and combined: (a) a survey among a sample from the Dutch population (N = 2,127), (b) a sentencing experiment with judges in Dutch criminal courts (N = 180), and (c) a sentencing experiment, using the same case materials as with judges, but now with a sample from the Dutch population (N = 917). Results show that providing the public with detailed case information indeed reduces severity of sentences preferred. Moreover, those members of the public who were given short and unbalanced newspaper reports preferred much harsher sentences than did those who were given the full case files. However, despite such a reduction in punitiveness as a result of information, the public’s preferred sentences remain much more punitive than judges’ sentences pertaining to exactly the same case files.