美国企业犯罪的审前转处协议研究

美国针对企业犯罪建立了特殊的审前转处程序,办案检察官可以与涉罪企业签署暂缓起诉协议和不起诉协议,如果企业能够在考察期限内完成协议下的义务,则不会被审判和定罪。在美国经济危机时期,该制度较好地为企业的生存和社会公共利益的维护提供了保障。该制度以美国司法部内部的政策性文件为依据,赋予了办案检察官较大的自由裁量权,法院基本无权干预。美国理论界的争论主要围绕三对冲突关系:社会公共利益维护与企业“大到不用判刑”特权的冲突、检察官的转处裁量权与程序正义的冲突、司法部内部行为与立法/司法管辖权的冲突。在我国面临企业犯罪处理困境的当下,该制度及其相关理论能够为我国“司法行政部门帮扶企业”政策的践行提供经验借鉴。     

关于村民委员会职能问题的调查与研究

村民委员会是村民自治的主要载体 ,其职能主要是代表村民实行自治 ,其次是协助乡镇政府开展行政工作 ,自治职能应远较协助行政职能重要。但在不少农村地区 ,村民委员会的职能重心在很大程度上偏移了 ,协助行政的职能过度膨胀 ,而自治职能却被忽视 ,村民自治成了有名无实的空架子。村民委员会与乡镇政府的关系没有理顺 ,这是问题的症结所在。必须打破传统角色影响 ,改革现实体制 ,才能使村民委员会成为真正的自治组织。     

论量刑建议的运行原理与实践疑难破解——基于公诉精密化的本土考察

在我国当前司法环境下,量刑建议制度的提倡与践行不仅可以从程序维度规范审判机关的量刑裁判权,同时也能促进公诉权的精密化,强化检察机关的法律监督权。但该制度的试点与发展也面临着体制与机制上的双重拷问,即司法体制上容易滋生检法冲突,工作机制上也与现行检察机制改革有诸多不协调之处。为减缓痹症、深化改革,未来中国量刑建议制度的完善,应完成以下逻辑转换：制约重点,从自由心证到量刑裁断;适用范围,从简单案件到争议案件;启动主体,从领导决议到主诉决定;建议方式,从概括确定到相对确定;程序参与,从检法合意到量刑辩论。     

Prosecutorial discretion to defer criminalization: The effects of defendant's ascribed and achieved status characteristics

This research contributes to a further understanding of prosecutorial discretion by exploring tenets of casual attribution theory and etiology of bias theory as each informs an uncertainty avoidance perspective on the prosecutor's decision to divert felony drug defendants from criminal prosecution and into a treatment program. The sociolegal consequences of the exercise of this early screening decision are expressed by both conflict theorists and labeling theorists. Our analysis involves estimating main effects and interaction effects of defendant ascribed status and achieved status on the likelihood of diversion. The findings indicate partial support for hypotheses derived, from the theoretical perspectives pursued. In addition these findings point to a more complex model of the subjective nature of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, a model that benefits from understanding the salience of minimizing uncertainty in the decision to criminals.     

The New Zealand Model of Family Group Conferencing

The Family Group Conference (FGC) originated in New Zealand where it is the foundation stone of the Youth Justice system introduced in 1989. A significant feature of that system is the way in which it enables restorative justice principles to be implemented in an integrated manner in a statutory framework supervised by the courts and applicable to all young offenders throughout New Zealand. FGCs are used both as a diversionary technique (pre-adjudication) and at a (post-adjudication) pre-sentencing stage. In addition this type of model is now being applied in a voluntary way but on a small scale with adults. A significant feature of the FGC model is its greater use of community-based solutions with a consequent reduction in the number of young persons in state institutions.     

Referrals to a mental health criminal justice Liaison and diversion team in the North East of England

There is growing interest in the health correlates of people detained in police custody, and a number of innovations have been introduced to try to meet the complex needs of detainees. The implementation of Criminal Justice Liaison and Diversion (CJL&D) Services commissioned by the Department of Health in England is a substantial part of this investment. In this paper, we describe data from 858 detainees who were referred to the CJL&D service of a busy metropolitan police station in the North East of England. The detainees referred to the service had complex mental health needs, substance misuse and a range of vulnerabilities requiring specific intervention. The effective operation of these teams and how they interface with health and criminal justice systems also depend upon a number of systematic issues that emanate both from within the teams, and from external policy drivers.     

Deciding to Intervene: An Analysis of International and Domestic Influences on United States Interventions in Intrastate Disputes

Although the United States has been the most prolific intervener in the international system since the end of World War II, there has been little consensus among scholars regarding the motivations of U.S. interventions in domestic political disputes abroad. In addition, scholars do not agree on the relative effects of international factors and domestic factors on intervention decisions by the U.S. Previous research on the motivations of U.S. interventions has occurred within at least two distinctive “streams” of literature: (1) studies of state interventions; and (2) studies of the use of military force by the U.S. Hypotheses regarding U.S. interventions in intrastate disputes are derived from the previous literature, and the hypotheses are tested using recently-compiled data on intrastate disputes and U.S. interventions in intrastate disputes occurring between 1945 and 2002. The results suggest a combination of international factors, including geographic proximity and ideological linkage, significantly influence the decisions of the U.S. to intervene in intrastate disputes. The results also suggest international factors are generally more important than domestic factors, and the effects of both domestic factors and international factors on U.S. intervention decisions may differ depending on the specific type of intervention and the time period.     

Mentally ill offenders eligible for diversion at local court in New South Wales (NSW), Australia: factors associated with initially successful diversion

Diversion away from the criminal justice system and into mental health treatment services is a key strategy for addressing the well-established burden of mental illness suffered by those presenting to court. While mental health courts, court liaison and court diversion services have been developed in many jurisdictions internationally, there is limited research evidence to support their effectiveness in identifying those with mental health need and achieving successful diversion. The Statewide Community and Court Liaison Service in New South Wales, Australia, identifies mentally ill offenders likely to meet legal eligibility criteria for diversion at the busiest local courts across the state. Utilising data collected by mental health clinicians working in the service, 8317 individuals were identified as being eligible for court diversion on at least one occasion during the study period (1 July 2008 and the 30 June 2015) and 57.3% were subsequently diverted by Magistrates. Successful diversion at this first step was associated with being female, older, of non-Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background, and having a serious mental illness, replicated when stratified by sex and by Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background. There may be barriers to mental health diversion at court for individuals with particular socio-demographic characteristics which future service developments may need to take into account.