回归法律规范:刑事值班律师制度适用问题再反思

目前我国刑事值班律师制度规范背后折射出有权机关抑制辩方权利的倾向。根据法律规范意旨,只要被追诉人没有辩护人,国家就应“强制指派”值班律师介入案件。将“约见”解读为国家指派值班律师需以被追诉人申请为前提,这混淆了律师会见与介入案件的关系,且将国家责任转嫁给个人,弱化了对被追诉人获得最低限度法律援助权利的保障。相关规范性文件将值班律师阅卷权能限定为“查阅”,但基于法律援助法第37条的文义、控辩平等之程序公正底线要求等因素,值班律师阅卷权能还应包括“摘抄”“复制”。《法律援助值班律师工作办法》第10条第2款规定,值班律师有量刑异议时,只要其认可犯罪嫌疑人认罪认罚的自愿性,就应在具结书上签字。这是对值班律师功能“见证化”的公开宣示,与2018年刑事诉讼法第201条的意旨以及值班律师实质性参与量刑协商的改革要求相矛盾。值班律师应被赋予拒绝签字的权利。“实质性参与”应是目前完善值班律师制度的基本方向。     

复行为犯的着手问题

简要分析比较前一行为说、后一行为说、具体分析说之后 ,通过案例的分析 ,得出赞同前一行为说的结论 :复行为犯中 ,数实行行为都是构成行为的一部分 ,开始实施了前一实行行为 ,尽管未实施后一行为也等于开始实施了构成行为 ;与此同时 ,行为人的前一行为已经有导致危害结果发生的现实危险性 ,否则 ,刑法规范就没有必要给予前一行为“构成要件要素”这样高度的评价 ,而只需采取单一实行行为的规定方式 ;而且行为人主观上的直接犯罪目的业已确定无疑地在前一行为中得到充分表现。     

Empathic emotions and justice in society

Empathy is defined as an affect more appropriate to another's situation than to one's own. The paper (i) summarizes different modes of empathic affect arousal; (ii) shows how empathic affect may interact with social-cognitive development, to produce four levels of empathy development; (iii) suggests that causal attributions may transform empathic affect into sympathy, guilt, and empathic anger, which are major moral affects; (iv) discusses how these affects may influence moral judgment and behavior; (v) points up empathic morality's limitations and the need to embed empathy in relevant moral principles; (vi) discusses possible links between empathy and justice principles, with special focus on Rawls; (vii) illustrates the interplay of empathy, moral judgment, and justice; and (viii) suggests that moral principles may become hot cognitions.     

认罪认罚从宽制度下律师的地位与作用——以三个诉讼阶段为研究视角

认罪认罚从宽制度实施以来,在提高诉讼效率方面效果显著,但同时也伴随着架空程序正义的风险,律师实质性参与是认罪认罚从宽程序之正当性基础。加之认罪认罚从宽制度推动着协商性司法的进程,中国特色的控辩协商机制来日可期,律师的有效参与更应成为完善制度构建的应有之义。然而司法实践的现状与制度设计的初衷相去甚远,律师分别在侦查、审查起诉、审判各诉讼阶段发挥不同作用的同时也面临不同的参与困境。结合域外经验加以审视,认罪认罚从宽制度框架下的律师参与存在辩护理念和立法规制的双重缺失。具体而言,应推动有效辩护的理念建构和精细值班律师的制度建构,探寻律师实质性参与认罪认罚从宽程序的合理路径,从而有效保障被追诉人的诉讼权利,助力认罪认罚从宽制度的健康推进。     

认罪认罚案件量刑建议问题研究

在认罪认罚案件中,检察机关提出的幅度型或精准型量刑建议都是控辩双方合意的产物,也是审判人员最终作出量刑判决的重要依据,审判人员“一般应当采纳”。但对于检察机关提出精准的量刑建议是否存在理论上的正当性以及实务上的可操作性,理论界和实务界仍存在不同意见,实践中也存在部分审判人员“不愿接受”或“勉强接受”精准量刑建议的情况,影响着认罪认罚从宽制度总体功能的发挥。为解决此问题,有必要从理论上明确检察机关量刑建议权以及法院审判权的性质及关系,使审判人员内心“愿意”采纳精准的量刑建议;在实际操作层面需要加强精准量刑建议本身的合理性和合意性,使审判人员经过审理后,“能够”采纳精准的量刑建议。此外,根据具体情况,还需要明确精准量刑建议的变更和补救问题,促进量刑公正。     

再议“合一论”与“复合罪过说”

德国关于间接故意与有认识过失的合一论的主张与我国学者所提出的复合罪过的概念各有特定含义,“合一论”的罪过形式的出现有其特定的类型划分和观念为前提。复合罪过现象的原始含义不同于合一论。应该结合我国《刑法》分则的具体罪名来进行真正复合罪过形式的研究。     

美国刑法共谋者替代责任规则之演进述评

共谋者是否对共同共谋者实行的实体犯罪承担替代责任,美国刑法以平克顿案为分水岭,经历否定论→基本肯定论→实质限定论的演变历程。类型弱化标准是可合理预见性标准的重述,可能无法确保对平克顿规则的严格限制。事实弱化标准或超出轻微参与标准,更有利于限制共谋者替代责任的适用范围,将轻微参与共谋而与实体犯罪的实行存在弱化关系的共谋者排除在替代责任的适用范围之外。事实弱化或超出轻微参与标准,对我国处理类似案件具有借鉴意义。     

An investigation of the relationship between anger and offence-related shame and guilt

Abstract

A number of accounts of shame and guilt emphasise an association between shame and anger difficulties, and it has been suggested that shame and rage may promote one another. The shame–anger relationship may be particularly relevant to the study of forensic populations, as the fact of having committed a criminal offence has the potential to be a highly shame-provoking experience. The current study investigates the prediction that shame and guilt reactions to an offence are differentially related to the propensity to experience and ability to control anger. A measure of offence-related shame and guilt and a measure of anger experience and control was completed by 60 men detained in forensic psychiatric units. The results supported the prediction that offence-related shame is associated with elevated levels of anger difficulties, whilst offence-related guilt is associated with ability to control anger. The findings of the current study are consistent with those of previous investigations of shame, guilt and anger. Specific implications for the understanding and prevention of violent offending are discussed.     

“抢劫致人死亡”研究

"抢劫致人死亡",是抢劫罪法定刑升格条件之一,由于涉及到行为人的生命健康安全,司法机关不得不慎重认定"致人死亡"的结果是否可归咎于行为人实施的抢劫行为。要解决好抢劫致人死亡行为具体认定,必须要先解决好行为人对死亡结果的罪过形式、抢劫行为与死亡结果之间的因果关系和致人死亡中"人"的范围。只有做到这样,才能具体认定"抢劫致人死亡"情形。     

Desperate equilibrium: on guilt,law and rationality

Abstract

This paper is about the role of guilt in relation to practical reason. It analyses guilt not as a passive emotion but as a particular kind of strategy at the level of subjective rationality. The concept of guilt occupies a complex and contested semantic space with other concepts, most notably shame. There have been many attempts – philosophical, psychological, sociological – to define these concepts in relation to each other. This paper suggests that whilst guilt is a moral concept that is oriented towards a certain kind of legalism, shame is a moralistic concept. As such, the relations between guilt and shame are discussed in relation to some literary examples, for instance Macbeth's guilt and Conrad's Lord Jim. The conclusion is that on the one hand our confusion over the concept of guilt comes down not least to what may be our confusion over the difficult concept of law and that on the other hand this has consequences that can ultimately be political.