误读的司法民主--司法过程中的“超当事人主义”现象解读

当前我国司法实践中存在一种“超当事人主义”现象，其暴露出司法的信任危机。“超当事人主义”现象的背后，正是我们对司法民主观念的误读。司法民主的核心内容是为民众提供可实现的公正裁判。从法律修辞学的视角而言，具备可接受性的裁判必须以司法权威为前提；在提高法官人格魅力的同时，淡化整个司法过程的人格化因素；司法体系在信息认知方面必须对当事人足够开放，而在规范层面则应该严格限制法外因素进入。法官对裁判后果的评价，应超越于“让当事人满意”的简单后果论，在司法过程中坚守并追求“规范性共识”。     

Why Would Two-Level Consequentialists Punish Only the Guilty?

The most commonly encountered and most serious objection against consequentialist theories of punishment is that they could sometimes endorse punishing innocent people. Two-level consequentialists can resist this objection. Because of how deterrence works, a system of social protection would clearly need to be careful, most of the time, to pick out only the guilty for punishment. What about exceptional cases? Any institution empowered to secretly frame innocent people would pose a grave danger to democracy, a danger that could prove lethal under only moderately unusual conditions. Meanwhile, individual consequentialists working within the criminal justice system should fear that their own views could be distorted by confirmation bias and other cognitive errors. These officials should normally trust any moderately well-functioning adversarial trial process more than they trust their own judgment of who needs to be punished. They should use extra-legal discretion only in cases where both their confidence and the stakes are extremely high; and in cases where the stakes are extremely high, the consequentialist answer is no longer counter-intuitive.     

司法决策如何进行后果考量

主张司法决策应当进行必要的后果考量是当前颇有影响力的一种法律思维方式,从个案裁判法律效果与社会效果相统一的目的论来看,"后果主义"似乎是一种更容易在后果意义上证明为正当的方法论思维。然而,从决策的角度来看,既然决策者需要在各种可能的后果之中去追求最可欲的后果,就必然意味着对某种特定后果进行工具性控制的决策逻辑和权力支配...     

Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics

The aim of this article is to explain that, in the context of the production of scientific knowledge, it is logically impossible to define some institutional structures enabling the maximization of the social surplus.Our argumentation relies on the theory of Popper according to which it is impossible to anticipate the result of a given process of production of scientific knowledge. Consequently, we conclude that it is impossible to compare the respective efficiencies of alternative structures of production of scientific knowledge.The document consists in a critical review ofthe literature in economics of innovation and knowledge. JEL Classification: D8, L1, O3     

On the possibility of principled moral compromise

Simon May has argued that the notion of a principled compromise is incoherent. Reasons to compromise are always in his view strategic: though we think that the position we defend is still the right one, we compromise on this view in order to avoid the undesirable consequences that might flow from not compromising. I argue against May that there are indeed often principled reasons to compromise, and that these reasons are in fact multiple. First, compromises evince respect for persons that we have reason to think of as our epistemic peers, and acknowledgement of our own finitudes as moral reasoners. Second, compromises are often made morally necessary by the shortfalls that unavoidably separate democratic institutions from democratic ideals. Third, compromises express a desirable form of democratic community. And fourth, compromises are often justified from a consequentialist point of view, in that they allow for the realization of values that would not be realized as well by the failure to compromise.     

The Public Legitimacy of the National Assembly for Wales

This article examines the public legitimacy of the National Assembly for Wales. Both the Assembly and the broader system of devolved government for Wales initially enjoyed very limited public support. It is shown that support for devolution in general has risen substantially, while some elements of public attitudes towards the Assembly itself now appear distinctly positive. However, it is also demonstrated that public legitimacy, defined as ‘diffuse support’ for the Assembly, remains limited. The article then examines what factors explain levels of diffuse support for the National Assembly. It is found that variation in such support is best accounted for by factors associated with ‘non-material consequentialism’: perceptions of the impact of the Assembly on the process of government. The conclusion assesses the implications of the findings for the National Assembly, as well as for the study of devolution and political institutions more generally.