以正当程序来审视瑕疵证据的补正和合理解释

正当程序理念是英美法系法律思想、法律传统的体现,是公民个人所享有公平的最低限度标准,也是人类对正义理想的追求。从正当程序角度审视瑕疵证据的补正和合理解释,通过分析我国司法实务中对瑕疵证据的补正和合理解释的适用情形,说明在立法和司法上对正当程序的偏离,进而回归瑕疵证据本身,以后来看其对正当程序的影响。     

论非法侵入住宅罪的对象及亲告问题

对非法侵入住宅罪中"住宅"的含义应作正确理解。"住宅"具有以下特征:一定的日常生活设备,有相对隔离性,必须是供他人起居、饮食的生活场所。出于中国文化观念、刑法谦抑性以及社会现实等因素考虑,宜将非法侵入住宅罪设立为"亲告罪"。     

律师执业权利的法律思考

律师的权利,是律师依法独立执业的基本保障。律师只有享有法律赋予的必要的、充分的执业权利,其“保护人权、实现社会正义”的职业使命才有可能实现。尽管我国现有立法中对律师的权利有相应的法律规定,但由于立法规定的简略、笼统或不适当,导致律师的阅卷权、会见权、调查取证权这些重要的权利在适用过程中阻力重重。必须在立法上完善我国律师的阅卷权、会见权、调查取证权,使我国律师在法律上获得充分的权利,以维护律师的执业形象,促进我国民主、法制建设的进程。     

论刑事证据的法律分类

本文对刑事证据的“种类”、“分类”之称谓进行辨析,认为两者实质含义一致,进而提出采 用“法律上的分类”与“理论上的分类”的观点。作者立足我国刑事证据的立法分类,分析其规定不足, 建议重新分类,特别指出刑事证据分类应注视一、二审的转化问题和与今后将建立的证据规则相衔接 问题。     

The probabilistic analysis of testimony

The probabilistic analysis of testimony is surveyed. The coverage is not comprehensive; attention is focused on several problems of particular interest or complexity. The theory often contains implicit assumptions, and some attempt is made to clarify the role these play. The theory originally arose in an attempt to understand the logic of belief. It was not empirically grounded, however, and later died out in the 19th century when its conclusions became largely self-evident, and its non-empirical background suspect.     

对正当防卫主观条件的反思--从一则案例谈起

保护"非法利益"的防卫行为能否构成正当防卫,这一问题不仅在犯罪客体复杂性的视角上有厘清之必要,而且即使就单纯的保护"非法利益"的防卫行为而言,也可以构成正当防卫.通过对正当防卫的法条、相关理论、实质、立法价值取向以及正当性标准的剖析,对正当防卫主观条件的传统理论进行了反思,提出了挑战.     

从适用到规范——论民事诉讼中的“策略取证”

民事诉讼中"陷阱取证"这一概念存在较大争议,用"策略取证"将其替代,并对"策略取证"进行严格界定,通过对其源起、概念、可行性及价值诉求作详细的探究,为此概念及相关制度顺利移植到民事诉讼中创造了条件.     

非法经营罪探析

《中华人民共和国刑法》关于非法经营罪的规定是空白罪状,是一"口袋罪",其刑罚的设置不科学,因此,该罪应予分解,对已经分解出来的罪,不论刑罚轻重均不应再按非法经营罪追诉。     

刑事诉讼法违法证据排除法则的分析

通过对违法证据排除法则的概念、英美法律中该法则发展状况的分析和论证,提出我国刑事诉讼法也应适用该规则,并应采用既注重内容、又兼顾形式的“部分排除”原则。     

On sources and narratives in historical social science: a realist critique of positivist and postmodernist epistemologies

Critics of the interdisciplinary enterprise of historical sociology commonly contend that the narrational accounts of past social phenomena provided by historians are inadequate to the task of theory-building and testing. In support of this negative assessment, opponents will adduce informational deficiencies in the available data (the standard positivist appraisal of historical evidence), or cite the interpretive anarchy that seemingly prevails at the narrative phase of emplotment (the skeptical, postmodernist contention that historiographic texts 'construct' rather than veridically represent the events they artfully contrive to signify). Both of these lines of criticism are unbalanced, and therefore seriously misleading as regards the epistemic foundations of historical-sociological inquiry. The 'social authenticity' and 'informational density' of historical evidence does allow for veridical reconstructions of the past, while the reflexive interpretive protocols of source criticism and the sociology of knowledge can be deployed to provide warrant for discriminating arbitrations between competing theories and narratives. The various epistemological deformations in the study of human affairs that have been encouraged by the old idiographic-nomothetic polarity - chronic ahistoricism within the social sciences, the atheoretical predilections of much conventional historiography - are rectifiable through the consolidation of a fully integrated sociological history, a unified and inclusive historical social science.