Randomized invitations: One solution to the problem of voluntary treatment selection in program evaluation research

An alternative to randomized assignment to treatments in social program evaluation research is proposed in the form of randomized invitation to treatment. A procedure is suggested for identifying a subset of the uninvited control group that is maximally equivalent to those in the invited group who self-select into treatment in order to increase power to detect treatment effects on outcome measures.     

Hypothesis testing in path models

The three prior criteria for linear recursive causal (path) model evaluation are shown to be equivalent to a more general technique. Hotelling's T² is introduced as a means of evaluating general hypotheses for the entire model, and some consequences of treating the model as a whole are discussed. The “twice standard error” rule is shown to be misleading for a number of reasons. An example of the application of the procedure and the computational technique is given, and some additional applications are suggested.     

试论经济诉讼法的独立构建

由于经济公益诉讼案件不能通过传统诉讼方式很好的加以解决,这在客观上产生了对经济诉讼法的需要,经济诉讼法的实质是经济公益诉讼法,经济公益诉讼不同于经济法上的诉讼。随着社会的发展和经济生活的复杂化．我国应构建经济公益诉讼法。经济公益诉讼只是各类公益诉讼中的一种,经济公益诉讼法也只是公益诉讼法中的一种。因此。我国应构建一个涵盖各类不同公益诉讼,跨越部门法的新型综合性的诉讼法——公益诉讼法,公益诉讼法作为一个整体应成为第四种诉讼程序法。     

论先刑后民原则

我国司法实践中对于刑民交叉案件,在处理机制上主要依据先刑后民原则,该原则是否应被看作一种法律原则来适用,其是否有法律依据,如何界定该原则的适用范围,以及对其存在的意义如何评价,是主要阐述的问题.     

我国刑事审后程序的三个理论支点

刑事审后程序,是指除审判监督程序之外刑事判决生效以后一系列程序的总称,主要包括刑事执行程序、被害人救助程序、前科消灭程序等内容。宽严相济、程序公正和保障人权应该是刑事审后程序的三个理论支点。     

论程序的实体化

与实体中心说所导致的程序工具价值论相反,程序中心说导致了实质正义被贬低的弊端。将公正的程序置于中心地位,只是为了平衡对实体权利的不适当的强调,而不是要放逐实体。程序必须回应实体、向社会开放评价的实体标准。因为实体为程序规定目标、并为程序构筑边界。诚然,程序实体化会带来规范内容的价值冲突和造成对程序的统一性、独立性和完整性冲击的风险。由于现代社会的制度正义取决于整个市民社会的个体觉悟和道德交往,因此,程序实体化所造成的风险的化解途径,在于通过公民教育与民主实践培养发达的公民社会。     

论"严打"与人权保障的关系——兼论刑事诉讼法的目的

惩罚犯罪与保障人权相结合是刑事诉讼法的目的所在。一方面 ,刑诉法为惩罚犯罪提供了重要工具 ;另一方面 ,刑诉法又是人权保障的重要法宝。在“严打”斗争中 ,只有打保并重 ,不忽视和偏重任何一面 ,就能实现刑诉法的目的 ,取得最好的“严打”效果     

Chance in Guttman scaling

In their recent paper (1977, Social Science Research, 6, 188–196), Kenny and Rubin offer an interpretation of “chance” in Guttman scaling. Their approach is based on the matrix of probabilities p_ij, giving the chance that the ith respondent passes the jth item. It is shown that their interpretation of chance in fact corresponds to a stochastic model of a perfect unidimensional scale. An alternative condition for chance based on the matrix of p_ij's is proposed. This is then proved to be equivalent to the usual interpretation.     

Deducing majority candidates from election data

An election among m ? 3 candidates is conducted by system s ? {1, 2, …, m ?1} when each voter can vote for any k candidates so long as k ∈ s and the winner is the candidate who receives the most votes. Suppose the available data for an election conducted by s consists of the total number n of voters plus the number of votes n_i received by candidate a_i for i = 1, …, m, and for definiteness assume that n₁> n₂ ? … ? n_m so that a₁ wins the election. The winner a₁ is defined to be a majority candidate if for each i > 1 more voters prefer a₁ to a_i than prefer a_i to a₁. Question: Given m and s, what must be true of the available election data so that the winner is certain to be a majority candidate? Assuming that a voter can have any weak preference order on the candidates but is not indifferent among all m candidates, and assuming that each voter might vote in any manner that is not clearly contrary to his own interests, the following answers to the Question are derived for m = 3 and m = 4. The only s in a three-candidate election that can guarantee that a₁ is a majority candidate is the approval voting system s = {1, 2}, and it can make this guarantee if and only if $\text{n}{}_1\text{>}\text{n}\text{2}\text{+ min{n}{}_2\text{, n}{}_1\text{+ n}{}_2\text{+ n}{}_3\text{? n}}$. There are two systems for four-candidate elections that can guarantee that a₁ is a majority candidate, namely s = {1, 2} and s = {1, 2, 3}, and for each of these a₁ must be a majority candidate if and only if $\text{n}{}_2\text{+ n}{}_3\text{+ n}{}_4\text{<}\text{n}\text{2}$. By implication, the plurality system s = {1} can never assure one that the winner is a majority candidate. Stronger assumptions than those used in the main analysis, which are able to ensure that the plurality winner is a majority candidate, are identified.     

Coincidence probabilities for simple majority and positional voting rules

With three candidates and an odd number n of voters, let Q(n, λ, p) be the probability that the winning candidate under the point-total rule that assigns 1, λ, and 0 points respectively to each first, second, and third-place vote is the same as the simple majority candidate, given that there exists a simple majority candidate, when each voter independently selects a linear preference order on the candidates by a common probability distribution p on the six linear orders on the candidates. With Q(n, λ) = Q(n, λ, p) when p assigns probability $\text{1}\text{6}$ to each order, the λ values that maximize Q(n, λ) for small n consist of open intervals in [0, $\text{1}\text{2}$]. Using quadrivariate normals, a computational form is developed for the limiting probability Q(λ) = lim_n→∞Q(n, λ). The function Q(λ) = Q(1 ? λ) for each λ ? [0, 1] and is differentiable with Q(λ) strictly increasing as λ goes from 0 to $\text{1}\text{2}$. The maximum value $\text{Q(}\text{1}\text{2}\text{)}$ is approximately. 901189. Effects of nonuniform p distributions on Q(n, λ, p) are also discussed.     

The analysis of ordinal dispersion: A comparison of Leik's “D” with a variance formula

The frequency of ordinal data and the importance of attitudinal consensus in social research motivated Leik [Leik, R. L. (1966), Pacific Sociological Review 9, 85–90] to formulate a simple, effective measure of ordinal dispersion, but he did not provide a method for its statistical analysis, and its operational interpretation for nonextremal values is unclear. Leik's D is an equal-interval, “folded” scoring vector inner dot-product, scalar transformation of the vector of ordered relative frequencies. The folding point is the median category. The metric analog of D is the difference between the random variable's expected values above and below the median. An equal-interval, pure variance measure of ordinal dispersion is posited and compared to D. They correlate closely but not perfectly, and D has a serious problem when an extremal category has more than half the total cases. Both formulas are easily generalized to non-equal-interval scorings. A general linear model for categorical data permits easy statistical comparisons of D, but not the variance. D tends to underestimate the degree of significant dispersion in comparison to the variance formula, it is suggested.     

行政程序违法的法律责任机制研究

行政程序立法在我国尚处于薄弱环节,但是行政行为违反行政程序法律的情况时有发生,为此需要完善行政程序违法的法律责任机制。在对行政程序违法的主体和范围进行界定的基础之上对我国现有的行政程序法律规定和责任判定进行分析,认为我国行政程序违法的法律责任机制存在责任规定缺失、责任规定有失规范、责任形式不完善等问题。为了完善行政程序违法的法律责任机制,首先要健全无效、撤销、补正等行政程序违法的法律责任形式,其次应完善行政程序违法责任追究机制,保障行政权力行使的合理性与正当性。     

刑事第二审程序中的诉讼关系研究

刑事二审审判中诉讼主体间的关系已产生变化,作出一审判决的法院作为"程序意义上的被告"应当派员出席二审法庭,陈述其作出一审判决的根据和理由,出庭时的法律称谓可名之为"必要诉讼参加人"。二审法院不应在一审法院缺席的情况下作出二审判决。但刑事审判要解决的问题是刑事被告人刑事责任的有无及大小,即使一审判决错误,也只是一审承办法官对于被告人刑事责任的有无及大小作了错误评断,二审则旨在纠正这种评断错误,而不是把一审法院作为刑事追究的对象。传统理论关于刑事审判对象是"公诉事实"或"控方诉求"的观点显然不适合二审和再审。只有将"刑事被告人刑事责任的有无及大小"作为刑事审判对象才是恰当的。     

程序优位:遏制违反法定期限行为之关键

司法机关案件无期限拖结,虽属程序违法,但却使当事人合法的人身自由权、财产权受到严重侵犯。我国已有的三大诉讼法就期限问题了详尽的规定,仍无法杜绝。要依法规制,首先从观念上应加强执法者程序优位观念,其次,从制度上在程序规则中引入法律后果、法律责任规定,从程序法治整体上进行救济性立法设计,把违反法定期限行为纳入司法审查制度中国家赔偿的范畴,通过救济途径对该行为予以必要制约。     

Happiness inequality: Adding meaning to numbers - A reply to Veenhoven and Kalmijn

In SSR 40 (3), we proposed two new measures for happiness inequality, which have spurred a debate. With this rebuttal we disprove the arguments of our critics and demonstrate that our recommended measure, the percent-maximum standard deviation, is a valuable tool for cross-national comparative research.     

How to rig your results with a fancy coding scheme

Two types of multivariate methods are distinguished from one another: structure-seeking methods and causal modeling. The former is particularly susceptible to coding artifacts based on improper use of dummy variables or of ranking procedures. Solutions for both problems are suggested.     

从价值角度完善我国行政听证制度

自从1996年《行政处罚法》第一次引入听证制度以来,行政听证制度在我国的适用范围正在逐渐扩大,行政听证制度顺应了我国新时期构建社会主义民主与法治社会的大趋势,同时,为行政相对人提供了一条保障自身合法权利的路径。但是,现阶段我国行政听证制度的运行状况并不十分理想,有必要对其加以完善和补充。     

我国的刑事诉讼结构——一个亟待澄清的概念

我国在共时性语境下展开的刑事诉讼结构研究容易遮蔽一个历时性形成的问题:现代刑事诉讼结构与其理论基础浑然一体,其制度表达服务于西方由来已久的程序正义观;我国当下的刑事诉讼结构与我国的理论传统在整体上也是协调一致的,其制度表达基本上服务于我国当下日遭否定的实体本位说。家庭本位观决定了我国古代刑事诉讼中追诉者对被追诉者进行追诉、审问的两面结构。集体优位观决定了我国1979年刑事诉讼法确立的国家专门机关对被追诉者进行犯罪追诉的简单结构和当下刑事诉讼的畸形结构。我国当下的刑事诉讼结构亟待实现现代化,需要充分确立被追诉者的基本权利,取消检察机关对刑事审判的监督权,在审判前程序中确立中立性裁判者的法律地位,实现追诉权与裁判权的分离。我国刑事诉讼结构的现代化需要以"以人为本"的发展观为理论支撑。     

程序正义新释：内涵与选择

程序正义理论对于结果公正的实现具有重要意义,在英美法系国家,程序优于实体的观念一直在指导着司法实践,也得到了民众的普遍认同。程序正义的具体内涵是什么？这样的问题没有标准答案．但基本精神都应当一致：程序正义应当是属于法律程序本身的内在优秀品质,这种优秀品质应当确实存在并独立而非依附于程序的工具性之中。中国受到古代法制传统的影响,程序正义不受重视,法官更为了追求实体裁判的公正而漠视程序正义。在中国法治建设进程中,对程序正义的尊重和执行应当内化为法律人乃至所有国人的自觉行为。     

中韩两国刑事诉讼原则之比较

刑事诉讼原则作为各国刑事诉讼的司法及行为准则 ,不论其社会性质如何 ,在保障人权、公正司法的普遍意义上 ,均有其共同遵循的客观规律。人民检察院对刑事诉讼进行法律监督的原则 ,缺乏理论根据 ,应当予以取消 ;对韩国保障被疑者、被告人的陈述拒否权应加以借鉴