中美陪审制度比较研究

通过中美陪审制度在历史、文化传统方面的比较,找出陪审制度发挥不同作用的根源是文章的主旨。美国陪审制深受个人主义文化传统的影响,弥补了法律形式合理性的缺陷,而中国陪审制由于缺乏陪审所需要的历史文化传统和相应的制度,不能有效发挥作用。     

论我国人民的陪审制度

陪审制度是我国审判制度组成 ,也是当前司法改革的一项重要内容。鉴于陪审制度的目前现状 ,理论界存在着存废之争。英美法系的陪审制度和大陆法系的参审制度都有其不同的特征 ;我国陪审制与大陆法系国家的参审制极为相似 ,但存在着许多问题和认识上的分歧 ,其观点缺乏实践与理论的依据。在我国现阶段 ,陪审制度对于遏制司法界存在的腐败现象 ,具有积极的作用 ,但尚需完善。     

Considerations on jury size and composition using lower probabilities

The use of lower probabilities is considered for inferences in basic jury scenarios to study aspects of the size of juries and their composition if society consists of subpopulations. The use of lower probability seems natural in law, as it leads to robust inference in the sense of providing a defendant with the benefit of the doubt. The method presented in this paper focusses on how representative a jury is for the whole population, using a novel concept of a second ’imaginary’ jury together with exchangeability assumptions. It has the advantage that there is an explicit absence of any assumption with regard to guilt of a defendant. Although the concept of a jury in law is central in the presentation, the novel approach and the conclusions of this paper hold for representative decision making processes in many fields, and it also provides a new perspective to stratified sampling.     

英美陪审制与我国人民陪审制

陪审制是英美法系中一个富有特色的诉讼制度,对整个世界诉讼法律体系的发展和完善都起到了重要的推动作用,但各国都根据自身的国情对陪审制进行了必要的“本土化”改革。比较英美法系国家的陪审制和我国人民陪审制的异同,从中我们可以总结出一些有益的东西,这对于发展和完善我国目前实行的人民陪审制会起到不可忽视的借鉴、推进作用。     

An Experimental Study of Collective Deliberation

We study the effects of deliberation on collective decisions. In a series of experiments, we vary groups' preference distributions (between common and conflicting interests) and the institutions by which decisions are reached (simple majority, two‐thirds majority, and unanimity). Without deliberation, different institutions generate significantly different outcomes, tracking the theoretical comparative statics. Deliberation, however, significantly diminishes institutional differences and uniformly improves efficiency. Furthermore, communication protocols exhibit an array of stable attributes: messages are public, consistently reveal private information, provide a good predictor for ultimate group choices, and follow particular (endogenous) sequencing.     

美国大陪审团制对中国法制建设的启示

文章介绍了肇始于英国的美国大陪审团的改革历程,以及美国大陪审团进行审理所需遵循的八大诉讼程序;最后对中西两种不同的法律制度——大陪审团制与人民监督员制度进行比较,寄期望于人民监督员制度在发展改革中遭遇的瓶颈能够在中西法律制度的相互借鉴中获得突破。     

中外陪审制度比较研究

中国陪审制度在陪审员与职业法官的关系、陪审的案件范围、陪审员的表决方式以及陪审员在审理案件时的作用等诸多方面与外国陪审制存在较大差异 ,造成这种差别的原因既有审判模式、价值理念的不同 ,又有配套制度的不完善。随着民主与法制建设的进一步发展 ,我国应当在陪审案件范围、陪审员资格、陪审员产生方式、陪审员权利义务及法律责任等方面作出更加明确具体的规定     

The Donation Paradox for Peremptory Challenges

A donation paradox occurs when a player gives an apparently valuable prerogative to another player, but does better, according to some criterion. Peremptory challenges, used in choosing a American jury, permit each side to veto a certain number of potential jurors. With even a very simple model of jury selection, it is shown that for one side to give a peremptory challenge to the other side may lead to a more favorable jury, an instance of the donation paradox. Both a theorem and examples are given concerning the existence of the donation paradox in the optimal use of peremptory challenges.     

Majority vote of even and odd experts in a polychotomous choice situation

The performance of majority vote by an odd number of voters in a dichotomous situation is a much-studied subject. In this paper, we study the performance of group consensus in a situation of polychotomous choice. The differences in majority vote behaviour between even and odd numbers of expert panellists are examined, and the effects of adding new members are derived. Unlike the dichotomous model, optimality in the present context may not be uniquely defined, so the probabilities of the consensus being correct or erroneous are both considered as the number of experts is increased.     

试论英国Jury制度的翻译问题

翻译最基本的要求是尊重他国的历史、文化传统、政治制度等。根据英国Jury制度的历史、具体的运作程序,可以总结出Jury制度的基本内容是由法官随机抽选出12名公民在对案件事实认定基础上作出被告是否构成犯罪或民事侵权的判决,然后法官就具体的法律适用问题作出判决;而根据我国陪审员的相关法律规定,陪审员是全程参与案件的审判,在评议案件时对案件事实的认定、法律适用充分发表意见并独立地行使表决权。因此,我国大部分学者将英国的Jury制度翻译为陪审团制度是不恰当的。根据Jury的基本内容直接翻译过来,实在找不到比较简短、概括恰当的词语;不过可以采用音译的形式,将Jury翻译为纠理团。