Restorative Justice and Collective Responsibility: Lessons for and from the Rwandan Genocide

Genocide struck Rwanda in 1994. Since then, national and international trials have endeavored to promote reconciliation, deterrence, peace, justice, and human rights. This article posits a disconnect between these trials and the attainment of their avowed goals. This disconnect emerges in part from the influential agendas of international lawyers who equate selective criminal prosecution with the "rule of law" and espouse criminal prosecution as the preferred and uniform response to mass atrocity. Creating a presumption in favor of criminal prosecution has dampened the need to explore whether such trials actually are suitable for the particular afflicted society. A socio-legal analysis suggests that Rwanda is precisely a place where constructed notions of what "rule of law" ought to be are supplanting the need to implement reconstructive policies that may be best for Rwanda. In particular, the populist nature of the Rwandan genocide, coupled with the vast level of victimization, suggest that a shame-based restorative approach may be more successful in promoting reconciliation, deterrence, and peace than the guilt-based retributive approach currently in vogue. This article argues that, when the law blames occurrences of genocidal evil largely on the existence of some evil people, it obscures the fact that so many people, to varying degrees of complicity, are required for this evil to result in so many deaths.     

Rebutting the Presumption: Rethinking the Common Law Principle of Marital Coercion in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century England

While many historians refer to the legal presumption of marital coercion when discussing patterns of lenient judicial treatment of women in eighteenth-and nineteenth-century English criminal trials, few have analyzed the presumption in enough detail to ascertain the impact it genuinely had. This article undertakes close legal analysis of marital coercion. It argues that the presumption was not frequently referred to in nineteenth-century Old Bailey criminal trials for receiving stolen goods because of increasing judicial strictness as to the application of the presumption. A defendant had to prove her marriage, her husband’s presence at the crime scene, and, by the nineteenth century, evidence of her husband’s actual control. The presumption may have shifted from an irrebuttable presumption to one rebuttable upon proof that any of these requirements were absent. Therefore, women’s lenient court treatment during the modern period cannot be straightforwardly attributed to frequent successful recourse to marital coercion.     

认真对待刑事推定

对我国刑事立法和司法中44个推定的实证分析表明,刑事推定在放松控方证明要求的同时又将存疑风险转移到被告人身上,背离了排除合理怀疑的证明标准,直接危及无罪推定原则所保护的价值与利益。对排除合理怀疑的证明标准不应作纯程序的解读,有必要将其与实体意义上的惩罚权相联系。对刑事推定的规制,本质上属于对国家刑罚权的限制,只有在满足相应的实体与程序条件时,才允许适用有利于控方的刑事推定。     

目的犯的法理探究

目的犯是指以超过的主观要素为罪责要素的犯罪。在我国刑法中存在目的犯的规定。从犯罪构成理论分析,目的犯之目的是犯罪规定之外的主观要素,它与规定之内的目的是有所不同的。目的犯的设立,为控方的举证增加了一定的难度,应当采用推定的方法正确地认定目的犯之目的。     

Who is Presumed Innocent of What by Whom?

The article analyses the components of the presumption of innocence and tries to clarify some of the conceptual and logical difficulties surrounding the notion of ‘innocence’ and the structure of legal presumptions. It is argued that all conceivable literal interpretations of the maxim make little or no sense, and that the presumptions form is, as such, devoid of original content: presumptions do not explain nor justify anything but are auxiliary norms which refer to the legal consequences spelled out in other norms. Therefore, the presumption of innocence can be used to express any kind of requirement and standard for the criminal process and the treatment of suspect citizens only in a tautological, albeit rhetorically forceful, way. This instrumental use of the presumption of innocence is theoretically without merit but can be practically beneficial as long as there is no developed system of fundamental rights and protections of individual freedoms in a given legal order. Finally, a functional understanding of the presumption of innocence is proposed which gives it an original, though limited field of application as a guarantee of the procedure itself, in particular of the openness of the outcome.     

试论举报答复行为的行政法属性

将举报答复行为纳入行政法制监督体系,对于保障公民的举报权十分必要。但前提是必须从理论上明确举报答复行为的法律属性。通过对行政法律行为相关理论的考察并结合我国台湾地区的研究,可见举报答复行为是行政法律行为,而非事实行为。这就意味着,举报人对举报答复行为不服可以通过行政复议和行政诉讼等获得救济。     

证明困难视阈下的事实认定与刑事推定

从法律效果上看,刑事推定实际具有实体与程序的双重功能。以“主观罪责型”推定与“证明责任型”推定为例,前者改变了构成要件中主观罪责的证明方式,后者则在此基础上,将有限的举证责任转由被告人承担,使其成为刑事推定的不利方。为在不违背罪刑法定原则与无罪推定原则的前提下,充分实现刑事推定所预想的制度目标,不但需要对其基础事实之内容予以严格限定,突出其法定性与可证明性,而且需要明确推定事实与裁判事实之间的合理界分,强调事实认定者的心证对推定结果的可能影响,并在适用前提上,仅将刑事推定作为证明困难处境下的末位选择加以使用,在作用范围方面可将其适当扩大至定罪外的部分量刑情节。在立法选择上,考虑到刑事诉讼人权保障的基本立场,刑事立法应当对刑事推定保持最低限度的容忍态度,尽量减少其创设及适用。     

Two Truths and a Lie: In re John Z. and Other Stories at the Juncture of Teen Sex and the Law

Laws governing adolescent sexuality are incoherent and chaotically enforced, and legal scholarship on the subject neither addresses nor remedies adolescents’ vulnerability in sexual encounters. To posit a meaningful relationship between the criminal law and adolescent sexual encounters, one must examine what we know about adolescent sexuality from both the academic literature and the adults who control the criminal justice response to such interactions. This article presents an in‐depth study of In re John Z., a 2003 rape prosecution involving two seventeen‐year‐olds. Using this case, I explore the implications of the prosecution by interviewing a variety of experts and analyzing the contemporary literature on sexual norms among youth. I also relate a series of interviews conducted with the major players in the prosecution. Examining this case from a variety of perspectives permits a deeper understanding of how the law regulates adolescent sexual encounters and why it fails.     

Criminal and Procedural Fairness: Some Challenges to the Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence (POI) requires all judges, juries, and other officials in a trial, to presume and treat any accused of criminal wrongdoing as innocent, until he or she is proven guilty. Although a POI lacks an authoritative definition, this overarching principle of procedural fairness is so robust and vital for the exercise of legal power in matters of criminal law that one rarely finds anyone questioning its standing. In this article I examine the rationale behind the POI from a different perspective. The basic assumption is that this procedural standard captures the tenor of a broader principle which seeks to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings as well as in criminal law doctrine. I argue that honouring a principle of fairness is not exclusively a matter of criminal procedural law but also something that is deeply rooted in other areas of criminal law doctrine. Hence: not maintaining a principle of fairness in criminal law doctrine could lead to the POI being compromised or even undermined. In the article, I draw attention to three areas in which I believe that criminal law policies threaten a principle of fairness: criminalising remote harm, doctrine of ignorance of law and inversed presumptions of guilt. My conclusion is that some solutions to so called doctrinal problems in criminal law, are questionable and their practical consequences (on a general level) are, at least partially, equal to treating an individual (in a trial) as guilty for something for which he or she ought not to be accountable. Hence: gaining the support of a POI could thus work as principle for keeping the use of criminal law moderate and in accordance with a principle of fairness.     

A Perfect Prosecution: The People of the State of New York Versus Dominique Strauss-Kahn

People v. Strauss-Kahn is an ideal lens through which to examine the operation of a criminal justice system that privileges the presumption of guilt, or, to use the words of the US Supreme Court in the 2012 decisions Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, has become “a system of pleas, not a system of trials.” It is both an excellent example of a transparent and objective invocation of the criminal sanction, and a sharp counterpoint to the vast majority of cases where law enforcement conclusions are privileged and rarely second-guessed. As analyses of wrongful convictions have sadly but inevitably demonstrated, the screening methods of police and prosecutors are fallible. Moreover, the prevalence of “tunnel vision” once the decision to charge has been made means that few cases experience the kind of post-indictment investigation and reevaluation seen in the prosecution of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Stage by stage, the Strauss-Kahn case illustrates how to counterbalance the presumption of guilt and give expression to the presumption of innocence in the pretrial period through vigilantly-invoked and enforced due process protections. Drawing from this examination, the paper will then explore how to approach this model process in the more standard cases, which typically see a fraction of the judicial, law enforcement, and defense resources afforded Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The Strauss-Kahn prosecution offers several insights, three of which will be sketched at the paper’s conclusion: a requirement that prosecutorial decision-making be subject to a reasonable doubt standard; vigilant and early enforcement of the prosecutor’s obligation to disclose information that is favorable to the accused; and finally, a requirement that a prosecutor explain in writing any decision to dismiss the felony charges in indicted felony cases, so that the factual, legal and policy bases of these decisions (numbering almost one quarter of New York’s superior court felony cases annually) can be analyzed and publicized.     

论刑法的公众认同

保持刑法与市民感觉、国民规范意识之间的一致性 ,以保持刑法的亲和力 ,并使之获得公众对刑法的认同感 ,在我国是一个比较突出的问题。刑法理论在因果关系、不作为犯、违法论、故意、共犯、责任论等问题上都充分考虑了公众认同感问题。公众对刑法的认同包括对“生活利益的重要性”和“规范有效性”的认同两个方面。作者进一步指出 ,今后我国刑法理论与实践要更多地考虑公众认同 ,就必须注意三方面的问题 :理论总体思路的调整 ;在具体问题上的理论创新和反思 ;鼓励市民介入刑事司法裁判过程。     

推定研究中的认识误区

当前有关推定的研究存在三个误区:在基础观念层面,将推定混同于个案性的事实推定或法律拟制;在效果界定层面,无视推定类型的多元性,而对其效果做单一的甚至错误的界定;在价值评价层面,对刑事推定的适用持毫无保留的肯定态度,轻率地认定刑事推定与无罪推定原则之间并无冲突.文章认为,推定与推理在约束力的来源与是否具有普遍的强制性上存在本质区别;不应以单一的标准抽象地区分推定与拟制;推定的法律效果具有多样性,界定其效果须考虑五个因素;刑事推定在威胁无罪推定所代表的基本内容与价值的同时,又侵犯到被告人的权利,还可能涉及立法权的实质合理性问题.     

Assuming that the Defendant Is Not Guilty: The Presumption of Innocence in the German System of Criminal Justice

The presumption of innocence is not a presumption but an assumption or legal fiction. It requires agents of the state to treat a suspect or defendant in the criminal process as if he were in fact innocent. The presumption of innocence has a limited field of application. It applies only to agents of the state, and only during the criminal process. The presumption of innocence as such does not determine the amount of evidence necessary to find a defendant guilty. In spite of these limits, the presumption of innocence protects suspects and defendants from specific dangers inherent in the criminal process. German procedure law is used to show these areas.     

Electronic evidence: A proposal to reform the presumption of reliability and hearsay

There is a general concern amongst judges, lawyers and legal scholars that evidence in digital format is not to be trusted, given that it can be altered and manipulated with ease. Some jurists have called for a UN Convention on matters relating to the authentication and admissibility of electronic evidence. It is debatable whether such a Convention is necessary, but guidance of an international nature might be welcome, providing that any such guidance remains guidance, and does not ossify into legal requirements that fail to take into account the dynamic and constantly developing changes in information technology. In any event, the accuracy of the presumption in England & Wales that a computer is in order at the material time is highly debatable, and it is suggested that this presumption ought to be reformed.     

论法定犯罪目的的实质——兼论犯罪目的与犯罪故意的关系

法定犯罪目的的实质是犯罪故意内的主观心理要素，它具有“法定性”，是定罪所必须查明的。法定犯罪目的贯穿于整个意志心理过程，指引行为人实施犯罪行为。对法定犯罪目的的证明必须建立在推定的基础上，以客观方面的事实加以判断。     

男性性权利的刑法保护

性权利作为公民人身权利其中的一种,应当受到法律的保护,无论是男女,都有性权利.但在我国,两性性权利的法律保护却存在一定差异.女性的性权利得到了可谓尽善尽美的关注和保护,但反观男性,刑法对男性的性权利的保护是不全面的,甚至出现了法律的真空,从而导致男性性权利无法得到刑法的有效保护.     

无罪推定原则的意义解读——一种诉讼法哲学分析

无罪推定已经成为现代国家的一项刑事诉讼法原则乃至宪法原则。无罪推定在各国立法例中虽然有肯定式和否定式两种表述方式 ,但其基本内涵却是相同的 ,即 :任何人在没有充分证据证明并由法院判决确定有罪之前 ,应作为无罪公民对待。作为一种关于正义的规范性命题 ,无罪推定原则具有内在的基本特征和诉讼程序规则 ,具有深厚的社会哲学基础和重要的政治法律意义。在建设社会主义法治国家进程中 ,无罪推定原则的进一步发展与完善 ,成为当代中国刑事诉讼法制现代化的迫切需要和时代课题。     

The Right to be Presumed Innocent

The presumption of innocence has often been understood as a doctrine that can be explained primarily by instrumental concerns relating to accurate fact-finding in the criminal trial and that has few if any implications outside the trial itself. In this paper, I argue, in contrast, that in a liberal legal order everyone has a right to be presumed innocent simply in virtue of being a person. Every person has a right not to be subjected to criminal punishment unless and until he or she has done something that is criminally wrong. Since disagreements about allegations of criminal wrongdoing are inevitable, the liberal legal order requires a process for determining whether wrongdoing has occurred. In order to preserve the right not to be punished without wrongdoing, the accused person must be presumed innocent throughout this process. The presumption of innocence is therefore as much a basic human right as, for example, the right to bodily integrity or the right to freedom of expression. Specifications of and limitations on the right should therefore be justified not primarily in terms of their instrumental effectiveness in fact-finding or crime control but in terms of the role of the criminal process in a liberal legal order. I consider some implications of this view of the presumption of innocence for the pre-trial process and for substantive criminal law. I argue that the presumption of innocence, understood as a basic human right, should condition the entire pre-trial process; it has, however, minimal implications for the definition of offences.     

经济法责任的实现与公诉权的现代转型

经济法责任有着自己独特的形态以及责任承担方式,经济法责任的实现机制主要是行政执法机制和诉讼机制,公益诉讼符合经济法责任社会性的要求,与经济法责任的实现之间具有天然的契合性。传统公诉权在我国长期被认为专指"刑事公诉权",客观上阻却了现代公诉权的拓展。随着现代法律对国家和社会公共利益保护的加强,传统公诉权制度日显单薄和不足。因此,建构现代公诉制度不仅是公诉权在具体制度中的应用和拓展,而且更加有利于强化检察机关法律监督职能,进而更好地保护国家和社会公共利益,维护社会公平正义,有效实现经济法责任。