Some reflections on the legitimacy of international trial justice

This paper addresses a number of interrelated conceptual difficulties that impact adversely on the ability of international criminal trials to deliver outcomes perceived as legitimate by victims and communities in post-conflict states. It begins by exploring the extent to which those moral justifications for punishment espoused by international courts are instrumental in marginalizing the aspirations for justice of victims and victim communities, and suggests how a greater appreciation of the sociological context of punishing international crimes can contribute towards an improved understanding of normative practice. The paper then examines the relationship between perceptions of international crime and punishment, and the broader issue of whether international criminal law provides an appropriate normative structure for giving effect to those universal humanitarian values concerned with punishment in an increasingly pluralistic world. Finally, the paper considers how the theory and practice of punishing international crimes can more effectively satisfy both local and global aspirations for post-conflict justice through enhancing the transformative capacity of international criminal trials.     

Why Should Justice Be Seen to Be Done?

A well-known maxim instructs that justice should be seen to be done. When “seen” is understood in the sense of “observed”, the maxim is easily defended: open court proceedings protect against arbitrary and partial decisions. However, when “seen” is understood in the sense of “seem,” the maxim is more puzzling, since it is not obvious why courts should concern themselves with people's perceptions that justice has been done. This article addresses this issue, with a particular focus on the social and other benefits that result when judges observe procedures that are widely regarded as fair, especially in criminal trials. The article draws on empirical studies in social psychology that show that when legal authorities treat people in ways that accord with “lay” procedural expectations, they are more likely to view the authorities as legitimate, to cooperate with them, and to obey the law out of an internalized sense of obligation. The article explores the moral significance of these empirical findings, arguing that it would be superficial to see them as a recipe for social stability. The deeper truth conveyed by the empirical research is that relating to people in ways that are widely perceived to be fair is a way for authorities to engage people's moral sentiments and to enliven their virtuous capacity to put aside considerations of self-interest so as to do what is right. This dynamic provides a sound moral foundation for courts to concern themselves with perceptions of justice.     

FACIAL PROFILING: RACE,PHYSICAL APPEARANCE,AND PUNISHMENT*

We investigate the associations among physical appearance, threat perceptions, and criminal punishment. Psychological ideas about impression formation are integrated with criminological perspectives on sentencing to generate and test unique hypotheses about the associations among defendant facial characteristics, subjective evaluations of threatening appearance, and judicial imprisonment decisions. We analyze newly collected data that link booking photos, criminal histories, and sentencing information for more than 1,100 convicted felony defendants. Our findings indicate that Black defendants are perceived to be more threatening in appearance. Other facial characteristics, such as physical attractiveness, baby‐faced appearance, facial scars, and visible tattoos, also influence perceptions of threat, as do criminal history scores. Furthermore, some physical appearance characteristics are significantly related to imprisonment decisions, even after controlling for other relevant case characteristics. These and other findings are discussed as they relate to psychological research on impression formation, criminological theories of court actor decision‐making, and sociological work on race and punishment.     

Desert,retribution, and corporate criminality

The role of commensurate deserts in the punishment of corporations and their agents has received little attention to date. Those who have written on desert and corporate crime dismiss it on the grounds that retributive rationales, which incorporate notions of desert, are not applicable to corporate offenses and because desert, with its focus on the moral opprobrium attached to criminal conduct, is not fitting for offenses which are regulatory and thus “morally neutral.” This essay argues that although retribution is a viable justification for corporate punishments, it need not be the only or even the primary justification for punishment for desert to be applicable in the distribution of corporate sanctions. It also questions the position of moral neutrality, citing empirical evidence of the public's perceptions of the seriousness of corporate criminal activity.     

Punishment, Socially Deprived Offenders, and Democratic Community

The idea that victims of social injustice who commit crimes ought not to be subject to punishment has attracted serious attention in recent legal and political philosophy. R. A. Duff has argued, for example, a states that perpetrates social injustice lacks the standing to punish victims of such injustice who commit crimes. A crucial premiss in his argument concerns the fact that when courts in liberal society mete out legitimate criminal punishments, they are conceived as acting in the name of all citizens—on behalf of the whole political community. Resisting this premiss, Peter Chau has suggested that courts ought to be conceived as acting only in the name of “just citizens”: citizens who cannot be plausibly seen as having contributed to distributive injustice. When conceived in this way, Chau argues, courts can no longer plausibly be regarded as lacking standing to punish. This article uses the debate between Duff and Chau to explain why the question of whether to punish socially deprived offenders can only be answered adequately when connected to broader concerns of democratic theory. Specifically, it argues that Chau’s proposal is not available within the context of the kind of political community upon which (Duff rightly believes) a system of liberal criminal law depends for its justification and maintenance: a community in which citizens see the law as embodying shared norms whose specific demands they disagree about. State officials are morally permitted to see themselves as acting on behalf of a subset of the citizenry, I argue, only in circumstances of democratic crisis: circumstances in which a moral community can no longer be plausibly said to exist.     

Right,Crime, and Court: Toward a Unifying Political Conception of International Law

It is widely acknowledged that human rights law (hereafter, HRL) and international criminal law (hereafter, ICL) share core normative features. Yet, the literature has not yet reconstructed this underlying basis in a systematic way. In this contribution, I lay down the basis of such an account. I first identify a similar tension between a “moral” and a “political” approach to the normative foundations of those norms and to the legitimate role of international courts (hereafter, ICs) and tribunals adjudicating those norms. With a view to bring the debate forward, I then turn to the practices of HRL and international criminal law (hereafter, ICL) to examine which of those approaches best illuminates some salient aspects of the adjudication of ICs. Finally, I argue that the political approach best explains the practice. While each preserves a distinct role, HRL and ICL both establish the basic conditions for the primary subject of international law (HRL and ICL, for the purpose of this article), namely the state, to legitimately govern its own subjects constructed as free and equal moral agents.     

夫妻一方对他方自杀而“见死不救”之刑事责任新探——从“宋福祥故意杀人案”之判决理由谈起

"罪刑法定原则"与"罪刑相适应原则"已经成为我国刑法的基本原则。"宋福祥故意杀人案"之判决理由欠缺合理性与合法性,夫妻一方对他方自杀而"见死不救"的不应当承担刑事责任。在刑事审判中,法官应"以事实为根据,以法律为准绳",以作出正当的个案裁判为己任,在审判中真正做到符合"罪刑法定原则"与"罪刑相适应原则",才能切实保障公民的合法权益,维护社会的和谐稳定,也才能真正实现依法治国。     

Is the Process the Only Punishment?: Racial–Ethnic Disparities in Lower-Level Courts

Although misdemeanors make up the bulk of criminal cases in the United States, the majority of research on court decision-making examines felony sentencing. In contrast to felony courts, lower-level courts are characterized by higher case volumes and increased reliance on informal sanctions, which may contribute to greater racial–ethnic disparities. To assess this possibility, we examine pretrial detention and case processing outcomes for misdemeanants in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Utilizing temporal (detention time) and monetary (bond amount) measures of pretrial detention, we assess whether and to what extent there are racial–ethnic disparities in formal and informal sanctions facing misdemeanants. Results indicate that black defendants, especially black Latinx defendants, face greater informal sanctions (longer detention and higher bond amounts), are more likely to be convicted, and experience more severe formal sanctions than do white non-Latinx defendants. These findings complicate Feeley's (1979) argument about lower-level cases, revealing that black defendants are punished by both the court process and formal sanctions. In this way, “the process is the punishment” for lower-level white and nonwhite defendants, while the punishment is also the punishment for black defendants.     

Punishment in Indian Country: Ironies of Federal Punishment of Native Americans

Native Americans are US citizens, but they are also tribal nationals subject to complex and unique criminal jurisdiction arrangements over Indian lands. Tribal nations typically have tribal court jurisdiction over less serious crimes, but for serious crimes the federal justice system often supersedes tribal authority, exposing Native Americans to more severe punishments. In addition, recent federal programs have attempted to foster greater tribal/federal criminal justice coupling. Yet, examinations of criminal punishment of Native Americans are few, and most are outdated and/or of very limited generalizability. We examine the punishment of Native American defendants in federal court, focusing on 28 federal districts with substantial Indian presence. Using recent US Sentencing Commission data, as well as contextual data from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal courts, we focus on differences in the federal sentencing of Native American defendants, and how these differences are conditioned by indicators of tribal-federal criminal justice coupling.     

刑罚的正当性探究——从权利出发

刑罚权配置和运作的正当性,应从个体性权利出发进行分析和论证。刑罚的适用即意味着自然人或者单位重大权利的剥夺或者限制,而这类权利应否被剥夺或者限制以及在何种程度上被剥夺或者限制,应通过这类权利的性质来认识和分析。在犯罪设置、刑罚制度方面,都应从个体性权利视角来检验制度、规范和解释结论的正当性。     

In Search of Legitimacy: Toward An Empirical Analysis

Legitimacy is a much used concept in the social sciences. However, the absence of precise operational meaning has prompted questions about its utility as an explanation of compliance with social norms. Most recently, Alan Hyde has argued that legitimacy cannot be disentangled from other explanations of compliance such as coercion and self-interest and should, therefore, be abandoned. However, institutional, attitudinal, and behavioral dimensions of legitimacy can be operationalized. As part of our research on small claims courts we examined variations in institutional processes and legitimacy, gathered data on levels of voluntary compliance, and questioned defendants about their reasons for paying claims against them. We conclude that institutional legitimacy is related to voluntary compliance, and that the "language of obligation" is an important part of normal discourse. Operational meanings for legitimacy are available and empirical research about legitimacy should be a prominent part of the social science research agenda.     

刑事判决的合法性诉求

在现代社会中,对刑事案件的审理和裁判是审判机关所垄断的一项重要活动,因此刑事审判权在本质上是一种国家权力,社会控制是这种国家权力的一种基本功能.相应地,刑事判决也便成为社会控制的重要手段.而这种社会控制机制的运作效果,在很大程度上不是决定于刑事判决强制力的程度,而是取决于刑事判决能否得到社会公众(包括当事人等)的认同和服从.因此,刑事判决必须获得合法性.     

Criminalization,Legitimacy, and Welfare

A standard view about criminal law distinguishes between two kinds of offenses, “mala in se” and “mala prohibita.” This view also corresponds to a distinction between two bases for criminalization: certain acts should be criminalized because they are moral wrongs; other acts may be criminalized for the sake of promoting overall welfare. This paper aims to show two things: first, that allowing for criminalization for the sake of promoting welfare renders the category of wrongfulness crimes largely redundant. Second, and more importantly, accepting welfare as a legitimate ground for criminalization implies a certain view about legitimate state action, which makes criminalization for wrongfulness more difficult to justify. If I am right, the view that keeps the two categories of criminalization as largely separate is untenable. I conclude with some remarks about the advantages of welfare (and not wrongfulness) as the basis for criminalization.     

论环境法的正当性的依据

判断和论证环境法的正当性有五项依据。科学依据是判断环境法正当性的＂钢规铁律＂,具有正当性的环境法律应该遵循自然生态规律;信仰和伦理道德是为法律提供正当性的基本方式,衡量法律是否正当的最终标准是正义,而正义基本上是一个信仰、伦理道德问题;利益是衡量法律正当性的常衡器,将利益作为判断法律正当性的依据,是指该立法是否增加了正当的、积极的利益,是否限制了不正当的、消极的利益,对增加的和限制的利益的分配是否公平;将合法律性作为论证环境资源法正当性的一个依据,主要指其符合宪法、法统和环境基本法律;衡量制定的法律是否正当、有效,主要取决于该立法过程是否切实遵循了正当程序,判断立法程序正当性的实际标准,是看是否重视立法的民主程序和公众参与。     

DEVELOPMENT AND FRACTURE OF A DISCIPLINE: LEGACIES OF THE SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY AT BERKELEY

In the early twentieth century, the University of California—Berkeley opened its doors to police professionals for instruction in “police science.” This program ultimately developed into the full‐fledged School of Criminology, whose graduates helped shape American criminology and criminal justice until well into the 1970s. Scholarship at the School of Criminology eventually fractured into three distinct traditions: “Administrative criminology” applied scientific methods in pursuit of refining law enforcement practices, “law and society” coupled legal scholarship with social scientific methods, and “radical criminology” combined Marxist critiques of the state with community activism. Those scientific traditions relied on competing epistemic premises and normative aspirations, and they drew legitimacy from different sources. Drawing on oral histories and archival data permits a neo‐institutional analysis of how each of these criminological traditions emerged, acquired stability, and subsided. The Berkeley School of Criminology provides fertile ground to examine trends in the development of criminal justice as a profession, criminology as a discipline and its place in elite universities, the uncoupling of criminology from law and society scholarship, and criminal justice policy's disenchantment with the academy. These legacies highlight how the development of modern criminology and the professionalization of American law enforcement find precedent in events that originate at Berkeley.     

Spatial patterns of homicide and political legitimacy in Europe*

Political legitimacy, or a state's “right to rule,” has been a concern for philosophers, political scientists, and sociologists for centuries. This paper examines the relationship between European states' level of political legitimacy and violence, as represented by their homicide rate. It is theorized that political illegitimacy affects homicide through deteriorating social institutions of control, violating the rules of reciprocity between the state and citizens, and/or creating an environment of “virtual statelessness” that encourages methods of “self-help.” Focusing on the modernized societies of Europe, where legitimacy may be more important to maintaining order, the present study reveals two important findings: political legitimate states have significantly lower levels of homicide, and high and low homicide rates in Europe are significantly clustered among post-Soviet states (high) and Western Europe (low).     

Legitimacy in a Postcolonial Legal System: Public Perception of Procedural Justice and Moral Alignment Toward the Courts in Hong Kong

Legitimacy is said to be comprised of two underlying constructs: obligation to obey and moral alignment. However, legitimacy studies are mainly derived from contexts where the legal system has evolved naturally and is said to reflect the values of society. There is a paucity of research measuring public perceptions of legitimacy in postcolonial settings such as Hong Kong where the legal system was initially transplanted and many of its values may not reflect those of the local population. Procedural justice has been asserted to be a primary antecedent by which legal authorities improve their legitimacy and moral alignment. This study examines whether procedural justice is positively associated with legitimacy and moral alignment with the courts. Moreover, this study tests whether legitimacy is positively associated with cooperation with the courts. Using a random survey of the Hong Kong general population, both questions are answered in the affirmative. Implications are discussed.     

秦及汉初逃亡犯罪的刑罚适用和处理程序

秦及汉初律令对逃亡犯罪的规定繁复而成体系。逃亡大体可分为一般逃亡和犯罪后逃亡二类。在刑罚适用上,一般逃亡的刑罚因逃亡者身份不同而各异,犯罪逃亡的刑罚是以本罪刑罚为基础,叠加亡罪刑罚后加以确定。在处理程序上,吏、民的一般逃亡不导致审判和追缉程序,刑徒或特别身份人逃亡的,区分亡罪刑罚轻重,分别适用审判并通缉的“论,命之”程序和审判并命令其出现、领受刑罚的“论,令出、会之”程序。犯罪逃亡的,以本罪刑罚为基准,分别适用“论,命之”和“论,令出、会之”程序,后一程序中未按规定领受刑罚的,以刑罚已执行时逃亡来论断其刑。在不同类型逃亡犯罪及司法程序的不同阶段自出的,有处以笞刑、本罪之刑减一等或本罪之刑叠加亡罪之刑后总减一等等不同减刑效果。     

Legitimacy in corrections

Research Summary
To extend research on legitimacy to the correctional system, we study a sample of 202 adult inmates randomly assigned to serve their 6-month sentence at one of two institutions—a traditional prison or a military-style correctional boot camp. Findings show that perceptions of justice system legitimacy changed during the course of incarceration, that the prison (but not the boot camp) proved delegitimizing, and that certain regime characteristics explained why.
Policy Implications
Across academic disciplines, studies continue to link compliance with perceived legitimacy. Compliance with the law, for instance, is related closely to the legitimacy of the justice system and its actors. These findings suggest implementing legitimacy-building policies such as procedurally fair treatment and decision making by police officers and judges. This article, by finding legitimacy to be malleable even at the final stage of the justice process, proposes the efficacy of similar policies in the correctional system. As research from England and Wales has shown, legitimizing strategies in this context could increase compliance both during and after incarceration.     

关于中国刑法学理论体系起点问题的思考

科学、理性的理论体系应当是一种体系性、逻辑性思考的结果。在体系性思考中,思考和选择一个恰当的体系起点,是理论体系科学化和理性化的基础性工作。传统的以社会危害性为起点的理论体系已经不能很好地符合中国法治的发展要求和刑法学体系发展的需要,而以刑罚目的为起点的刑法学体系强调刑法的理性运作和规范性特征,其基本逻辑关系表现为:通过证明刑罚目的的正当性和合理性来证明刑罚的正当性和合理性;通过证明刑罚的正当性和合理性来证明规定犯罪的正当性和合理性。在这个逻辑结构中,刑罚目的的选择是刑法学体系的核心。