从抓捕的滥用看法定侦查到案措施的缺陷

相对于法定的传唤、拘传、拘留、逮捕等侦查到案措施而言,非法定的口头传唤、留置、抓捕等侦查措施在实际公安工作中使用得更为广泛。审批程序耗时和到案期限紧张造成法定到案措施适用率低下。与之相比,非法定侦查措施具有适用条件灵活、使用机制简便的优点,但也有权力滥用、不当限制权利的倾向。本着坚持犯罪控制与人权保障的原则,法定侦查到案措施的完善应当整合二者的优势,结合公安工作实际,建立一个协调一致、适用灵活的到案措施体系。     

新《刑事诉讼法》背景下侦查到案制度实施问题研究

为了提高侦查效果与加强人权保障,修改后的《刑事诉讼法》新增了口头传唤措施,并延长了传唤、拘传期限。对两个经济水平差异较大的地区的考察发现,新法实施以来,口头传唤和留置适用率很高,而拘传或传唤很少适用,这与其被扩张性适用和强制性适用直接相关,而到案后的羁留期间被侦查机关任意控制,虽能满足侦查需要,却极易侵犯犯罪嫌疑人人身自由。无论是根植于侦查实践的合理性需要,还是域外立法或司法的成熟经验,均映射出我国现行侦查到案制度中权力配置的内在矛盾——无证到案手段的不足与临时性羁留权力的过度。长远地看,解决这一矛盾需要在立法层面进行制度重构,最终目标是建立以无证到案措施为主的到案措施体系,以及到案后的期间控制与司法审查制度。     

侦查到案：查证功能与期限配置

对三个地区公安机关的考察发现,到案阶段具有强大的查证功能.这表现在:一方面,到案阶段的查证活动是形成案件证据体系的重要基础.另一方面,到案阶段的查证活动能够在相当程度上决定侦查和诉讼的方向.然而,法定的到案期限却不能充分适应这一功能,从而导致传唤、拘传等法定措施的适用率很低,刑事诉讼法没有规定的留置、口头传唤、抓捕等措施反而被大量使用.解决这一问题的关键是适当扩展到案期限,并通过审批程序予以合理限制.     

论我国侦查强制到案措施体系的完善

当前公安司法实践中,我国刑事强制到案措施包括传唤、拘传、拘留、逮捕和留置盘问五种。无论立法还是实践上这些措施都存在很多问题。主要问题是没有解决好侦查需要与到案措施体系的合理供给之间的矛盾,而实践中的突出问题则是法外到案措施的滥用现象。解决上述问题的关键在于本着坚持犯罪控制与人权保障的原则,结合公安工作实际,通过立法建立一个逻辑严密、协调一致,能充分应对各类案件特点和证据条件的强制到案措施体系,使之能够适应各种具体的案件情况,满足合理的侦查需要。同时,明确规定滥用强制到案措施的法律后果,使侦查机关和侦查人员在选择适用各种强制到案措施时更加理性、谨慎。     

规避与替代——搜查运行机制的实证考察

在中国的侦查实践中,法定的有证与无证搜查运用有限。公安机关更多通过到案检查、场所检查等实质性搜查行为与证据提取方式来规避和替代搜查。从犯罪控制与保障人权平衡的角度看,对搜查制度的改革应调整无证搜查的适用条件,建立针对无证搜查的事后审查机制,并完善有证搜查制度。     

侦查到案制度之理论建构——从阶段论角度的展开

对于侦查到案制度,无论是个别化研究还是整体性研究,均将研究对象限定为到案措施本身,从而在一种辅助意义上理解到案措施的功能。阶段论研究更具有理论价值和实践意义。我国的侦查到案是侦查程序的"中间阶段",现代法治国家则多为"终结阶段"。它们的共同特征是,到案阶段以确认或排除侦查对象的犯罪嫌疑为基本功能,而到案功能的实现以短暂限制嫌疑人的人身自由为基本手段。从阶段论角度,侦查到案制度包括到案措施制度、到案羁留制度和案件处理制度。     

论大学生犯罪起诉犹豫制度之构建

对大学生犯罪适用起诉犹豫制度不仅有利于大学生犯罪的预防及保护大学生犯罪嫌疑人早日回归社会;也有利于节约司法资源,提高诉讼效率,是针对大学生特有的生理、心理等特点而采取的合理措施。本文认为我国应明确大学生犯罪适用起诉犹豫制度的罪刑条件、适用程序、考察措施与考察期限等,构建一套适用大学生犯罪的起诉犹豫制度。     

走私犯罪侦查启动程序研究

当前在走私犯罪侦查启动过程中,存在着到案措施难以落实、搜查功能难以发挥、案件经营难以开展、技侦手段难以运用等难点。究其原因就在于我国包括缉私侦查在内的侦查工作采用的是程序启动型模式,同时由于走私犯罪和缉私工作本身所具有的特点,使得缉私侦查启动工作更易陷入困境。为适应打击走私犯罪的需要,应当将程序启动型转为随机启动型侦查模式,同时对相关的配套措施予以完善。     

传唤到案行为的实质界定

传唤作为一种侦查措施，目前，在刑事侦查中广泛运用。但笔者在办案实践中发现，一些地方的公安机关在刑事侦查中存在着传唤适用不规范．传唤措施不当适用等问题。传唤的不规范、不当适用，不仅关乎刑事程序，影响执法的规范和严肃，而且涉及行为性质的认定。影响对犯罪嫌疑人的刑罚。     

试论诱惑侦查在贿赂犯罪中的适用

诱惑侦查作为一种特殊的侦查措施,已经逐步开始运用于实践中,但在现行法律上缺乏依据。而诱惑侦查能否适用于贿赂犯罪,理论界存在争议。由于贿赂犯罪具有隐蔽性强、无明显被害人等特点,诱惑侦查的适用具有较大效益,具有适用的必要性和可能性,但需从实体和程序上建立起完备的制度。     

Taking crime out of crime business

It is one thing to assert that conventional market analysis is critically useful in understanding criminal enterprise. It is more challenging to suggest that corrupt and compromised legal regulation interacts with other critical market variables to maximise market advantage for crime business in a similar manner to legitimate regulatory forces in their protection and enhancement of legitimate business enterprise. The central argument of this paper is that crime business mirrors other business forms when considered in terms of critical market variables, and that in particular regulatory forces when inverted from their original purposes can influence market conditions in the same ways desired from the legitimate regulatory form. The main research direction deriving from the analysis of regulatory influences over specific criminal enterprises is how do certain critical market forces essentially facilitate criminal enterprise as a market phenomenon. This paper suggests how through comparatively analysing nominated critical market forces in the context of lucrative and recurrent criminal enterprises, common business decision-making may be predicted and thereby controlled beyond a law enforcement paradigm. In fact, the paper argues that when perverted law enforcement regulation operates as an inter-connecting market characteristic then it can have a similar influence over illegitimate enterprise that law enforcement may provide legitimate business.By establishing a richer and more enterprise-oriented understanding of crucial market variables, it becomes possible to refine control strategies at critical entry and exit points in the operation of clandestine crime businesses. The paper will challenge a comparative theorising of what makes crime business a good business, and how normative distinctions between illegitimate markets are made less convincing when positioned against an analysis of the interaction of critical market variables.     

Questionable transactions as grounds for legalization: Immigration, illegality, and law

By differentiating between legal and illegal movements, transactions, andpersons, legal prohibitions and law enforcement practices create boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate social spheres. Individuals who are located in an illegitimate domain survive at least in part through unauthorized and quasi-illegal practices. The boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate social domains are, however, permeable, making it possible for individuals who have at one time been deemed illegal to at another time claim legitimacy. This paper examines one context in which such claims are made: deportation hearings in a U.S. immigration court. During deportation hearings, undocumented immigrants' prior involvement in questionable transactions can be deemed an indication of poor moral character or of non-credibility. At the same time, such involvement can be overlooked or reinterpreted in ways that permit an undocumented immigrant to pass from illegality to legality. Close attention to such ``readings' or interpretations reveals that there is a sense in which the proceedings that award and deny legal status are as questionable as other immigration-related transactions.     

General Strain Theory and Racial Insurgency: Assessing the Role of Legitimate Coping

While General Strain Theory (GST) recognizes the broad range of legitimate and illegitimate coping behaviors people adopt in reaction to strain, tests of the theory focus almost exclusively on criminal coping. We advance the theory by articulating the role of legitimate coping in the GST process. We test the theory’s assumptions that strain increases both legitimate and illegitimate coping and that negative emotions more strongly increase illegitimate coping. We also draw on recent work by Agnew and expect that these coping strategies co-occur rather than being mutually exclusive. We investigate these hypotheses in relation to black insurgency, specifically nonviolent civil-rights protest (legitimate coping) and rioting (illegitimate coping). Using data from a large 1968 survey of blacks, multivariate findings are consistent with the theory’s expectations regarding the role of legitimate coping. More broadly, our results echo calls to extend the boundaries of the discipline beyond traditional conceptualizations of “crime.”     

Criminological theory and organizational crime

To understand the circumstances that lead to organizational crime, we need to consider the insights of strain theories on the distribution of legitimate and illegitimate opportunities, of labeling theory on the way stigmatization can foster criminal subculture formation, of subcultural theory as applied to organized business subcultures of resistance to regulation, and of control theory. It is contended that an integration of these perspectives into a theory of organizational crime is possible; a continuity can be established with the mainstream traditions of criminological theory in the domain of organizational crime. Thirteen propositions are advanced as a basis for building such an integrated theory. The key to this attempt as synthesis is the notion of differential shaming—the shaming from organizational cultures of compliance versus the shaming from subcultures of resistance to regulatory law.     

对过度维权行为的刑法评价

过度维权行为从性质上讲,属于行使权利范畴。行使权利通常是不会构成犯罪的。但如果在行使权利过程中,超出了不得损害他人合法利益和社会利益这一边界时,其行为已不是行使权利而是滥用权利行为,滥用权利可以构成犯罪。对过度维权行为的刑法评价：一是行为人所主张权利超出权利范围,但在手段合法的场合,属于行使权利行为,不构成犯罪;二是行为人所主张的权利没有超出权利范围,但在手段不合法的场合,可能构成财产罪以外的其他犯罪;三是行为人所主张的权利超出权利范围,且在手段非法的场合,则构成敲诈勒索罪。     

The Legitimacy of Judicial Responses to Moral Panic: Perceived vs. Normative Legitimacy

In some instances, the criminal justice system is affected by a moral panic; that is, by an exaggerated social reaction to an assumed threat to moral values. When influenced by moral panic, courts demonize defendants and aggravate punishments. Are such responses legitimate? This article argues that by contrast to legitimate condemnation of criminal conduct, demonizing defendants ought never be legitimate. The legitimacy of aggravating punishment requires distinguishing between the sociological concept of legitimacy (“perceived legitimacy”) and the moral concept (“normative legitimacy”). Aggravation of punishment in response to moral panic might be perceived as legitimate since it expresses public perceptions about the severity of the threat to a social value, even when these perceptions are exaggerated; however, punishments that are proportionate to such a perceived, exaggerated, threat to a social value are unjust and unfair, and therefore are normatively illegitimate. When the panic subsides, courts tend to return to lower levels of punishment. The subsidence of the panic enables one to realize that a gap between perceived and normative legitimacy has been created during the panic. Should and can the gap be bridged retroactively in order to gain full legitimacy? One way to bridge the gap is to grant clemency that will reduce the punishment of defendants whose sentences were exaggerated unduly during the panic. The article proposes a more radical mechanism that allows for sentence re-evaluation in cases of moral panic.     

Controlling violence: criminal justice, society, and lessons from the US

Based on a lecture to policy makers in Brazil, this essay explores lessons that developing nations can learn from US experiences in the fight against violence and crime. A brief summary of trends in crime, criminal justice policy, and criminal punishment in the US over the past four decades is followed by an evaluation of the dominant imprisonment strategy of the 1970s through 1990s. It is argued that benefits of the massive increase in criminal punishment have been few and that costs have been excessive in terms of material, human, and social capital. Nonetheless, the American experience provides inspiration when we consider the broader societal potential for social organization: values and norms; self-interest and involvement in legitimate exchange networks; mobilization of social capital; and diverse mechanisms of social control. These concepts are explained, and specific institutions and mechanisms to control violence and crime are explored under each of them. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

西方自由与权利的合法性来源与存在样态——从古典到现代的历史考察

西方自由与权利的合法性来源一般有两种：一种是外在于国家权力，国家权力只能认可而不能创制；一种是内在于国家权力，是由国家权力创制和授予的。西方自由与权利的存在样态一般也有两种，一种是身份、等级、特权式的自由与权利；一种是普及化的、为大多民众普遍拥有的基本自由与权利。西方很早就产生了合法性来源外在于国家的自由与权利的情况，但这种自由与权利多是一种身份、等级、特权式的自由和权利。近代英美两国自由与权利的现代化成功转型，源于将这种身份、等级、特权式的自由与权利向更广大的社会阶层普及和开放，使得这种自由与权利为社会更多民众所普遍共享，进而推动了保障这种基本自由与权利的宪政机制的发展；而近代法国自由与权利的现代化转型失败，源于没有将这种身份、等级、特权式的自由与权利向更广大的社会阶层普及和开放，自由与权利没有摆脱狭隘的特权性和身份性限制，没有为社会广大阶层所普遍共享，进而也就无法推动保障这种基本自由与权利的宪政机制的发展。     

Metadata Retention as a Means of Combatting Terrorism and Organised Crime: A Perspective from Australia

On October 13, 2015, new laws came into force in Australia requiring telecommunications service providers to retain and store their ‘metadata’ for 2 years so that it remains available for analysis by anti-terrorism strategists and organised crime fighters. But there are ongoing issues associated with this legislative approach, including the threats to privacy thereby, and concerns that the retention system can be circumvented entirely. This paper will outline the legal and criminological questions that need to be explored in order to help policymakers work through these issues so that an appropriate balance can be struck between forestalling crime and terrorism using all available electronic means, and not unduly curtailing the legitimate rights to privacy that citizens in modern democracies currently expect to enjoy.     

论受贿罪中的“为他人谋取利益”

"为他人谋取利益"旨在说明国家工作人员收受的财物与其职务之间具有对价关系;"为他人谋取利益"中的"他人"包括行贿人、行贿人所指示的第三人以及单位,"利益"包含正当利益与不正当利益;将"为他人谋取利益"限定为客观上实施了谋取利益的具体职务行为或者解释为主观要件要素,不具有合理性;"为他人谋取利益"的最低要求是许诺为他人谋取利益;事先没有约定,在为他人谋取利益之后收受作为职务行为的不正当报酬的财物的,成立受贿罪;"为他人谋取利益"的行为构成其他犯罪的,除刑法有特别规定的以外,应当与受贿罪实行并罚。