检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:蒋志如 杨炳南 JIANG Zhiru;YANG Bingnan(Law School,Lanzhou University,Lanzhou,Gansu,China 730000)
出 处:《内蒙古师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2020年第2期63-68,74,共7页Journal of Inner Mongolia Normal University:Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition
摘 要:刑事和解制度(程序)自2012年以来已正式成为司法实践中的基本组成部分,但其运行效果并不好。我们应当对其展开深入审视,一个重要的视角即正确认识、界定中国刑事和解制度(程序)的内涵与外延。在本文,我们的考察视角不是直接界定,而是通过将其放置在西方恢复性司法视野下审视,以获得两者之内在区别,进而从另一个角度看两者间的区别与联系间接规定了中国刑事和解制度(程序)的运行边界。Criminal reconciliation system(procedure) has officially become a basic part of judicial practice since 2012, but its operation effect is not good. A thorough review of it from an important perspective is needed to understand correctly and define the connotation and extension of China’s criminal reconciliation system(procedure). It is examined in this paper not by giving direct definition but by placing it under the perspective of western restorative justice so as to obtain the internal differences between the two. The operating boundary of China’s criminal reconciliation system(procedure) is then indirectly drawn through the analysis of the distinction and link of the two systems mentioned.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.49