第一篇：人大法学导师介绍：何家弘教授
凯程考研，为学员服务，为学生引路！
人大法学导师介绍：何家弘教授
一、简介
何家弘，北京人，未及成年便到“北大荒”务农，当过拖拉机手、司务长、子弟小学教师等；“返城”后当过建筑工人；在爱情的推动下考取大学，随意地选择了法学专业，然后便一路求学，直至在美国西北大学获得法学博士学位（SJD，1993）；现任中国人民大学法学院教授、证据学研究所所长，享受国务院颁发的政府特殊津贴；曾经在业余时间从事过侦查员、鉴定人、辩护律师、检察官、仲裁员、电视台嘉宾等工作，如中央电视台社会与法频道“周末论法”节目的嘉宾主持人（2005-2006）和最高人民检察院渎职侵权检察厅副厅长（2006-2008）；走访过欧美亚的二十多个国家；获得过若干奖项，如国家级的“留学回国人员成就奖”（2003）、“中国人民大学十大教学标兵”（2005）、人民大学“公正杯”足球赛的“最佳射手奖”（1992）以及级别较低的业余羽毛球比赛的金银铜牌；业余时间撰写了五部犯罪悬疑小说，其中的《血之罪》于2007年被英国《卫报》推荐为“亚洲十大犯罪小说”，已经出版了法文版和意大利文版，并在台湾地区出版了中文繁体字版，将于2011年出版英文版和西班牙文版，凯程考研，为学员服务，为学生引路！
9、“刑事错案实证研究”，美国福特基金会项目（已完成）
10、“证据的审查与认定制度研究”，国家社科基金项目（已完成）
五、科研成果
（一）著作类（主编或独著）
（1）《中美检察制度比较研究》（英文）中国检察出版社（1995）（2）《刑事审判认证指南》法律出版社（2002）
（3）《刑事证据制度改革研究》法律出版社（2003）（4）《刑事司法大趋势》中国检察出版社（2005）
（5）《中国的陪审制度向何处去》中国政法大学出版社（2006）（6）《检察制度比较研究》中国检察出版社（2008）
（7）《从应然到实然——证据法学探究》中国法制出版社（2008）（8）《从相似到同一——犯罪侦查研究》中国法制出版社（2008）（9）《从它山到本土——刑事司法考究》中国法制出版社（2008）（10）《从观察到思考——外国要案评析》中国法制出版社（2008）（11）《从通俗到深奥——法治文化杂论》中国法制出版社（2008）（12）《证据的语言——法学新思维录》公安大学出版社（2009）（13）《扭曲的灵魂——外国犯罪实证》公安大学出版社（2009）（14）《犯罪的密码——科学探案纪实》公安大学出版社（2009）（15）《虚拟的真实——证据学讲堂录》公安大学出版社（2009）（16）《换位的视角——多媒体对话录》公安大学出版社（2009）
（17）《证据的审查认定规则——示例与释义》人民法院出版社（2009）（18）《简明证据法学》（凯程考研，为学员服务，为学生引路！
（16）“证据法功能之探讨”，《法商研究》2008年
第二篇：人大财政金融学院导师介绍：庞红教授
凯程考研，为学员服务，为学生引路！
人大财政金融学院导师介绍：庞红教授
教师档案：庞红
性别女职称教授
职务电子邮件panghong@ruc.edu.cn 工作时间1974年4月接待日 教育背景中央财经大学金融学
工作经历1977年1月至1978年9月人民日报社工作
1978年9月至1982年7月中央财经大学工作（期间曾任教员、校团委书记、校青年工作部副部长、校学生处副处长、国际金融教研室副主任）
1996年12月至今中国人民大学财政金融学院工作（教员、金融系支部书记、院长助理）
学术和社会兼职国家科学技术部技术经纪人“顾问” 福建泉州市生产力促进中心专家顾问
讲授课程
教学成果和荣誉1988年北京至先进思想工作者 1999年人民大学校级优秀班主任 2000年人民大学十大教学标兵优秀奖 2001年人民大学十大教学标兵 2003年宝钢教育基金将
2004年人民大学十大标兵班主任
科研方向国际金融 国际结算 银行会计 商业银行
代表性学术成果著作：
1999，《国际结算》，人大出版社
1999，《商业银行业务与经营》，人大出版社
1999，《全国技术经济人资格培训教材》，企业管理出版社 2000，《国际金融》，人大出版社
2001，《金融市场学教材》（电子版）华夏大地教育网 2003，《金融学》，人大出版社 论文：
2003，《从SARS看金融风险管理》，《经济日报》
凯程考研，为学员服务，为学生引路！
2002，《美国金融体系中的支付系统》，《金融时报》
第三篇：人大法学考研之法制史专业导师系统介绍
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
人大法学考研之法制史专业导师系统介绍
前言：法学专业的导师数量、科研成果和研究方向不仅体现了法学院师资教学水平、研究能力，而且是考生根据自身兴趣爱好确定具体专业及其选择自己导师的参考依据。更为重要的是，学院老师的背景、教授课程、研究方向、最新研究成果也是考生复习中提炼考点、抓取重点以及把握理论动态和前沿的一种综合性分析判断参考信息。基于以上原因，下文对人大法学考研中的法制史专业的导师进行了全面系统介绍，以便于大家对法制史专业的导师有全面认识，进而帮助自己报考和复习。
目前，法制史专业共计有8位老师，其中教授5人、副教授2人、讲师1人，法制史教研室主任为赵晓耕，学科主导人也为赵晓耕。
法学考研选凯程，凯程2014年考取人大法学院8人，再创新高，其中1人是跨专业，凯程有全面的法学集训营保录班，对学生进行高三式全封闭全日制培训，加上凯程对法学考研成功三级法的运用，创造了法学考研必然成功的路径。在14押题中，凯程人大法学押题直接命中40%考点，其他考点间接全部命中。
赵晓耕教授
一、简介
赵晓耕，男，法制史教研室主任、中国人民大学法律文化研究中心副主任。1984年获中国人民大学法学学士学位，1987年获中国人民大学法学硕士学位，1998年获中国人民大学法学博士学位；先后任中国人民大学法学院讲师（1989年），副教授（1994年），教授（2001年）。社会兼职：
第页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
中国法律史学会常务理事，中国法律史学会老庄与法律文化分会副会长，儒学与中国法律文化研究会理事，中国监狱学会监狱史学专业委员会理事等。荣誉奖励：
1．副主编《中国法制史》，中国人民大学出版社，2000年（2002年教育部全国普通高等学校优秀教材一等奖）；
2．参编《中华人民共和国法制史（四、五章）》，黑龙江人民出版社1997年，获国家新闻出版署“五个一工程”奖，修订本获国家新闻出版署“国家图书奖提名奖”；
二、开设课程
中国法律史、比较法律文化、台湾法
三、研究领域
中国法律史、比较法律文化、台湾法
四、主持和参与的课题
1．主持，1999年，教育部社科基金项目，《宋至明清的法律与经济》，2．主持，2005年，最高人民检察院检查理论研究课题，《新中国检察制度的形成和发展》 3．主持，2005年，教育部社科基金项目，《新中国民法典起草历程回顾》 4．参与，国土资源部课题《中国历代土地资源法制研究》
5．参与，教育部人文社会科学重大攻关项目《中国传统法律文化研究》
五、主要科研成果
第页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
著作：
1．《宋代法制研究》,中国政法大学出版社，1994年；
2．主编《中国古代土地法制述略》，中国和平出版社，1996年（教育部博士点“九五”规划项目）；
3．主编《台湾地区“法律”概论》，中国国际广播出版社，1997年； 4．专著《韩非子》，香港中华书局，2000年；
5．专著《宋代官商及其法律调整》，中国人民大学出版社，2001年；
6．独著，现代远程教育系列教材《中国法制史》，中国人民大学出版社，2004年； 7．《中华监察大典》，本人点校整理约60000字，中国政法大学出版社，1994年8月； 8．主编《中国法制史教学案例》，北京大学出版社出版社，2006年 9．主编《中国法制史原理与案例教程》，中国人民大学出版社，2006年； 论文：
1．《再说⟨韩非子⟩》，载《中国人民大学报刊复印资料》，2001年第6期；
2．《民国监狱史料述要》，载《中西法律传统》（第一卷），中国政法大学出版社，2001年10月；
3．《法律史学研究的回顾与展望》，载《法学家》，2002年第1期； 4．《古代刑罚的价值观念》，载《人民法院报》，2002年9月23日； 5．《中国传统死刑的文化意义》，载《国际先驱导报》，2003年11月21日； 6．《⟨春秋⟩与“春秋决狱” 》，载《人民法院报》，2003年1月13日； 8．《中国历史上肉刑的存废之争》，法制日报，2004年2月12日；
9．《学术与变革：清末的唐明律研究与评价》，《浙江社会科学》，2004年第4期； 10．《论典》，《法学家》，2004年第4期。
第页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
11．《新中国检察制度的发展历程》，《法学家》，2006年第3期 12.《两宋法律中的田宅细故》，《法学研究》，2001年第2期 13.《另一种本土资源》，载《光明日报》，2001年4月19日第2版； 14.《祖制与律法及其对社会的影响》，《法学家》，2000年第3期
15.《近代不平等条约与清末法制的变革》，《浙江社会科学》，1999年第1期 16.《试述民国初年的土地政策与土地立法》，《政治与法律》，2006年第1期 17.《试析治外法权与领事裁判权》，《郑州大学学报》哲学社科版，2005年第5期 18.《民国监狱史史料述要》，《法律文献信息与研究》，2005年第4期
19.《从“耻辱刑”到“羞耻心”——漫谈在监狱矫正中唤起服刑人的羞耻之心》，《政法论丛》，2005年第5期
20.《于激变中求稳实之法——民国最高法院关于女子财产继承权的解释例研究》，《山西大学学报》哲学社科版，2005年第3期
21.《三思而不行：质疑制定《农民权益护法》》，《法学家茶座》，2005年第1期 22.《血亲复仇与传统的礼法冲突》，法律与生活，2006年第11期 23.《八议制度与职官犯罪案》，法律与生活，2006/15
程天权教授
一、简介
程天权，男，1946年生于上海市，1966年2月加入中国共产党。1965年9月入复旦大学国际政治系读本科，1970年毕业。后在秦皇岛市当中学教员、进修学院教师和教育局教育督导。1980年至1983年在复旦大学就读研究生，专攻中国法律史，获法学硕士学位，毕业后在复旦大学任教。
第页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
1985年获上海市劳动模范称号。1986年至1991年任复旦大学党委宣传部长，1991年至1995年任党委副书记，1995年晋升为教授，1995年至1999年1月为复旦大学党委书记、校务委员会副主任、发展研究院副院长。曾任上海发展战略领导小组副组长，上海市11届人大代表。1999年1月至2000年6月任上海社会科学院党委书记、副院长，国际问题研究领导组（多个研究院所）组长。2000年4月起任同济大学党委书记，校务委员会主任。2001年2月起任中国人民大学党委书记、校务委员会主任，中国人民大学法学院教授,博士生导师。
程天权教授曾在不同层次参与、组织了一些专题发展对策研究，主持和筹划“中国发展研究”、“上海21世纪研究”、“人权问题研究”、“中国精神文明纲要研究”、“全国普通高校思想政治理论课设置”、“三个代表”重要思想研究、构建社会主义和谐社会等专题研究活动，俱有研究报告呈送中央及有关部门，并被采用。曾在美国、日本、韩国、澳大利亚、瑞士、俄罗斯、波兰等国进行学术或工作访问。在多个国际会议中任中方主席。
二、开设课程
中国法制史、中国当代政治等。
三、主要研究方向
中国法制史、中国当代政治、中国高等教育等
四、主要科研项目与课题
1.北京市哲学社会科学规划办公室重大课题：“三个代表”重要思想理论体系与框架 2.教育部哲学社会科学重大课题：“三个代表”重要思想研究
第页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
3.教育部重大调研课题：全国普通高校“两课”课程设置与内容调研
五、主要科研成果
主要论著有《论商鞅改法为律》、《秦律婚姻家庭关系探索》、《孔子法律思想立疑》、《服制与中国礼法》、《我国赃罪司法原则》、《论惩治官吏赃罪的实践》、《从唐六赃到明六赃》、《中国法文化与当代青年的法意识》、《法制对民主的反馈作用》等，另有合著《中国民法史》、《大清律》(译英)、《邓小平理论研究》、《法律基础》、《代表中国先进文化前进方向的中国共产党》等，其中《中国民法史》曾获全国社会科学一等奖。
六、联系方式
82509879（中国人民大学法学院）
叶秋华教授
一、简介
1976年毕业于首都师范大学历史系。1978年10月进入中国人民大学法学院从事外国法制史教学与研究至今，历任讲师、副教授、教授、博士研究生导师。曾于1997年、1999年、2003年先后赴日本立命馆大学、英国牛津大学、法国艾克斯—马赛大学做访问学者，进修。主要社会兼职：全国外国法制史研究会副会长；中国法学会法学教育研究会常务理事兼秘书长；中国人民大学法律文化研究中心主任。
二、开设课程：外国法制史
外国古代中世纪法研究
英美法
第页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
三、研究领域：外国法制史西方经济法律制度
比较法律文化
四、主要科研成果 主要著作：
1、《外国法制史论》，个人专著，中国法制出版社2000年版；
2、《西方经济法律制度》，个人独著，中国人民大学出版社2001年版；
3、《外国法制史》，教育部十五国家级规划教材，主编，中国人民大学出版社2003年版；
4、《外国法制史》，教育部十一五国家级规划教材，主编，中国人民大学出版社2009年版；
5、《西方国家宏观调控法与市场规制法研究》，专著（合著），中国人民大学出版社2005年版；
6、《大陆法系研究》，研究生教材，主编，中国人民大学出版社2008年版； 主要发表论文：
1、《希伯来法论略》，载《法学家》1999年5期；
2、《关于罗马法的几个理论问题》，载《法商研究》1999年6期；
3、《西欧中世纪法制发展特点论析》，《南京师大学报社科版》1999年6期；
4、《论日耳曼国家的形成与法兰克王国的法律》，载《法学家》1999年6期；
5、《资本主义民商法摇篮——论西欧中世纪城市法、商法与海商法》，载《中国人民大学学报》2000年1期；
6、《古代印度法的两大特征》，《法制与社会发展》1999年6期；
7、《希腊法论略》，载《法制现代化研究》5卷；
8、《论英国法制传统的形成与英国法体系的确立》，《法制现代化研究》6卷；
第页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
9、《论美国法对英国法的移植》，载《法律移植与法的本土化》法律出版社2001年；
10、《西方民法史上的“骄子”——论⟨法国民法典⟩承上启下的历史地位》，《法学家》2004年2期。
主要主持完成的国家项目：
《大陆法系研究》、《西方市场经济与法律调整》、《西方宏观调控法与市场规制法》。
王云霞教授
一、基本情况介绍
1、基本资料
王云霞、女、汉族1962年10月1日出生于浙江金华。教授、博士生导师，中国人民大学法律文化研究中心副主任、中国人民大学法学院文化遗产法研究所所长。
2、教育背景
1984年7月毕业于上海华东政法学院法律系，获法学学士学位；1996年1月毕业于中国人民大学法学院，获法学博士学位；1997年曾赴日本立命馆大学研修文化财产保护法；1999年赴英国诺丁汉大学进修国际人权法；2000年5月应联合国教科文组织的邀请参加关于“二战期间被掠文化财产返还问题的专家会议”。
3、工作经历
1984年至1993年，中国政法大学法律系法制史教研室助教、讲师； 1996年至今，中国人民大学历任副教授、教授、博士生导师
4、主要社会兼职：
全国外国法制史研究会常务理事
5、奖励和荣誉
第页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
《东方法律改革比较研究》获第一届全国法律文化研究成果奖一等奖（2008）； 《印度社会的法律改革》获司法部法学教材与优秀法学科研成果三等奖（2003）。
二、主要研究方向
1、文化遗产法
2、外国法律史
3、比较法律文化
三、开设课程
1、文化遗产法（硕士生、博士生）
2、外国法制史（本科生、硕士生）
3、罗马法（硕士生、本科生）
4、大陆法（硕士生）
5、比较法律文化研究（博士生）
四、主要课题与项目：
1、《吸收、借鉴与法律移植问题研究》，教育部人文社会科学研究“九五”规划项目，1998-2001；
2、《北京市历史文化名城法律保护问题研究》，北京市政府法制办立法项目，2002-2003；
3、《二战被掠文物返还问题研究》，国家文物局重点科研项目，2006-2008；
4、《中国少数民族文化遗产的法律保护机制评论》，中国人民大学国际期刊培养项目，2010-2011；
第页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
5、《文化遗产法教程》，国家文物局重点科研项目，2010-2011；
6、《文化立法的基本框架、主要原则和基本法律制度》，中宣部国家重点社会科学项目，2010-2011；
7、《文化遗产法学》，中国人民大学重点标志性科研项目，2010-2013。
五、主要科研成果
（一）主要著（译）作和教材：
1、《东方国家法律改革比较研究》，中国人民大学出版社2002年；
2、《东方法概述》（二人合著），法律出版社1993年；
3、《外国法制史》（十五国家级规划教材，副主编），中国人民大学出版社2003年；
4、《外国法制史》，二人合著，第一作者，高教出版社2008年版；
5、《外国法制史》，三人合著，第一作者，清华大学出版社2008年版；
6、《普通法的诉讼程序》，原著梅特兰，第一译者，商务印书馆2009年版。
7、《大陆法系研究》，主编之一，中国人民大学出版社2008年版。
（二）主要论文：
1、《印度社会的法律改革》，载《比较法研究》2000年第2期；
2、《⟨法国民法典⟩的时代精神探析》，载《法学家》2004年第2期；
3、《从分立迈向合并：英国律师制度改革的基本走向》，载《中外法学》2002年第2期；
4、《近代欧洲的法典编纂运动》，载《华东政法学院学报》2006年第2期；
5、《二战被掠文物返还的法律基础及相关问题》，载《辽宁大学学报》2007年第4期；
6、《法律移植二论》，载《公安大学学报》2002年第1期；
7、《法律保障灾后重建精神家园》，载《人民日报》2008-6-7；
第 页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
8、《文化遗产法的立场：民族主义抑或国际主义》，载《法学家》2008年第5期；
9、《文化遗产的概念与分类探析》，载《理论月刊》2010年第11期
10、《保护文物要深究违法者的责任》，载《光明日报》2010年5月21日
11、《非物质文化遗产保护还需立法配套》，载《法制日报》2011年3月1日；
12、《论文化遗产权》，载《中国人民大学学报》2011年第2期。
六、联系方式
电话：010-82500363 电子邮箱：Wangyunxia1988@msn.com
马小红教授
一、简介
1958年出生于青岛，1978年于青岛市第二中学高中毕业，考入北京大学历史系，1982年北京大学历史系毕业，获历史学学士；1987年北京大学法律系毕业，获法学硕士；2004年中国人民大学法学院毕业，获法学博士。1982年北京大学历史系本科毕业后留校工作，1987年北京大学法律系硕士毕业后至中国政法大学法律系工作，1990年讲师；1993年副教授。1995年至中国社会科学院法学所，1998年研究员（教授）。2004年至中国人民大学，担任教授，博士生导师。主要社会兼职包括：
中国人民大学法律文化研究中心执行主任
中国人民大学历史与社会高等研究所合作教授
北京市法学会常务理事、中国法律文化研究会常务副会长
中国法律思想史研究会副会长
第 页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
中国法律史学会常务理事
儒家与法律文化研究会理事
董必武法律思想研究会常务理事
二、奖励及荣誉称号
《礼与法：法的历史连接》，曾宪义法学教育与法律文化研究基金会第一届“中国法律文化研究成果奖”二等奖（2008）；
《中国法制史考证（甲编）》，第六届中国社会科学院优秀科研成果奖一等奖，杨一凡总主编，本人为第一卷、第二卷主编（2007）
《礼与法：法的历史连接》，司法部第二届全国法学教材与科研成果奖优秀科研作品奖（2006）；
《百年中国宪政之误区》，《社科研究》（香港）杂志编辑部优秀论文奖（2006）《构建与解析中国传统法——兼论中国传统社会礼与法的关系》中国人民大学优秀博士学位论文奖（2005）；
《中国法制通史》，第三届中国高校人文社会科学研究优秀成果奖，张晋藩总主编，本人为第一卷副主编（2003）
《试析中国古代社会中的“法官”》，中国法律史学会优秀学术论文一等奖（2002）《中国法制通史》，十二届中国图书奖（2000），张晋藩总主编，本人为第一卷副主编（2000）
三、教授课程 本科生：中国法制史 硕士生：中国法律思想史
第 页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
中国法制史专题 博士生：法律的历史研究方法
法学前沿：中国法律文化研究
四、主要研究方向
中国法律思想史、中国法制史。
五、主要科研项目与课题
国家社科基金重点项目：中国法制通史（子课题负责人，已结项出版）
国家社科基金重点项目：中国法律思想通史（子课题负责人，已结项出版）
国家社科基金重点项目：中华人民共和国法制通史（子课题负责人，已结项出版）
国家社科基金青年项目：礼与法（独自申请与完成，已结项出版）
中国社会科学院战略精品项目：中国法制史考证多卷本（子课题负责人，已结项出版）
教育部重大攻关项目“中国传统法律文化研究”（子课题：第一卷与第二卷主编，已结项出版）
教育部人文社科研究项目：律与例：中国古代法律制度模式研究（独自申请，已结项。）
国家社科基金项目：中华法文明模式研究（独自申请，正在进行）
六、主要科研成果： 主要著作：
《亡国鉴——风雨话君王》，深圳 出版社1992年（合）
《中国古代法律的社会特征》，中共中央党校出版社1992年。（合）
第 页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
《中国法制通史·夏商西周卷》法律出版社1999年（副主编，国家社科重点项目，国家图书奖）
《中国法制史考证·夏商西周卷》中国社会科学出版社2003年（主编，中国社会科学院重点项目。）
《中国法制史考证·春秋战国卷》中国社会科学出版社2003年（主编，中国社会科学院重点项目）
《中国古代法律思想史》法律出版社2004年 《礼与法：法的历史连接》北京大学出版社2004年 《中国法律思想史研究》人民大学出版社2007年（主编）
《百年回眸》（四卷本）执行主编，中国人民大学出版社，2009年版 《守望和谐的法文明》，第一作者，中国人民大学出版社2009年版。
七、联系方式
电话：010-82500361，邮箱：xhma868@sina.com
刘海年基本情况
一、简介
刘海年，河南省唐河县人，1936年4月生。1950年1月参加工作，在部队历任宣传员、班长、文化教员、军事法院书记员、秘书等职。1957年9月考入中国人民大学法律系，1961年9月本科毕业，1964年9月中国法律史专业研究生毕业。1965年1月到中国科学院法学研究所，历任助理研究员、研究室副主任、副研究员、研究员（1988年7月）、副所长，第 页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
1993年任中国社会科学院法学研究所所长，1995年兼政治学研究所所长至1998年12月。现任中国社会科学院荣誉学部委员、中国社会科学院人权研究中心主任，并兼任中国社会科学院研究生院、中国人民大学研究生院博士生导师。还兼任：最高人民法院特邀咨询员，中华法学会信息法研究会会长，董必武法学思想研究会副会长，海峡两岸关系协会理事，中国法律史研究会学术顾问，中国人权研究会顾问，中国警察协会学术委员会委员，中国炎黄文化研究会理事，中国国际文化交流中心荣誉理事。
在部队工作时曾于1951年、1953年各立三等功一次。到法学研究所工作后，先后分别与王家福、吴建璠、杨一凡、韩延龙、李步云、刘楠来、肖贤富、梁慧星、李林、信春鹰、夏勇等同志一起获中国社会科学院优秀科研成果荣誉奖一项，中宣部“五个一工程”奖一项，优秀科研成果奖两项，中国社会科学院优秀科研成果一等奖一项、三等奖四项，中国法学会特别贡献奖一项。
二、主要著述
1、独著：
《刘海年文集》，上海辞书出版社，2005、5 《战国秦代法制管窥》，法律出版社，2006、3
2、合著
《中国古代办案百例》,法律史研究室著，中国社会科学出版社，1980，12 《中国古代法律史知识》,刘海年编著，黑龙江人民出版社，1984，7
《中国警察制度简论》,法律史研究室著，俞鹿年、刘海年定稿，群众出版社，1985 《中国法制史存证》，杨一凡等编，撰稿人，中国社会科学出版社，2003，9
3、古籍整理：
第 页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
考研集训营,为考生服务，为学员引路！
《睡虎地秦墓竹简》，云梦秦简整理小组，整理、注释、翻译，文物出版社1977年线装大字本，1978年平装本，1981年精装本。
《中国珍稀法律典籍集成》（14册），刘海年、杨一凡总主编，中国科学出版社，1994。《沈家本未刻书集纂》,刘海年、韩延龙等整理，中国社会科学出版社，1996。《沈家本未刻书集纂》（补编）,韩延龙、刘海年等整理，中国社会科学出版社
2007。
4、主编、共同主编：
《中国历代贪贿案例选注》、《中国法律思想史·春秋战国秦代分卷》、《依法治国
建设社会主义法治国家》等十余部。发表专业论文、文章和研究报告200余篇。
第 页
共
页
www.xiexiebang.com
第四篇：迟到的正义前言何家弘
2013年，冤错案件一次又一次成为中国社会关注的热点。从浙江张氏叔侄冤案，到河南李怀亮冤案，再到安徽于英生冤案，不该发生的错判一次次被复制。人们不禁要追问:为什么? “浙江张氏叔侄冤案”披露后，一些舆论把矛头指向当年负责预审的一位女警察。据说，此人曾经是中央电视台2006年“浙江神探”系列节目的主人公之一，从警二十余年，工作表现出色，多次立功受奖。更有报道称，她“近五年来牵头主办的重特大案件达350余起，准确率达到100%……各项办案指标年年在省、市名列前茅，经她审核把关的重特大恶性案件，移送起诉后无一起冤假错案”。成功办理张氏叔侄奸杀案和勾海峰杀害女大学生案后，她还获得了全国“三八红旗手”等光荣称号。然而，在当下舆论的漩涡中，这位“女神探”变成了制造冤案的罪魁祸首。我不认识这位警察，但是我以为，就像当年把她“神探化”是不恰当的一样，今天把她“妖魔化”也是不恰当的。这世上本没有神探，因为任何侦探都是普通人，都是有可能犯错误的。诚然，作为公安机关负责把守案件质量关的预审部门负责人，她对于这起错案负有不可推卸的责任，但是，这起错案并不是她一个人就能制造的，除了其他公安人员之外，还有承担审查起诉和法律监督职责的检察官和把守司法公正最后一道关口的法官。这样一起事实不清证据不足的案件，为什么竟然一路绿灯地走完了刑事诉讼的全程?刑事司法系统的防错机制为何全部失效? 刑事司法有一个美丽的传说，那就是“既不冤枉一个好人，也不放纵一个坏人”。但是，在任何一个国家的刑事司法制度下面，这都是做不到的。从这个意义上讲，刑事错案的发生具有不可避免性，只是或多或少的问题。在当今世界，不仅法制不太健全的国家有刑事错案，法制比较健全的国家也有刑事错案。例如，自20世纪90年代中期开始，美国的许多州都建立了“无辜者中心”(InnocentCenter)，通过“无辜者行动”(InnocentProject)对可能错判的案件进行复查。错案复查的主要手段是进行DNA鉴定，因此复查的案件多为强奸案和杀人案。2011年4月7日至11日，笔者应邀到美国的辛辛那提市参加了“2011年无辜者协作网研讨会——错判的国际探索”(2011InnocenceNetworkConference:anInternationalExplorationofWrongfulConviction)，并在会上做了关于中国大陆地区刑事错案问题的主题发言。截止到开会时，美国的“无辜者行动”通过DNA检验共发现了271起错案。
古今中外，冤假错案总是刑事司法领域中难以驱散的幽灵。它们若隐若现，时明时暗，啃噬着社会公众的良心，煎熬着司法官员的灵魂。毫无疑问，它们对于那些当事人及其家人来说是飞天横祸，是灭顶之灾，但是它们也在一定程度上推动了刑事司法制度的文明进步和良性发展。冤错案件遮蔽在刑事司法的阴影之中。光线的阴暗使人们无法看清其中的景物，甚至成为人们视觉中的盲点，让人们误以为刑事司法是一片光明灿烂。然而，一些在社会中产生广泛影响的冤案把媒体的聚光灯吸引过来，也把民众的目光吸引过来，于是这盲点就变成了亮点，使人们看清了那些被阴影遮蔽的丑陋的缺陷，从而推进司法制度的改革和完善。例如，美国司法实践中辨认规则的完善和被判有罪者享有“审后DNA检验权”的立法，就都在一定程度上归功于错判。
为何在当代中国还会接二连三地出现冤案?这些冤案是如何形成的?我国应该如何构建错案预防体系和错案救济机制?2005年底，我们带着这样的问题成立了课题组，通过举办论坛、进行座谈、召开研讨会、进行问卷调查和典型案例分析等方式对我国的刑事错判问题进行了多层面和多路径的调查研究。我们发现，错判的形成似乎延循了一个模式：一样的偏重口供，一样的非法取证，一样的事实不清，一样的疑罪从轻。这不是执法人员或司法人员个人的问题，而是刑事司法制度的问题。制度存在漏洞和弊端，错判才一次又一次被复制。同时，我们还发现，在每一起冤错案件的背后都隐藏着令人心痛心酸心碎的人生故事。于是，我们在新闻媒体公开报道的一百多起冤错案件中，精心挑选了影响巨大而且故事性强的十个案例，在进行深入的个案分析的基础上写成冤案故事，并且透过这些案例解析刑事司法制度中存在的漏洞或弊端。我们希望，这些冤案中的人和事能够留传给后人。
何家弘
写于北京世纪城痴醒斋
2013年12月24日
第五篇：法律英语课文总结-何家弘
Lesson One: Legal System 法律制度
Part One
The United States is at once a very new nation and a very old nation.It is a new nation compared with many other countries, and it is new, too, in the sense that it is constantly being renewed by the addition of new elements of population and of new States.But in other senses it is old.It is the oldest of the “new” nations--the first one to be made out of an Old World colony.It has the oldest written constitution, the oldest continuous federal system, and the oldest practice of self-government of any nation.One of the most interesting features of Americans youth is that the whole of its history belongs in the period since the invention of the printing press.The whole of its history is, therefore, recorded: indeed, it is safe to say that no other major nation has so comprehensive a record of its history as has the United States, for events such as those that are lost in the legendary past of Italy or France or England are part of the printed record of the United States.And the American record is not only comprehensive;it is immense.It embraces not only the record of the colonial era and of the Nation since 1776, but of the present fifty States as well, and the intricate network of relationships between States and Nation.Thus, to take a very elementary example, the reports of the United States Supreme Court fill some 350 volumes, and the reports of some States are almost equally voluminous: the reader who wants to trace the history of law in America is confronted with over 5,000 stout volumes of legal cases.No one document, no handful of documents, can properly be said to reveal the character of a people or of their government.But when hundreds and thousands of documents strike a consistent note, over more than a hundred years, we have a right to say that is the keynote.When hundreds and thousands of documents address themselves in the same ways, to the same overarching problems, we have a right to read from them certain conclusions which we can call national characteristics.Part Two
The American legal system, like the English, is methodologically mainly a case law system.Most fields of private law still consist primarily of case law and the extensive and steadily growing statutory law continues to be subject to binding interpretation through case law.Knowledge of the case law method as well as of the technique of working with case law therefore is of central importance for an understanding of American law and legal methodology.The Common Law is historically the common general law--with supremacy over local law--which was decreed by the itinerant judges of the English royal court.The enforcement of a claim presupposed the existence of a special form of action, a writ, with the result that the original common law represented a system of “actions” similar to that of classical Roman law.If a writ existed(in 1227)a claim could be enforced;there was no recourse for a claim without a writ, the claim did not exist.This system became inflexible when the “Provisions of Oxford”(1258)prohibited the creation of new writs, except for the flexibility which the “writ upon the case” allowed and which later led to the development of contract and tort law.The narrow limits of the forms of action and the limited recourse they provided led to the development of equity law and equity case law.“Equity”, in its general meaning of doing “equity”, deciding ex aequo et bono, was first granted by the King, and later by his Chancellor as “keeper of the King's conscience”, to afford relief in hardship cases.In the fifteenth century, however, equity law and equity case law developed into an independent legal system and judiciary(Court of Chancery)which competed with the ordinary common law courts.Its rules and maxims became fixed and, to a degree, inflexible as in any legal system.Special characteristics of equity law include: relief in the form of specific performance(in contrast to the common law award of compensatory damages), the injunction(a temporary or final order to do or not to do a specific act), the development of socalled maxims of equity law which permeated the entire legal system and in many cases explain the origin of modern legal concepts.However, equitable relief regularly will lie only when the common law relief is inadequate.For instance, specific performance for the purchase of real property will be granted because common law damages are deemed to be inadequate since they cannot compensate the buyer in view of the uniqueness attributed to real property.As the common law, equity law became part of American law either through judicial acceptance or through express statutory provision.Today, both legal systems have been merged in many American jurisdictions(beginning with New York in 1848), with the result that there is only one form of civil suit in these jurisdictions as well as in federal practice.Only few States continue to maintain a separate chancery court.Nevertheless, the reference to the historical development is important because, on the one hand, it explains the origin and significance of many contemporary legal concepts(for instance the division of title in the law of property)and, on the other hand, it is still relevant for the decision of such questions whether, for instance, there is a right to a trial by jury(only in the case of common law suits, in other cases only before the judge).In addition, the differentiation will determine whether the “ordinary” common law relief of damages applies or whether the “extraordinary” equity remedy of specific performance is available.“Case law” describes the entire body of judge-made law and today includes common law and equity precedents.In imprecise and confusing usage the terms “common law” and “case law” are often used synonymously, with the term “common law” in this usage connoting judge-made law in general as contrasted with statutory law.“Case law” always connotes judg-made law, while “common law” in contrast--depending on the meaning intended--describes either the judge made law in common law subject matters or，Lesson Two：Legal Profession 法律职业
Part One： The Bar
The regulation of the legal profession is primarily the concern of the states, each of which has its own requirements for admission to practice.Most require three years of college and a law degree.Each state administers its own written examination to applicants for its bar.Almost all states, however, make use of the Multistate Bar Exam, a daylong multiplechoice test, to which the state adds a daylong essay examination emphasizing its own law.No apprenticeship is required either before or after admission.A lawyer's practice is usually confined to a single community for, although a lawyer may travel to represent clients, one is only permitted to practice in a state where one has been admitted.However, one who moves to another state can usually be admitted without examination if one has practiced in a state where one has been admitted for some time, often five years.A lawyer may not only practice law, but is permitted to engage in any activity that is open to other citizens.It is not uncommon for the practicing lawyer to serve on boards of directors of corporate clients, to engage in business, and to participate actively in public affairs.A lawyer remains a member of the bar even after becoming a judge, an employee of the government or of a private business concern, or a law teacher, and may return to private practice from these other activities.A relatively small number of lawyers give up practice for responsible executive positions in commerce and industry.The mobility as well as the sense of public responsibility in the profession is evidenced by the career of Harlan Fiske Stone who was, at various times, a successful New York lawyer, a professor and dean of the Columbia School of Law, Attorney General of the United States, and Chief Justice of the United States.There is no formal division among lawyers according to function.The distinction between barristers and solicitors found in England did not take root in the United States, and there is no branch of the profession that has a special or exclusive right to appear in court, nor is there a branch that specializes in the preparation of legal instruments.The American lawyers domain includes advocacy, counselling, and drafting.Furthermore, within the sphere broadly defined as the “practice of law” the domain is exclusive and is not open to others.In the field of advocacy, the rules are fairly clear: any individual may represent himself or herself in court but, with the exception of a few inferior courts, only a lawyer may represent another in court.Nonlawyers are, however, authorized to represent others in formal proceedings of a judicial nature before some administrative agencies.The lines of demarcation are less clear in the areas of counselling and drafting of legal instruments, as for example between the practice of law and that of accounting in the field of federal income taxation.However, the strict approach of most American courts is indicated by a decision of New Yorks highest court that a lawyer admitted to practice in a foreign country but not in New York is prohibited from giving legal advice to clients in New York, even though the advice is limited to the law of the foreign country where the lawyer is admitted.A foreign lawyer may, however, be admitted to the bar of one of the states and may, even without being admitted, advise an American lawyer as a consultant on foreign law.Part Two： Lawyers in Private Practice
Among these fifteen lawyers in practice, nine, a clear majority, are single practitioners.The remaining six practice in law firms, which are generally organized as partnerships.Four or five of these six are partners and the others are associates, a term applied to salaried lawyers employed by a firm or another lawyer.This trend toward group practice is of relatively recent origin.Throughout most of the nineteenth century law practice was general rather than specialized, its chief ingredient was advocacy rather than counselling and drafting, and the prototype of the American lawyer was the single practitioner.Marked specialization began in the latter part of that century in the large cities near the financial centers.With the growth of big business, big government, and big labor, the work of the lawyer accomodated itself to the needs of clients for expert counselling and drafting to prevent as well as to settle disputes.The best lawyers were attracted to this work and leadership of the bar gravitated to persons who rarely if ever appeared in court and who were sought after as advisors, planners, and negotiators.Today the lawyer regards it as sound practice to be continuously familiar with clients business problems and to participate at all steps in the shaping of their policies.Major business transactions are rarely undertaken without advice of counsel.Part Three: House Counsel Out of every twenty lawyers, two are employed by private business concerns, such as industrial corporations, insurance companies, and banks, usually as house or corporate counsel in the concerns legal department.The growth of corporations, the complexity of business, and the multitude of problems posed by government regulation make it desirable for such firms to have in their employ persons with legal training who, at the same time, are intimately familiar with the particular problems and conditions of the firm.In large corporations the legal department may number one hundred or more.The general counsel, who heads the office, is usually an officer of the company and may serve on important policy making committees and perhaps even on the board of directors.House counsel remain members of the bar and are entitled to appear in court, though an outside lawyer is often retained for litigation.However, it is the house counsels skill as advisor rather than as advocate that is a valued asset.Constantly in touch with the employers problems, house counsel is ideally situated to practice preventive law and may also be called upon to advise the company on its broader obligation to the public and the nation.Part Four： Lawyers in Government A parallel development has taken place in government and two out of twenty lawyers are now employees of the federal, state, county, and municipal governments, exclusive of the judiciary.Many of those entering public service are recent law graduates who find government salaries sufficiently attractive at this stage of their careers and seek the training that such service may offer as a prelude to private practice.Limitations on top salaries, however, discourage some from continuing with the government.The majority serves by appointment in the legal departments of a variety of federal and state agencies and local entities.The United States Department of Justice alone employs more than two thousands, and the Law Department of the City of New York more than four hundreds.Others are engaged as public prosecutors.Federal prosecutors, the United States attorneys and their assistants, are appointed by the President and are subordinate to the Attorney General of the United States.State prosecutors, sometimes known as district attorneys, are commonly elected by each county and are not under the control of the state attorney general.As a rule, lawyers in government are directly engaged in legal work, since law training is infrequently sought as preparation for general government service.However, a small but important minority that constitutes an exception to this rule consists of those who have been appointed to high executive positions and those who have been elected to political office.Though the participation of lawyers in government has declined recently, for two centuries lawyers have made up roughly half of the Congress of the United States and of the state governors.These figures bear out the comment of Chief Justice Stone that, “No tradition of our profession is more cherished by lawyers than that of its leadership in public affairs.” Lesson Three: Legal Education 法律教育
In 1983, over 125,000 law students were studying in more than 170 ABA accredited law schools including public law schools supported in part by government funds;private law schools supported by contributions from individuals and foundation funds;and local or national schools offering full time or part time legal study programs.As virtually the only way to prepare for membership in the legal profession, law schools in the United States fulfill several functions including professional training and socialization of future lawyers and screening and gatekeeping for entrance to the profession.Since there is no central institution where all lawyers practice, the only institutional experience which lawyers have in common is law school.The criticisms which range from “mild to caustic” of the way in which law schools have carried out these functions and of the functions themselves have been persistent, diverse and rooted in the historical and political development of the profession.These criticisms have focussed on the curriculum and the dominance of the case method;the distribution of power and prestige reflected in the hierarchy within and among the law schools;and the imbalance in terms of women and minorities in the student body and faculty in the law schools.Part One： Curriculum and the Case Method
The traditional first-year program offered in virtually all American law schools includes contracts, torts, property, criminal law and civil procedure.Duncan Kennedy has described the traditional first-year curriculum as basically teaching the ground rules for late 19th century laissez-faire capitalism.The second year and third year course expound the moderate reformist New Deal program and the administrative structure of the modern regulatory state.The peripheral subjects, if they are offered, include legal philosophy, legal history, legal process, and clinical education, a “kind of playground or finishing school for learning the social art of self presentation as a lawyer”.However, as new areas of the law continue to develop in response to contemporary issues and problems, some law schools have expanded curricula to include courses and clinical programs in environmental law, housing and urban development, women`s rights, health in the workplace, welfare rights and consumer protection.There are also increasing efforts to teach law in interdisciplinary contexts, drawing on other disciplines such as history, psychology, sociology, medicine, and economics.In teaching the traditional curriculum, law teachers in almost all the law schools use to some extent the case method or the Socratic method.Developed in the 1870s by Christopher Columbus Langdell at the Harvard Law School, the case method looked to the common law as the source of legal priniciples and focussed on the teaching of an abstract conception of the law as a science.The legal principles elicited were to be taught divorced from the “grubby world of practice--and also from politics, history, economics, and social contexts”.This narrow formalistic approach was justified on the ground that it taught students how to state, analyze, evaluate and compare concrete fact situations thus developing their powers and skills of analysis, reasoning, and expression.However, this process of learning “how to think like a lawyer” has been criticized as having an adverse impact both on the students and the quality of future lawyering.Students, law teachers, and others have pointed to the alienation, anxiety, hostility and aggression caused by use of the case method or Socratic method.The narrow and destructive interaction of this dialogue, or often “no dialogue”, contributes to the impairment of the ability to care about other people, a professional unemotionalism and cynicism on the part of law students.And it is not only the law students who suffer from this narrowing of their professional selves.The work of a lawyer involves continuous contacts with clients, associates, other lawyers, judges, witnesses, others affected by the law, and involves the lawyer’s own goals, attitudes, performance, and sense of satisfaction.Part Two： Law School Hierarchy
Duncan Kennedy has described the law schools as “intensely political places”, characterized by a “tradeschool mentality, the endless attention to trees at the expense of forests.” The law schools function as the institution for “ideological training for willing service in the hierarchies of the corporate welfare state”.In the ranking and evaluation of students, students learn to accept their place in a hierarchy which is presented as just and inevitable and “so prepare themselves for all the hierarchies to follow”.In the law teachers modeling of hierarchical relationships with students, colleagues, secretaries and support staff, students learn a particular style of condescension towards perceived inferiors and deference towards perceived superiors.And under the subtle but intense pressure to conform to the “white, male, middleclass tone” set by law faculties which are overwhelmingly white, male, and middleclass, law students adapt, “partly out of fear, partly out of hope of gain, partly out of genuine admiration for their role models”.In these ways, “legal education is one of the causes of legal hierarchy.Legal education supports it by analogy, provides it a general legitimating ideology by justifying the rules that underlie it, and provides it a particular ideology by mystifying legal reasoning.Legal education structures the pool of prospective lawyers so that their hierarchical organization seems inevitable, and trains them to look and think and act just like all the other lawyers in the system”.In addition to the hierarchy within the law schools suggested by Kennedy, other analyses of the law schools functions and relationship to the profession suggest the existence of a hierarchy among the law schools.The top dozen or so elite law schools occupy a position of power and prestige which is partially reflected in the professional career paths of their graduates and in the “old boy networks” connecting the law schools and the rest of the legal profession.The models of the “law school as the gateway to the American power elite became possible with the New Deal”.Felix Frankfurter’s placement network for the “best and the brightest” into influential public policy positions during the New Deal in the 1930s was an early example of this kind of network.During his tenure at Harvard and later while on the Supreme Court, Frankfurter developed an “old boy network” which was intimately involved with the placement of many of the “elite” lawyers, all of whom were white and male, into public service.The typical Frankfurter recruit was “a graduate of Harvard Law School, politically liberal, usually ranked high in his class, and either an obvious product of upper class gentile culture or an obvious product of a radically different culture who was 'comfortable' in the upper class gentile world”.In the current hiring practices of the major law firms and in the competition for judicial clerkships, and in the appointments to law faculties, the graduates of the elite schools continue to have an advantage over graduates of other schools.In a recent study of Chicago lawyers, Zemans and Rosenblum found that lawyers who attended “high-prestige law schools and graduated in the top 20 percent of their classes were much more likely to practice in large firms and specialize in high-prestige fields of law”.In terms of appointments to law faculties, 60% of the legal profession’s teaching specialists are produced by fewer than 15% of the nations accredited law schools.These law teacher producer schools are mostly national, located in urban locations, and include schools such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, University of Michigan, Chicago, New York University, Northwestern University, and Georgetown.If it is true that the fulltime faculty of the law schools “have a virtual monopoly on who will and will not enter the(legal)profession” and “on the power to mold future generations”, then the existence of a hierarchy among the law schools suggests that an elite group of schools is primarily responsible for staffing the law schools, which in turn produce lawyers for the hierarchies within the profession.Lesson Four：Judicial System 司法系统
Part One： Courts
There are fifty-two separate court systems in the United States.Each state, as well as the District of Columbia, has its own fully developed, independent system of courts and there is a separate federal court system.The federal courts are not superior to the state courts;they are an independent, coordinate system authorized by the United States Constitution, Art.Ⅲ,§2, to handle matters of particular federal interest.The presence of two parallel court systems often raises questions concerning the relationship of the state and federal systems, presenting important issues of federalism.The United States Supreme Court, composed of nine justices, sits as the final and controlling voice over all these systems.Although a few states, such as Nebraska, have a two-tiered system, most states, as well as the federal courts, are based on a three-tiered model.That means that for any litigant there will be the opportunity to plead his case before a trial court and then, should he lose, there are two levels of appeal at which he ultimately may succeed.For example, in the federal system the trial court is the United States District Court, of which there is at least one in every state.Many larger states are divided into two, three or even four judicial districts, depending on population, geography and caseload.There are ninety-four districts in the United States and each district court has one judge, or more commonly two or more.After an adverse judgment in the district court, a litigant may appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the district court is located.There are eleven numbered intermediate appellate courts in the federal system, each including anywhere from three to ten states and territories.Additionally, there is a Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, hearing appeals from the federal district court there, and one for the Federal Circuit, taking appeals from various specialized federal tribunals, such as the Claims Court.Each court of appeals has four or more judges who sit in panels of three to review district court decisions, as well as some decisions of administrative agencies.A losing litigant in the court of appeals may, in some cases, be able to obtain review by the United States Supreme Court.Cases in the state courts similarly may proceed through a trial court, a state appellate court, and then the state supreme court.If a federal constitutional question is involved the decision of the state Supreme Court may be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.Since 1988, review by the Supreme Court in civil cases is discretionary;virtually all civil appeals as of right to the highest court have been abolished.Three-tiered systems vary on the role which the highest court plays.The approaches taken reflect differing philosophies with regard to what the highest court should do.For example, in California only criminal cases in which capital punishment has been imposed are appealable as of right to the state supreme court.Similarly, in the federal courts, except in a few very limited circumstances, appeals to the United States Supreme Court are discretionary, by writ of certiorari.The Court decides for itself what are the most important questions that deserve its attention and will refuse to review decisions raising issues that it feels are not as crucial.In this way it supervises the administration of law by the lower courts on an ad hoc basis.At the other end of the spectrum, such as in New York, appeals to the states highest court are as of right in a great many cases provided for by statute.The primary function of the highest court in New York appears to be to assure that cases are correctly decided.It is necessary to check carefully the statutes of the system in which you are appearing to determine the specific rules regarding review by those appellate courts.Part Two： Judges
Fewer than one in twenty of those admitted to practice law is a federal, state, county, or municipal court judge.Except for some inferior courts, judges are generally required to be admitted to practice but do not practice while on the bench.There is so little uniformity that it is difficult to generalize further than to point out three salient characteristics that relate to the ranks from which judges are drawn, to the method of their selection, and to their tenure.Judges are drawn from the practicing bar and less frequently from government service or the teaching profession.There is in the United States no career judiciary like that found in many other countries and there is no prescribed route for the young law graduate who aspires to be a judge, no apprenticeship that must be served, no service that must be entered.The outstanding young law graduates who act for a year or two as law clerks to the most distinguished judges of the federal and state courts have only the reward of the experience to take with them into practice and not the promise of a judicial career.While it is not uncommon for a vacancy on a higher court to be filled by a judge from a lower court, even this cannot be said to be the rule.The legal profession is not entirely unaware of the advantages of a career judiciary, but it is generally thought that they are outweighed by the experience and independence which American lawyers bring to the bench.Many of the outstanding judges of the countrys highest courts have had no prior judicial experience.Criticism has centered instead on the prevalent method of selection of judges.State court judges are usually elected, commonly by popular vote, but occassionally by the legislature.Popular election has been the subject of much disapproval, including that of the American Bar Association, on the ground that the public lacks interest in and information on candidates for judicial office and that therefore the outcome is too often controlled by leaders of political parties.The situation has been somewhat improved since many local bar associations have undertaken to evaluate the qualifications of candidates and to support or oppose them on this basis.Since 1937, the American Bar Association has advocated the substitution of a system under which the governor appoints judges from a list submitted by a special nominating board and the judge then periodically stands unopposed for reelection by popular vote on the basis of his or her record.Such a system is now in effect, for at least some judges, in a substantial minority of states.In a small group of states, judges are appointed by the governor subject to legislative confirmation.This is also the method of selection of federal judges, who are appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate.Even under the appointive system the selection of judges is not immune from political influence and appointees are usually of the Presidents or governor’s own party.But names of candidates for the federal judiciary are submitted to a committee of the American Bar Association and appointment is usually made only with its approval.The office of chief judge or chief justice is usually filled in the same manner as other judicial offices, although in some states it is filled from among the members of the court by rotation, by seniority of service, or by vote of the judges.The Chief Justice of the United States is appointed by the President, subject to Senate confirmation.The third characteristic is that judges commonly serve for a term of years rather than for life.For courts of general jurisdiction it is typically four, six, or eight years, and for appellate courts, six, eight, or ten years.Happily, even where selection is by popular election, it is customary to return to office for sitting judges whose service has been satisfactory.In a few state courts and in the federal courts the judges sit for life.Whether on the bench for a term of years or for life, a judge may be removed from office only for gross misconduct and only by formal proceedings.Instances of removal have been rare indeed and only a handful of federal judges have been removed by formal proceedings.The independence of the judiciary is also encouraged by the rule that a judge incurs no civil liability for judicial acts, even if guilty of fraud and corruption.The American Bar Association’s Code of Judicial Conduct has been widely adopted as a standard to which judges are expected to adhere.Salaries for the higher judicial offices are usually good although less than the income of a successful private practitioner, the prestige of these offices is high, and the bench has been able to attract many of the country’s ablest legal minds.The great names in American law are in large part the names of its great judges.Lesson Five：Constitution 宪法
Part One： The Constitution as Supreme Law
The U.S.Constitution, a relatively simple document, is the selfdesignated “supreme law of the land”.This clause is taken to mean that when state constitutions, or laws passed by state legislatures or the national Congress, are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, they have no force.Decisions handed down by the Supreme Court over the course of two centuries have confirmed and strengthened this doctrine of constitutional supremacy.Final authority is vested in the American people, who can change the fundamental law if they wish, by amending the Constitution, or--in theory, at least--drafting a new one.The peoples authority is not exercised directly, however.The daytoday business of government is delegated by the people to public officials, both elected and appointed.The power of public officials is limited.Their public actions must conform to the Constitution and to the laws made in accord with the Constitution.Elected officials must stand for reelection at periodic intervals, when their record is subject to intensive public scrutiny.Appointed officials serve at the pleasure of the person or authority who appointed them, and may be removed when their performance is unsatisfactory.The exception to this is the lifetime appointment by the President of Justices of the Supreme Court and other federal judges.Most commonly, the American people express their will through the ballot box.The Constitution, however, does make provision for the removal of a public official from office, in cases of extreme misconduct or malfeasance, by the process of impeachment.Article Ⅱ, Section 4 reads: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” In such cases, the House of Representatives must vote a bill of impeachment.The public official is then tried in the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the United States presiding at the trial.Impeachment is considered a drastic measure in the United States.In the past 200 years, only 13 U.S.officials have been impeached: nine judges, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a Secretary of War, a Senator, and a President, Andrew Johnson.(In the case of another President, Richard Nixon, although the House Judiciary Committee recommended impeachment the President resigned before a House vote was taken.)Out of the thirteen cases, only four judges have been convicted and removed from office.State officials are similarly subject to impeachment by the legislatures of their respective states.In addition to setting forth general political ideas, the Constitution provides the blueprint for the governmental system.The three major articles describe the three branches of the national government--legislative, executive and judicial--each with specific duties and responsibilities.Subjects on which the legislative branch can make laws are set out in considerable detail, although over the years judicial decisions have expanded the scope of congressional activity.The powers and duties of the President, as head of the executive branch, are described.A system of federal courts is outlined, and its relationship to other branches of government is set forth.Part Two： The Principles of Government
Although the Constitution has changed in many aspects since it was first adopted, its basic principles remain the same now as in 1789: The three main branches of government are separate and distinct from one another.The powers given to each are delicately balanced by the powers of the other two.Each branch serves as a check on potential excesses of the others.The Constitution, together with laws properly passed according to its provisions, and treaties entered into by the President and approved by the Senate, stands above all other laws, executive acts and regulations.All men are equal before the law and are equally entitled to its protection.All states are equal, and none can receive special treatment from the federal government.Within the limits of the Constitution, each state must recognize and respect the laws of the others.State governments, like the federal government, must be republican in form, with final authority resting in the people.The people have the right to change their form of government by legal means defined in the Constitution itself.Part Three: Provisions for Amendment The authors of the Constitution were keenly aware that changes would be needed from time to time if the Constitution were to endure and keep pace with the growth of the nation.They were also conscious that the process of change should not be facile, permitting illconceived and hastily passed amendments.By the same token, they wanted to assure that a minority could not block action desired by most of the people.Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be changed.The Congress, by a two thirds vote in each house, may initiate an amendment.Or the legislatures of two thirds of the states may ask Congress to call a national convention to discuss and draft amendments.In either case, amendments must have the approval of threefourths of the states before they enter into force.Aside from the direct process of changing the Constitution itself, the effect of its provisions may be changed by judicial interpretation.Early in the history of the republic, in the landmark case of Marbury vs.Madison,the Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review, which is the power of the Court to interpret acts of Congress and decide their constitutionality.The doctrine also embraces the power of the Court to explain the meaning of various sections of the Constitution as they apply to changing legal, political, economic and social conditions.Over the years, a series of Court decisions, on issues ranging from governmental regulation of radio and television to the rights of the accused in criminal cases, has had the effect of altering the thrust of constitutional law, with no substantive change in the Constitution itself.Congressional legislation, passed to implement provisions of the basic law, or to adapt it to changing conditions, also broadens and, in subtle ways, changes the meaning of the Constitution.Up to a point, the rules and regulations of the myriad agencies of the federal government may have a similar effect.The acid test in both cases is whether, in the opinion of the courts, such legislation and rules are in conformity with the intent and purposes of the Constitution itself.Lesson Seven: Criminal Law 刑法
Homicide is the killing of one human being by another human being.Not all homicides are criminal, however.For instance, a person who kills another in selfdefense has committed no crime;it is justifiable homicide.The same is true of the police officer who kills a person to prevent the commission of a forcible felony, such as robbery or burglary, when the killing is a reasonably necessary preventive measure;or when the officer kills a dangerous felon in order to prevent his escape.Then, too, some killings are excusable homicides;for instance, where a person accidentally, and without gross negligence, causes the death of another individual.A killing amounts to a criminal homicide when it is done without lawful justification or excuse.Depending upon certain circumstances it may be either murder or manslaughter.In the early days of our country, and prior thereto in England, the elements of the crimes of murder and manslaughter were prescribed by court decisions.These decisions came to be known as the “common law”.Since then, in most jurisdictions murder and manslaughter have been redefined by the legislatures, either in the form of a separate statute or as a provision of a criminal code.1.Murder According to the common law, murder was the killing of a human being with “malice”, and the requirement of “malice” is still found in some presentday statutes and codes.The California Penal Code, for instance, has retained it.That code provides, as did the common law, that “...malice may be express or implied.It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention to take away the life of a fellow creature.It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.”
A clear illustration of express malice is a case where one person intentionally pushes another off the side of a mountain.An example of implied malice is where a person fires a rifle at a moving passenger train, just “to scare” the persons aboard or to display skill at firing a bullet between the cars without hitting anyone.The dangerousness of the conduct would be evidence of “malice” as regards any killing that may be reasonably attributed to such conduct.It would indicate, to a California court or jury, “an abandoned and malignant heart”.The penalty for murder is punishable by death in some states;in others by prison terms extending to “life” or a specified number of years.(a)FelonyMurder
Another example of a satisfaction of the element of malice is a killing during the course of a felony such as robbery.Even though a robbers gun goes off accidentally, killing the robbery victim, or a bystander, or a police officer, his conduct of committing such a dangerous crime as robbery satisfies the requirement of malice so that the killing becomes punishable as murder.A similar line of reasoning has resulted in holding cofelons guilty of murder where, in the course of an exchange of shots between robbers and the police, a police officer is accidentally killed by another officer.Malice may also be attributed to a robber whose partner in the crime intentionally kills someone during the commission of the crime or the attempted escape.Malice on the part of all participants is implied from the dangerousness of the robbery itself;moreover, each robber is considered to act as an agent for the others in accomplishing their objective, including the attempt to escape.This whole issue of felonymurder stems primarily from the prosecutions interest in seeking the death penalty for such killings.In some of the states which have abolished capital punishment(Wisconsin, for example), the legislatures, out of an understandable desire to punish robbers more severely whenever a killing results, have provided that the punishment for such offenses shall be fifteen years greater than that provided for nonfatal robberies.(b)Degrees of Murder Some states have specified varying penalties for murder, depending upon the ci
rcumstances of the killing.A “willful, deliberate and premeditated” killing, such as a poisoning or a killing during the commission of a dangerous felony, may be labeled first degree murder and punishable by death or long imprisonment.Other forms of murder may be of the second degree and punishable with a lesser penalty.According to the common law, however, there were no degrees of murder.Any unlawful killing was either murder or manslaughter.2.Manslaughter Manslaughter was defined at common law as an unlawful killing of another without malice.It could be either voluntary or involuntary.Manslaughter, in contrast to murder, is usually punishable by a prison term which may range from one year to ten or fourteen years.(a)Voluntary Manslaughter An intentional killing upon “great provocation” and “in the heat of passion” constitutes the crime of voluntary manslaughter.A classic example is the killing by a husband(or wife)who unexpectedly finds his or her spouse in an act of sexual intercourse with another person, or in a situation evidencing impending or immediately concluded adulterous conduct.A killing of the paramour or of the spouse, or both, in such a circumstance would fall within the category of manslaughter because(a)the provocation was great, and(b)the killer was in the “heat of passion”.A killing of this type is treated less harshly than murder, out of consideration for the frailties of human nature.In other words, there is an understanding appreciation that the instinctive reaction of the husband(or wife)in such a situation is to kill or do other serious harm.Nevertheless, there is a feeling that such conduct should be discouraged by a criminal sanction, but one with a penalty considerably less than for the crime of murder.It is of interest to note that in such paramour killing cases the conviction rate is quite low, primarily because of the willingness of juries to accept occasionally the frequently concocted explanation that the killing was done in selfdefense;in other words, the paramour attacked the spouse, who killed his “attacker” only in order to keep from being killed himself.The result of acquittal in such cases is sometimes described in the press as an acquittal by reason of “the unwritten law”.A few states(Texas, New Mexico, and Utah)have tried to simplify the whole matter of paramour killings by legalizing such killings where the paramour is caught in the act.But in those states the privilege does not extend to the killing of the participating spouse!
In applying the test of whether an intentional killing was upon great provocation and in the heat of passion, the question is put to the jury, or to the judge in nonjury cases, as to whether the accused reacted as a “reasonable man”.Technically speaking, it is not the particular sensitivity or temper of the killer that is taken into consideration, but rather an effort is made to determine how a “reasonable man” might have acted under similar circumstances.An illustration of this is a famous English case where a sexually impotent man felt insulted by the remarks of a prostitute with whom he had tried in vain to have sexual intercourse, and he proceeded to kill her.He contended that his sensitivity over his condition should be taken into account in determining whether there was serious provocation for this reaction, but the court held that his conduct was to be judged by the standard of an ordinary, normal “reasonable man”.(b)Involuntary Manslaughter Involuntary manslaughter may be described generally as an unintentional killing resulting from gross negligence, or as a result of dangerous unlawful conduct.For example, a person who throws a heavy object from the upper stories of a building into an alley used with some frequency by pedestrians may be guilty of manslaughter if a killing results.Likewise, a motorist may commit manslanghter if he kills a child at a school crossing while travelling at an excessive speed.A number of states have created a related crime known as “reckless homicide” or “negligent homicide”, for application to killings by motorists who were driving in a reckless or grossly negligent manner.This special kind of homicide legislation was enacted because of the difficulty encountered in convicting motorists for the more revoltingly labeled offense of manslaughter(i.e., the slaughter of a man), which also carried, traditionally, a minimum penalty of one year in the penitentiary.It was thought advisable to categorize such conduct with the less revolting label of reckless or negligent homicide and also to permit the imposition of lesser penalties than the one prescribed for manslaughter.Stated another way, it is better to obtain a reasonable number of convictions carrying relatively light penalties than to get very few convictions carrying heavy penalties.The permissible range of penalties in reckless homicide or negligent homicide statutes is generally a fine up to $1,000, or incarceration other than in a penitentiary for any period up to one year, or imprisonment in a penitentiary up to five years.(Where the traffic victim of such conduct does not die, another new statutory offense may be invoked--“reckless conduct”.)
The flexibility of penalties in traffic death cases has the effect of encouraging pleas of guilty from offenders, and it results in convictions that might not be secured if a judge or jury had no choice other than a penitentiary sentence or an acquittal.3.Federal Homicide Law There is no general federal homicide law.There can be none, in fact, since constitutional authority is lacking for Congress to legislate upon the subject, except with respect to killings within a federal territory, in federal buildings or upon other federal property, or killings of federal officials or officers.Example X, without justification or excuse, shoots and kills Y in a Post Office.X has committed a federal offense of criminal homicide.Example X, a bank robber fugitive about to be apprehended by an F.B.I.agent, shoots and kills the agent.X is guilty of a federal crime of murder.4.Modern MurderManslaughter Legislation In most states the crimes of murder and manslaughter are covered in state statutes closely patterned after the common law.A trend is now under way, however, to modernize the law.The 1961 Illinois Criminal Code is a good example.In defining murder, for instance, it avoids such language as “malice” and “abandoned and malignant heart”, and uses more precise and meaningful terminology.According to the Illinois Code, a person who kills another individual without lawful excuse commits murder(a)if he intended to kill him or do great bodily harm;or(b)if, without intending to kill, it clearly appears that he must have known that his conduct probably would cause death;or(c)if death resulted from the commission of a very serious crime like robbery, burglary or rape.5.Capital Punishment For many years there has been much controversy as to whether capital punishment serves its intended purpose--a deterrent to murder.The issue is still unresolved among researchers on the subject.The capital punishment controversy has become rather academic, however, by reason of the rapid decline in executions in recent years.Although there were 199 executions in 1935, there was only one in the entire United States in 1966, two in 1967 and none in 1968.Yet in each of the latter three years over four hundred persons were under sentence of death.In addition to an increasing unwillingness to execute murderers who have been sentenced to death, a legal concept was recently developed and enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding jury selection in capital cases that will make jury imposition of the death penalty much more difficult to obtain.The Court held that prospective jurors could not be rejected solely because of conscientious scruples against the death penalty.To do so, said the Court, constitutes a deprivation of due process, because the defendant would not then be accorded a trial by a “fair and impartial jury”.Exclusion because of such beliefs alone is permissible only when the prospective juror states that he would not consider setting them aside in the particular case for which he was called for jury service.
点击咨询 