期刊文献+

美国服刑人员诉诸司法之权利的宪法保护研究——以美国宪法判例为对象 被引量:1

A Research on Constitutional Protection of Prisoners' Right of Access to the Courts in the U.S.:Taking American Constitutional Cases as the Object of Study
下载PDF
导出
摘要 在美国,服刑人员诉诸司法之权利是一项受宪法保护的基本权利。这一权利的基本权利性质并非来自于宪法文本的明文规定,而是由宪法判例加以确认的。从服刑人员诉诸司法之权利领域的案例法发展历程来看,美国联邦最高法院的司法判断决定了服刑人员诉诸司法之权利受到保护的层次、程度和范围,其中1977年的邦德斯案具有里程碑意义。虽然立法和行政对这一案例法的发展状况也产生了一定影响,但司法的独特功能是实现对服刑人员诉诸司法之权利进行宪法保护的根本保障。 In the United States,prisoners' right of access to the courts is a fundamental right,which is protected by constitutional law.It is not the provision of the United States Constitution but the constitutional case that grants the fundamental right character of prisoners' right of access to the courts.From the developing course of the case law of prisoners' right of access to the courts,we find that the level,degree,and scope of prisoners' right of access to the courts depend on judicial decisions decided by the Supreme Court of the United States and that the case of Bounds in 1977 is a milestone.Although both legislation branch and execution branch affect the development of the case law,only judicial function can ensure ultimately that prisoners' right of access to the courts enjoys constitutional protection.
作者 赵娟
机构地区 南京大学法学院
出处 《政法论丛》 2011年第4期66-72,共7页 Journal of Political Science and Law
基金 江苏省法学会2010年招标课题<服刑人员人权保障研究>(SFH2010A04)的阶段性研究成果
关键词 服刑人员 诉诸司法之权利 基本权利 宪法 prisoners the right of access to the courts fundamental rights constitutional law
  • 相关文献

参考文献17

  • 1Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 ( 1941 ).
  • 2Peter M. Carlson and Judith Simon Garrett, Prison and Jail Administration: Practice and Theory (2^nd ed. ), Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Inc. , 2007, p414.
  • 3Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969).
  • 4Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974).
  • 5Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977).
  • 6Hooks v. Wainwright, 716 F. 2d913 (1983).
  • 7Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996).
  • 8Miller v. French, 530 U. S. 327 (2000).
  • 9Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U. S. 81 (2006).
  • 10Jones v. Book, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).

同被引文献22

  • 1Kimmelaman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 377 (1986).
  • 2United States v. Cronie, 466 U.S. 648,653 (1984).
  • 3Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
  • 4Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972).
  • 5B. Bright, Elected Judges and the Death Penalty in Texas: Why Full Habeas Corpus Review by Independent Federal Judges Is Indis- pensable Protecting Constitutional Rights. 78 Texas L. Rev. 1805,1807 (2000).
  • 6ABA COMM' N ON THE 21sT CENTURY JUDICIARY, Justice in Jeopardy (2003) , available at http://www. Manningproductions. Corn/ ABA263/finalreport. Pdf.
  • 7Breaking the Most Vulnerable Branch, Do Rising Threats to Judicial Independence Preclude Due Process in Capital Cases? 31 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV. (1999)at 133.
  • 8James Exum, Politics & the Death Penalty: Can Rational Discourse and Due Process Survive the Perceived Political Pressure?, 21 FORDHAM URB. L. J. 239,271-73(1994).
  • 9Traciel v. Reid, The Politicization of Retention Elections : Lessons from the Defeat of Justices Lanphier and White, 83 JUDICATURE 68, 77 (1999).
  • 10Maura Dolan, Execution Issue Clouds Davis' Judicial Selections, L. A. TIMES, Nov. 13, 1999, at A 1.

引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部