论监狱的惩罚功能与罪犯自由

监狱惩罚的本质在于剥夺罪犯自由，但监狱在实施惩罚功能的同时又需要保障罪犯在监禁状态下一定程度的自由，在法律范围内最大限度地扩大罪犯服刑期间的自由度以帮助他们重返社会，即实现罪犯的再社会化，这也是监狱行刑的终极目的。行刑社会化则成为解决监狱因惩罚必须剥夺罪犯自由与罪犯再社会化又必须享有一定自由这一天然矛盾的有效路径和必然选择，贯穿其间的是行刑社会化理念的确立、自由价值观教育的强化、狱内必要自由权的保障以及监狱物质性投入的适度。

论监狱罪犯的自由

人身自由是一个集合概念．它是由若干权利组成的区域．剥夺和限制身由即包括剥夺和限制了相关的权利，意味着法律也同时禁止这些行动。不能以“法律没有禁止的就是可以做的”，扩大罪犯服刑期间的权利。事实上，国内外部采取制定相关法的办法予以规范。

Revisiting History Through Crime Fiction： Shiono Nanami＇s Scarlet Venice in The Renaissance Trilogy of Murder

The paper explores an ambiguous intersection between history and fiction in Scarlet Venice （Hi no Venezia, in original） （1988） by Japanese novelist and historiographer, Shiono Nanami （1937-）. As a prominent transnational writer who has worked on the Italian Renaissance and the Roman antiquity for about 40 years, Shiono fictionalizes the political culture of 16th century Venice in the context of the Eastern Mediterranean history. Based on her The Tales of the Sea Capital （1981）, historiography par excellence, the novel portrays the political maneuver of the Republic of Venice from viewpoints of diplomacy. With this thematic approach to history, the novel centers on the life and death of Alvise Gritti （1480-1534）, an illegitimate son of famed Venetian Doge, Andrea Gritti. In the metaphorical/metafictional structure of historical crime fiction, the novel unveils the austerity of Venetian polity, while contrasting it with the liberalism fostered in Sultan Suleiman＇s Ottoman court. In conclusion, the author interprets that Alvise Gritti is a victim of the political intricacy with which Venice was wrestling, implying that the republic is the metaphorical murderer. Whereas Alvise＇s death commemorates a drastic step taken by Venice for political negotiation, Shiono＇s recent writings suggest that Japan should model the rigid pragmatism in Venetian politics, along with its effective use of intelligence in diplomacy

Against Holocaust Denial： Between Criminality and Immorality

Insofar as the right to free speech is constitutionally protected, the article distinguishes between opinions and facts. Whereas the former is protected as a free speech matter, the latter has nothing to do with the right to free expression Holocaust Denial concerns denying facts and therefore, it is not a question of freedom of speech. At the same vein, inquiring into the conceptual grounds of the theory of criminalization, the article provides that Holocaust Denial cannot and should not be criminalized.

Resisting the Violences of ＂Market Normalisation＂： The Importance of Critical Pedagogies for Critical Criminology

The neo-liberal re-positioning of the educational-explorative realm to a vocational market-confinement has already impacted quite heavily on the educational sector in England and Wales and is now being imposed on a European wide scale. However, global as well as European students＇ protests illustrate that resistance to this ideology is gathering pace, and not only involves students and academics but also reaches wider parts of societies. This paper seeks to demonstrate the need for critical pedagogical practices that seek to sensitise students to the modes of current ＂conditions of domination＂. It further suggests critical criminologists to foster and engage in a process of public, intellectual, and intercultural exchange of ideas about education and educational institutions away from merely rationalistic, one-dimensional and profit-orientated ambitions toward a multitude of exchanges about meanings and purposes of such important socio-cultural and political institutions and processes that shape ＂subjectivities＂, inter-subjectivities and thus entire socio-cultural and political spheres. Such processes and active engagements are crucial to the agenda of critical criminologists, and perhaps most importantly, vital to the continued existence of a critical criminology that understands itself as proper ideology critique.

Cross the chasm from the immediate execution of death penalty to the death sentence with a reprieve --- Interpretation of the ＂not to execute immediately＂

Retaining the death penalty and strict restricting the application of the death penalty is now a basic criminal policy in China, and from the judicial level, the key to the restriction of the death penalty is to study what lenient sentencing discretion the criminal has to constitute ＂not to execute immediately＂ when he has reached the standard of the immediate execution of the death penalty, to cross the chasm from the immediate execution of the death penalty to the death sentence with a reprieve. The basic process of the sentencing is to establish a baseline punishment on the basis of the social harmfulness of the activities of the criminal, and then measure the profits and losses according to the offender＇s personal danger. Therefore, although the social harmfulness of the activities of the criminal reaches the standard of the ＂most heinous crimes＂, due to the existence of the fault of the victim, active compensation for the victim, and the motives of the small blames and other lenient sentencing discretions, the criminal＇s danger has not reached the degree of ＂flagrance＂. Apply the death sentence with a two-year reprieve and even the life imprisonment generally. If there are some strict sentencing discretions, such as ＂the crime means is extremely cruel＂, carefully consider the use of the immediate execution of the death penalty. Under the circumstances of the concurrence of the sentencing, carry on the overall consideration based on the comprehensive measurement of various circumstances of the sentencing.

Criminalization and the Improvement of the Punishment System

China’s existing punishment system is rational in that it accords with realities and is based on historical continuity.Any adjustments should only be premised on maintaining its basic framework and upholding the spirit of the rule of law while promoting equitable human rights protection and efficient social governance.That is,the administrative detention stipulated in such administrative laws as the Public Security Administrative Penalties Law should be abolished;the type of penalty in these laws should optimized;and at the same time all penalties aimed at depriving people of their liberty should be transferred to the Criminal Law.Whether deprivation of liberty is involved should be made the criterion for distinguishing the range of adjustments to the Criminal Law and those administrative laws that stipulate penalties.Therefore,judgments of the punishability(strafbarkeit)of criminal penalties should be made the main basis for adjusting the de jure boundaries of the scope of the Criminal Law.We should develop a rational and balanced criminalization path and a reasonable and just system of punishment.

Criminal Law Boundaries for Freedom of Speech in the Online Era

Demarcating the boundary between the constitutional right to freedom of speech and online speech crime is a major task before Chinese judiciary.In defining speech crime,we need to draw distinctions between facts and opinions;public and private affairs;and subjective and objective reality.Under the reasonable belief rule,“subjective reality”must be treated as justifiable cause.Given the technological applications and social nature of online media,internet service providers are only obliged to be neutral;they must not indiscriminately be deemed to be guilty of being accomplices or of the crime of nonperformance.In litigation involving speech crime,criminal proceedings must,in principle,be launched on the basis of the actual or presumed wishes of the victim.When a speech act seriously jeopardizes social order and the national interest but the victim is unable to determine whether to lay a charge,a direct public prosecution may be carried out.Finding someone guilty of“seriously jeopardizing law and order and the national interest”must be based on real,material disruption of order and on the fact that the suspect acted deliberately with no legitimate purpose.Minor speech crimes must not be indiscriminately subjected to fixed-term imprisonment,and social media tools serve routine purposes and should not be confiscated without good reason.