【導(dǎo)讀】死刑主要用于對最嚴(yán)重的罪犯的懲治。給這些案子舉行公眾聽證制似乎是保證司。死刑案的公眾聽證制在維護(hù)司法公正性和保障人的權(quán)利有。公眾聽證制包括公開審判和公開宣判。比如調(diào)查證人，調(diào)查案件事實(shí)，雙方證據(jù)交換等。的處理，由當(dāng)場公開起訴、辯護(hù)陳述、詢問證人、核查證據(jù)和法庭最后陳詞組成。至于宣判，除非法律明文規(guī)定，任何刑事案件的宣判都應(yīng)當(dāng)公開進(jìn)行。如果被告人對宣判結(jié)果不服，他可以上訴，但是卻無權(quán)阻止司法機(jī)關(guān)公布宣。因此，國家不能因被告人放棄權(quán)利而取消對案件結(jié)。判的依據(jù)和原因。除了個案以外，國家或地區(qū)死刑案件的總數(shù)、減刑情況和執(zhí)行。一項(xiàng)關(guān)于是否保留死刑的調(diào)查顯示，62個國家中，87%完全。無視，只有4個國家反映認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)取決于對死刑的應(yīng)用和執(zhí)行總數(shù)。供案件信息可能會給他們行使權(quán)利帶來阻礙，因此而至程序正當(dāng)于危險之中。促使他們停止犯罪。公眾聽證制是中國刑事司法體系的基本原則。中華人民共和國刑事訴訟。在中國參加庭審是有限制

　　

【正文】 standards for the death penalty. After taking back the review and approval power of the death penalty, the Supreme Court promulgated some documents standardizing the review process of the death penalty. These documents included Provisions of the Supreme Court on Several Issues Concerning the Review of Death Penalty Cases, which establishes the procedures of interrogating the accused, investigating and verifying evidence and adopting the opinions of the defense lawyer, and improves the review process of death penalty. Remarkable achievements have been made in the review work of the death penalty. According to the structure of China?s present Criminal Procedural Law, the review process of the death penalty is under “Part 3－ Trial”. This implies that the law makers consider that the review process of the death penalty as a stage of the trial process. For this reason, after the Supreme Court took back the review and approval power of the death penalty, it shall further improve China?s review process of the Study of Issues over Public Hearing in Death Penalty Cases death penalty according to the law. Therefore, a series of principles of public hearing requirement and method for criminal trial should be observed in the death penalty review process, and the court should allow the prosecutors and defense lawyers participate the process. Thus, both parties? procedural rights, especially that of the accused, can guarantee and the defendants may exercise the right to defense at the final stage of criminal procedure. Changing the administrative nature of China?s death penalty review process, according to the standards of due process, would improve every stage of the death penalty case. 3 Conclusions Various countries in the world have different opinions and practices with regards to retaining or abolishing death penalty. At present various countries shall make their own decisions according to their own situations. In the countries where death penalty is retained, death penalty cases shall be handled according to the principle of public hearing, established by international laws and domestic laws. If the domestic legislation and judicial practice of public hearings do not conform to the criteria of international human rights law and criminal justice or are not patible to the public hearings of death penalty cases, relevant countries shall take measures to reform domestic legislation and practice. The improvement of the public hearing of death penalty cases is necessary for the fair and public trial. A fair and public trial is conducive to the improvement of the overall criminal procedure system, to the further improvement of China?s legal system construction, to the implementation of provisions on safeguarding human rights in China?s constitution, and to the implementation of the international human rights and criminal justice standard. 外文原文 二 Between Justice and Law in Aotearoa New Zealand： Two cases studies Stephen Prite Chaed ABSTRACT. Through two case studies, this essay examines the relationship between the operation and practice of law in Aotearoa New Zealand and the naming of the ?unlawful?, ?uncivil? or ?disorderly? within a colonial context. Against the background of the apparent plicity between law and colonial interest and desire in Aotearoa, I argue that, in both the ?Haka Party? case (1979) and Mair v Wanganui City Council (1996), the acts of the defendants draw attention to the relationship between the authority of the law and the repression or exclusion of difference. According to the judges in both cases, the dictates of Maori law and custom were in conflict with the principles of ?law and order?. Read in terms of colonial relations, the perceived relationship between Maori law and custom and the threat to ?civilisation?, law and order reveals the way in which ?the law? has operated in a culturally biased manner and has reflected the interests of Pakeha (New Zealanders of European descent). Thus, the perceived threat of the challenge made to the law in either case can be seen as the threat to reveal it for what it is, to expose the violence that maintains it, and thus to open a space for critique. Perhaps more powerfully than any physical attack on the system itself, these acts which expose the law challenge it in the name of justice, making it possible for the law to be seen both as a reflection of a particular cultural interest and hence as cooptable, takeable and able to be made to serve another end, that of the other in the name of justice. KEY WORDS: colonial, ?Haka Party?, justice, Mair, Maori law, New Zealand, Pakeha 1. THE VIOLENCE PROBLEM In 1987 the New Zealand government missioned a report, the ?Roper Report? as it became known, which examined violence in a broad range of contexts. Although many mended the report, it was widely noted that very few submissions were received from the Maori munity. Many critics suggested that the failure to consult Maori on such issues reflected the more general social and political inequalities which give rise to the social conditions that create violence in the first place. Titewhai Harawira, for example, argued that any report which considered the relationship between Maori and violence should consider the social and cultural context in which such violence In other words, it must take into account the uneven distribution of power and wealth within society and the ?violence? that establishes, maintains and is produced by such relations。 it must look beyond matters of ?law?, ?order? and ?criminality? to consider the historically and culturally specific conditions under which violence is produced. Thus, Harawira?s concern was not merely with what was in the report, but with what its approach toward violence passes over and leaves unaddressed: systematised, institutionalised racis