The collateral consequences of conviction refer to the restrictions on rights, qualifications, and obligations imposed on individuals subjected to criminal liability, as well as their relatives, through laws, administrative regulations, and industry rules. These consequences can be categorized based on their content and duration. The current system of collateral consequences exhibits characteristics such as broad existence, inevitable application, arbitrary imposition, and severe outcomes. These issues excessively infringe on citizens' fundamental rights, severely hinder the reintegration of ex-offenders into society, and lead to significant negative impacts. Measures should be promptly taken to improve this system. First, the typology of factual types and legal consequences should be strengthened, and the connection between factual types and legal consequences should be reinforced to optimize the logical framework of the collateral consequences of conviction. The establishment of a corresponding review mechanism for the collateral consequences of conviction and a system for the sealing of criminal records should follow this. Second, beneficial practices of foreign judicial review should be drawn upon, combining them with local systems to establish norms for the collateral consequences of conviction. Finally, reference can be made to the criminal record sealing systems in other countries to build a criminal record sealing system with Chinese characteristics.

Professional anti-counterfeiting is a unique phenomenon in China, which has triggered controversy over whether the professional anti-counterfeiting group has the right to fight counterfeiting. The government’s attitude towards the professional anti-counterfeiting has shifted from being supportive to disapproval. Reinterpreting the meaning of ‘consumer’ can provide a satisfactory resolution to the rights of professional anti-counterfeiting. The ‘right to combat counterfeiting’ cannot exceed its proper boundaries, and illegal anti-counterfeiting activities should be regulated by law. Also, acts that seriously infringe upon the legal interests of others should be regulated by criminal law.

Since the Amendment XI to the Criminal Law was passed, debates on China's juvenile delinquency governance have kept going on, with the juvenile homicide case in Handan being a prime example. China’s current criminal policies face a value conflict between “the best interests of the child” and “social defense necessity”, evident in contradictions in normative logic, social perception, and institutional functions, which stem from the modern transformation dilemma of the governance paradigm. Penalties, as a means of discipline and an educational tool that strengthenings norm-effectiveness via the “crime-liability” link, are essential for deterring and preventing serious juvenile crimes. But they should be an auxiliary and last-resort measure, aligned with the criminal policy of temper justice with mercy. For the approval-prosecution provisions for low-age minors, it is supposed to adhere to the “age-behavior-circumstances” three-stage review framework, clarify the criteria for “execrable circumstances”, enhance the “quasi-litigation” structure of the approval-prosecution procedure, and ensure power restraint and rights protection. Also, it is necessary to better coordinate education-correction and penalty-deterrence to promote the shift from “juvenile evil” to “juvenile redemption”.

The admission standards for defense counsel in capital cases are critical in ensuring that defendants facing the death penalty receive competent and effective legal representation. In both China and the United States, these standards are shaped by the broader legal framework, cultural values, and historical context of each jurisdiction. The U.S. system emphasizes specialized training, extensive experience, and continuous education for defense attorneys, with stringent requirements set by both federal and state regulations. The American Bar Association (ABA) guidelines play a crucial role in maintaining high standards, ensuring that defense counsel in capital cases are well-equipped to handle the complexities of such proceedings. Conversely, China’s approach, though progressively evolving, currently lacks a fully developed doctrine equivalent to the U.S.'s ineffective assistance of counsel standard. While recent legal reforms, such as the Legal Aid Law, have introduced baseline requirements for defense lawyers, the system still requires further refinement to meet the unique demands of capital defense. This paper compares the defense counsel admission systems in China and the United States, exploring how each system seeks to protect the rights of defendants while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. The analysis highlights the differences in legal philosophy and procedural safeguards, offering insights into the ongoing efforts to improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases across both common law and civil law jurisdictions.

The principle of “let the adjudicator judge, let the judge be accountable” lies at the core of judicial accountability system reform. Since the publication of the People’s Court The Fourth Five-Year Reform Outline of the People's Court System (2021-2025) issued by the People’s Court, over a decade of exploration and practical application has yielded significant progress. The principle of “let the adjudicator judge” has been more thoroughly implemented, ensuring that adjudicative power of statutory trial organizations, such as Sole Judges and Collegial Panels, is fully upheld. In contrast, the principle of “let the judge be accountable” has lagged behind due to constraints such as the construction of responsibility norms and the interpretation of the scope of accountability. These obstacles have led to ambiguities and inconsistencies in aligning adjudicative powers and responsibilities, ultimately compromising judicial quality and efficiency, inconsistencies in the application of the law, and minor cases triggering significant public sentiment. The internal essence of the "let the judge be accountable" principle lies in building a judicial accountability system that seamlessly integrates the clarification of responsibilities, the definition of accountability, and the enforcement of consequences. To address these issues, the mechanism for "letting the judge be accountable" should be enhanced by clarifying the logical prerequisite of accountability and responsibilities, solidifying the forms of accountability, and enhancing procedures for enforcing accountability. Additionally, by leveraging big data technology, strengthening digital empowerment, and advancing the modernization of adjudication management, we can advance the modernization of adjudication work.

The definition of criminal responsibility of network rumor platform is the core proposition of cyberspace governance in the digital era. At present, China's network platform plays the dual role of information intermediary and content regulator in rumor governance, but the identification of criminal responsibility is faced with two major difficulties: first, the legal obligation is not clear, the conflict between law enforcement and privacy protection; second, the subjective "knowing" proof is difficult, and the lack of unified provisions on the connotation and proof standard of "knowing", leading to the imbalance risk of responsibility expansion or restriction in judicial practice. By comparing external experience, propose the localization improvement path: firstly, clarify the platform obligation boundary, balance law enforcement cooperation and privacy protection through quantitative technical standards and stratified data transfer rules; secondly, optimize the identification mechanism of "knowing", introduce the distinction standard between "actual knowing" and "should know", and construct the "preliminary proof-proof transfer" rules, combine the expert jury system and block chain storage technology to strengthen the objectivity and scientificity of judicial recognition.

As an important part of green finance, green bonds play an important role in promoting ecological environmental protection. This paper takes the green bond information disclosure system as the research object, and the EU and the United States as the main research objects, and analyzes the existing green bond regulatory system through comparative analysis and empirical research method. The current green bond information disclosure system has problems such as insufficient legislation, insufficient regulatory measures, overlap with other environmental disclosures, and inconsistent standards, and the mandatory normative disclosure obligations for green bonds still need to be improved and further strengthened.

Objectives: This study aims to exclude the influence of the traditional "bystander effect" to explore whether contemporary factors affecting bystanders' willingness to intervene in violent crimes relate to their fear of crime, providing more comprehensive information for crime prevention strategies. Methods: Crime scenarios with varying levels of danger were presented in the questionnaire, and data were collected via an online survey platform. Based on 460 valid responses, analyses were conducted using mean score comparisons and correlation tests. Results: The willingness of bystanders to intervene decreased as the weapon used in robberies became more lethal or the number of people involved in fights increased. Among the participants, older individuals (aged 35 and above) were more likely to intervene than younger individuals; men were more inclined to intervene than women; and those with knowledge or experience in crime prevention strategies (involved in security and crime science professions) were more likely to intervene compared to the general population. Conclusions: The fear of crime among bystanders is reflected in increasingly dangerous street violence scenarios. Thus, the study finds that bystanders' attitudes towards intervention are deeply influenced by their fear of crime and provide direction for future research.