【摘要】：當(dāng)前，我國(guó)立法對(duì)匿名檢舉并未加以禁止，也即默認(rèn)匿名檢舉的法律效力。然而，中國(guó)古代卻一直嚴(yán)禁匿名舉報(bào)，并且將“投匿名文書(shū)告人罪”定為罪名，匿名舉告者處死，受理者有罪，捕獲者有賞。古代立法為何會(huì)做出此種規(guī)定，其內(nèi)在根源如何，其實(shí)際效果如何，頗值探究。 清代“投匿名文書(shū)告人罪”法律體系，由律、條例、事例、則例、成案、告示等組成，立法體系極為龐雜。但就其核心內(nèi)容而言，即在嚴(yán)禁匿名告訴。匿名文書(shū)，見(jiàn)者即毀；對(duì)匿告之案不得受理，并不得上聞；并且在連人與文書(shū)一起捉獲的情況下，以絞刑重懲匿告者；被告者則無(wú)論所告虛實(shí)，皆不坐罪。在一定時(shí)期，對(duì)此類犯罪實(shí)行過(guò)嚴(yán)打，最高刑罰有立即正法并罰沒(méi)財(cái)產(chǎn)。嘉慶時(shí)期新增條例，凡是所告內(nèi)容“關(guān)系國(guó)家重大事務(wù)”的，可以上聞，候旨密辦。 按照“投匿名文書(shū)告人罪”律例的規(guī)定，，可以將該罪立法所規(guī)定的罪名區(qū)分為基本罪名、延伸罪名、擴(kuò)展罪名。對(duì)“投匿名文書(shū)告人罪”罪名及其內(nèi)在邏輯的分析，是深刻理解該罪的法律適用和全面認(rèn)識(shí)“投匿名文書(shū)告人罪”問(wèn)題的基礎(chǔ)，也是當(dāng)時(shí)立法水平的表現(xiàn)。 清“投匿名文書(shū)告人罪”法規(guī)雖然系統(tǒng)，但也有矛盾之處，尤其是“國(guó)家重大事務(wù)”條款出現(xiàn)以后，匿名揭告曾經(jīng)盛行，以致成為當(dāng)時(shí)社會(huì)的痼疾之一。這一是因?yàn)榉勺陨淼谋撞。欢墙y(tǒng)治者制定的法律，往往卻被統(tǒng)治者率先破壞；三是官僚政治難以克服的弊端；四是缺乏實(shí)名舉報(bào)的保護(hù)機(jī)制；五是民主化、法制化的決策機(jī)制的匱乏。除此之外，還有許多可以探討的問(wèn)題。 禁止匿名揭告的立法，在中國(guó)能夠存在二千多年，自有其合理性。古人能夠認(rèn)識(shí)到匿名揭告弊大于利，并通過(guò)法律予以禁止，說(shuō)明這是符合社會(huì)需要的。時(shí)至今日，匿名書(shū)信檢舉仍然沒(méi)有退出歷史舞臺(tái)。通過(guò)對(duì)清“投匿名書(shū)告人罪”律例的研究，在總結(jié)歷史經(jīng)驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上，本文認(rèn)為，用匿名書(shū)信的方式揭發(fā)檢舉不能提倡，而且應(yīng)該有相應(yīng)的處罰以加以限制；同時(shí)，在嚴(yán)格限制匿名揭告的基礎(chǔ)上，完善實(shí)名舉報(bào)的保護(hù)機(jī)制，給人以言論自由的社會(huì)環(huán)境，使匿名揭告沒(méi)有生存的市場(chǎng)，才是解決問(wèn)題的根本方法。
[Abstract]:At present, the legislation of our country does not prohibit anonymous whistleblower, that is, the legal effect of acquiescence anonymous whistleblower. In ancient China, however, anonymous reporting has been strictly prohibited, and the crime of "casting anonymous documents against a person" has been regarded as a crime. Those who report anonymously are executed, those who accept it are guilty, and those who are caught have a reward. It is worth exploring why the ancient legislation made such a provision, its internal root, its actual effect. In Qing Dynasty, the legal system was composed of laws, regulations, examples, rules, cases, notices and so on, and the legislative system was extremely complicated. But as far as its core content is concerned, it is forbidden to tell it anonymously. Anonymous documents are destroyed if they see them; the case of false accusation is inadmissible and shall not be heard; and in the case of a person who is caught together with the document, he shall be punished by hanging; the defendant, however false, shall not be guilty of a crime. In a certain period of time, such crimes were severely punished, and the maximum penalty was immediate justice and forfeiture of property. Jiaqing period new regulations, all the contents of the "important state affairs", can be heard, waiting for secret. According to the law of "the Crime of casting Anonymous instrument against a person", the crime can be divided into basic offence, extended crime and extended crime. The analysis of the crime and its internal logic is the basis of deeply understanding the application of the law and the comprehensive understanding of the problem of "the crime of electing anonymous document against the person", and is also the expression of the legislative level at that time. Although the law of "casting anonymous documents against people" in Qing Dynasty was systematic, there were some contradictions, especially after the emergence of "important state affairs", anonymous disclosure was prevalent and became one of the chronic diseases of the society at that time. This is because of the shortcomings of the law itself; second, the law made by the ruler is often first destroyed by the ruler; third, the malpractice of bureaucrat politics is difficult to overcome; fourth, there is a lack of protection mechanism for reporting under the real name; Fifth, democratization, the lack of a legal decision-making mechanism. In addition, there are many problems to be explored. Legislation against anonymous disclosure, which can exist in China for more than 2,000 years, has its own reasonableness. The ancients were able to recognize that anonymous prosecution did more harm than good, and prohibited it by law, indicating that it was in line with social needs. To this day, anonymous correspondence whistleblower still does not withdraw from the stage of history. On the basis of summarizing the historical experience, the author thinks that the method of anonymous letter should not be advocated, and there should be corresponding punishment to restrict it. At the same time, on the basis of strictly restricting anonymous disclosure, perfecting the protection mechanism of real name reporting, giving people the social environment of freedom of speech and making anonymous disclosure of the market without survival is the fundamental method to solve the problem.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南開(kāi)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D929;D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張德美;淺論法律移植的方式[J];比較法研究;2000年03期

2 邱建立;;大字報(bào)的起源初探[J];滄桑;2006年05期

3 何敏 ,汪世榮;清代刑事投訴制度研究[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1994年01期

4 柯嵐;;告密、良心自由與現(xiàn)代合法性的困境——法哲學(xué)視野中的告密者難題[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2009年06期

5 陳璽;宋志軍;;唐代刑事證據(jù)制度考略[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2009年05期

6 王應(yīng)tD;從國(guó)淵、王安禮驗(yàn)字破案看古代的投匿名書(shū)告人罪、誣告罪、誹謗罪、投書(shū)誹謗罪[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1987年03期

7 何敏;從清代私家注律看傳統(tǒng)注釋律學(xué)的實(shí)用價(jià)值[J];法學(xué);1997年05期

8 劉佳;;中國(guó)古代“匿名舉報(bào)”之法律規(guī)制[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年07期

9 屈春海;;清代京師治安防務(wù)機(jī)構(gòu)步軍統(tǒng)領(lǐng)衙門述略[J];公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);1989年02期

10 黃春平;;試論漢代匿名信——飛書(shū)[J];國(guó)際新聞界;2007年11期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 張學(xué)道;[N];北方法制報(bào);2007年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 孫麗昕;教育信訪制度研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2011年

2 王劍;明代密疏研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2004年

3 馮玉榮;明末清初松江士人與地方社會(huì)[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2005年

4 李鳳鳴;清代州縣官吏的司法責(zé)任[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2006年

5 趙廣軍;西教知識(shí)的傳播與晚清士流[D];華中師范大學(xué);2007年

6 阮劍豪;《元典章》詞語(yǔ)研究[D];浙江大學(xué);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 孫韜;略論魏晉南北朝“八議”制度[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

2 屈偉;康乾盛世傳播控制研究[D];湖南大學(xué);2009年

3 王濤;惡意訴訟侵權(quán)行為論[D];河北大學(xué);2010年

4 劉琴麗;五代司法制度研究[D];陜西師范大學(xué);2001年

5 高仁寶;唐朝違法審判責(zé)任制度研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2001年

6 孫展;秦漢上書(shū)制度[D];西北大學(xué);2002年

7 劉凡鎮(zhèn);秦漢告奸法初探[D];鄭州大學(xué);2002年

8 施洪道;試論明代州縣政府的司法職能[D];華南師范大學(xué);2004年

9 譚衛(wèi)元;張家山漢簡(jiǎn)《具律》研究[D];武漢大學(xué);2004年

10 趙楠;陳繼儒——晚明士風(fēng)的一項(xiàng)個(gè)案研究[D];東北師范大學(xué);2005年

本文編號(hào)：2325818