論責(zé)任主義在死刑裁量中的適用
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-08-23 20:04
【摘要】：責(zé)任主義刑法是當(dāng)代刑法的潮流。刑罰以責(zé)任為基礎(chǔ)，沒有責(zé)任就沒有刑罰。因而責(zé)任主義既是一種觀點(diǎn)的主張，又是刑法的一項(xiàng)基本原則，與罪刑法定原則、法益保護(hù)原則一同共同支配著刑法的機(jī)能。堅(jiān)持把責(zé)任作為犯罪成立要件與刑罰裁量的基準(zhǔn)——無責(zé)任便無犯罪，亦無刑罰可言。這樣才能在懲罰犯罪的同時(shí)，實(shí)現(xiàn)法益保護(hù)以及犯罪的預(yù)防。死刑是刑法中最為嚴(yán)厲的刑罰手段，更應(yīng)當(dāng)貫徹責(zé)任主義，從而達(dá)到以“少殺”作為觀念、以“慎殺”作為手段的政策要求。 在古代社會(huì)中，死刑曾盛極一時(shí)。隨著現(xiàn)代科學(xué)文明和生產(chǎn)力的巨變，人權(quán)意識(shí)逐漸覺醒，，人們對(duì)死刑的存廢態(tài)度也產(chǎn)生了重大的分歧。早在18世紀(jì)中葉，意大利著名刑法學(xué)家切薩雷·貝卡利亞在其《論犯罪與刑罰》中就提出“濫施極刑從未使人改惡從善”的觀點(diǎn)，強(qiáng)調(diào)死刑的不合理，并提出反對(duì)死刑的理由。隨著時(shí)間的推移，尤其是在二戰(zhàn)后，愈來愈多的國家在刑事立法方面開始主張廢除死刑。據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)，于1989年通過的旨在廢除死刑的《公民權(quán)利和政治權(quán)利國際公約》第二任擇議定書，到2013年，已獲得76個(gè)國家的批準(zhǔn)；超過150個(gè)國家已廢除或不再執(zhí)行死刑。2012年，聯(lián)合國193個(gè)會(huì)員國中有174個(gè)都沒有執(zhí)行死刑。時(shí)至今日，死刑存廢的爭(zhēng)論從未休止。保留死刑的學(xué)者主張死刑是人道的、符合理性的刑罰方法，認(rèn)為死刑并不違反矯正犯罪的理念，是一種平等、公正的刑罰制度，不僅有巨大威懾作用，還有利于維護(hù)善良風(fēng)俗和社會(huì)秩序，符合刑罰報(bào)應(yīng)的目的。廢除死刑的學(xué)者主張死刑是反人道、野蠻的刑罰方法，認(rèn)為死刑不利于矯正犯罪、改善犯罪人，是一種違反平等、公正的刑罰制度，不僅起不到威懾作用，還有悖于社會(huì)發(fā)展的方向，違反教育刑、目的刑的目的。 除引言和結(jié)語外，文章從三個(gè)部分論述了責(zé)任主義在裁量死刑中的適用。 第一部分：開宗明義，對(duì)責(zé)任主義的相關(guān)知識(shí)進(jìn)行歸納總結(jié)。首先，以責(zé)任的含義為切點(diǎn)，從責(zé)任主義內(nèi)涵、要素、機(jī)能、結(jié)果無價(jià)值論和行為無價(jià)值論對(duì)責(zé)任主義的影響，概要的介紹了責(zé)任主義。其次，從歷史的角度介紹了責(zé)任主義的不同學(xué)說。最后，從責(zé)任主義在刑法體系的地位、與刑法明文規(guī)定的基本原則以及與裁量死刑的關(guān)系三個(gè)層面論述了責(zé)任主義在我國刑法體系內(nèi)以及死刑適用過程中的尷尬境地。 第二部分：主要論述了責(zé)任主義與我國刑法體系的關(guān)系。分別從責(zé)任主義與我國刑法基本原則的關(guān)系、責(zé)任主義與我國犯罪構(gòu)成體系的關(guān)系、以及責(zé)任主義我國死刑裁量之間三個(gè)層面宏觀地論述了責(zé)任主義與我國死刑裁量的關(guān)系。 第三部分：對(duì)責(zé)任主義如何在死刑裁量中的具體運(yùn)用進(jìn)行論述，是本文的核心。主要包括以下幾個(gè)方面：故意的責(zé)任、事實(shí)認(rèn)識(shí)錯(cuò)誤的責(zé)任、責(zé)任能力的責(zé)任、結(jié)果加重犯的責(zé)任、責(zé)任要件內(nèi)的定罪情節(jié)與責(zé)任要件外的量刑情節(jié)，共五個(gè)部分分別進(jìn)行論述。
[Abstract]:Criminal law of responsibility doctrine is the trend of contemporary criminal law.Penalty is based on responsibility and there is no penalty without responsibility.Therefore, responsibility doctrine is not only a viewpoint, but also a basic principle of criminal law. It controls the function of criminal law together with the principle of legality of crime and punishment and the principle of protection of legal interests. Only in this way can we realize the protection of legal interests and the prevention of crimes while punishing crimes. Death penalty is the most severe means of punishment in criminal law, and more importantly, we should carry out the responsibility doctrine, so as to achieve the policy requirements of "less killing" as the concept and "cautious killing" as the means.
In the middle of the 18th century, the famous Italian criminal jurist Cesare Beccaria put forward in his book On Crime and Penalty that "Extreme punishment should be executed indiscriminately". With the passage of time, especially after World War II, more and more countries began to advocate the abolition of the death penalty in criminal legislation. According to statistics, the Second International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted in 1989, aims to abolish the death penalty. By 2013, the Optional Protocol had been ratified by 76 countries; more than 150 countries had abolished or ceased to execute the death penalty. In 2012, 174 of the 193 member states of the United Nations did not execute the death penalty. For the death penalty does not violate the concept of correcting crime, is an equal and just penalty system, not only has a great deterrent effect, but also conducive to the maintenance of good customs and social order, in line with the purpose of retribution. Man is a kind of penalty system which violates equality and justice. It not only can't deter, but also goes against the direction of social development, violates the purpose of education penalty and purpose penalty.
In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the article discusses the application of responsibility in judging the death penalty from three parts.
The first part is to summarize the relevant knowledge of accountability. Firstly, the author summarizes the impact of accountability from the connotation, elements, functions, resultant and behavioral axiology. Secondly, the author introduces the difference of accountability from a historical point of view. Finally, the embarrassing situation of accountability in China's criminal law system and the application of death penalty is discussed from three aspects: the status of accountability in the criminal law system, the basic principles clearly stipulated in the criminal law and the relationship with the discretion of death penalty.
The second part mainly discusses the relationship between the doctrine of responsibility and the criminal law system of our country.It discusses the relationship between the doctrine of responsibility and the basic principles of our criminal law,the relationship between the doctrine of responsibility and the criminal constitution system of our country,and the relationship between the doctrine of responsibility and the death penalty discretion of our country.
The third part: How to discuss the concrete application of the responsibility doctrine in the discretion of death penalty is the core of this article. It mainly includes the following aspects: intentional responsibility, the responsibility of fact cognition error, the responsibility of responsibility ability, the responsibility of aggravated crime as a result, the conviction plot in the responsibility elements and the sentencing plot outside the responsibility elements, totaling five circumstances. Parts are discussed separately.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D914
本文編號(hào)：2199775
[Abstract]:Criminal law of responsibility doctrine is the trend of contemporary criminal law.Penalty is based on responsibility and there is no penalty without responsibility.Therefore, responsibility doctrine is not only a viewpoint, but also a basic principle of criminal law. It controls the function of criminal law together with the principle of legality of crime and punishment and the principle of protection of legal interests. Only in this way can we realize the protection of legal interests and the prevention of crimes while punishing crimes. Death penalty is the most severe means of punishment in criminal law, and more importantly, we should carry out the responsibility doctrine, so as to achieve the policy requirements of "less killing" as the concept and "cautious killing" as the means.
In the middle of the 18th century, the famous Italian criminal jurist Cesare Beccaria put forward in his book On Crime and Penalty that "Extreme punishment should be executed indiscriminately". With the passage of time, especially after World War II, more and more countries began to advocate the abolition of the death penalty in criminal legislation. According to statistics, the Second International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted in 1989, aims to abolish the death penalty. By 2013, the Optional Protocol had been ratified by 76 countries; more than 150 countries had abolished or ceased to execute the death penalty. In 2012, 174 of the 193 member states of the United Nations did not execute the death penalty. For the death penalty does not violate the concept of correcting crime, is an equal and just penalty system, not only has a great deterrent effect, but also conducive to the maintenance of good customs and social order, in line with the purpose of retribution. Man is a kind of penalty system which violates equality and justice. It not only can't deter, but also goes against the direction of social development, violates the purpose of education penalty and purpose penalty.
In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the article discusses the application of responsibility in judging the death penalty from three parts.
The first part is to summarize the relevant knowledge of accountability. Firstly, the author summarizes the impact of accountability from the connotation, elements, functions, resultant and behavioral axiology. Secondly, the author introduces the difference of accountability from a historical point of view. Finally, the embarrassing situation of accountability in China's criminal law system and the application of death penalty is discussed from three aspects: the status of accountability in the criminal law system, the basic principles clearly stipulated in the criminal law and the relationship with the discretion of death penalty.
The second part mainly discusses the relationship between the doctrine of responsibility and the criminal law system of our country.It discusses the relationship between the doctrine of responsibility and the basic principles of our criminal law,the relationship between the doctrine of responsibility and the criminal constitution system of our country,and the relationship between the doctrine of responsibility and the death penalty discretion of our country.
The third part: How to discuss the concrete application of the responsibility doctrine in the discretion of death penalty is the core of this article. It mainly includes the following aspects: intentional responsibility, the responsibility of fact cognition error, the responsibility of responsibility ability, the responsibility of aggravated crime as a result, the conviction plot in the responsibility elements and the sentencing plot outside the responsibility elements, totaling five circumstances. Parts are discussed separately.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D914
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條
1 儲(chǔ)槐植;嚴(yán)而不厲:為刑法修訂設(shè)計(jì)政策思想[J];北京大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1989年06期
2 趙秉志;;中國死刑案件審判的熱點(diǎn)問題——以刑事實(shí)體法為考察視角[J];刑法論叢;2010年02期
3 張明楷;;加重構(gòu)成與量刑規(guī)則的區(qū)分[J];清華法學(xué);2011年01期
本文編號(hào)：2199775
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2199775.html
教材專著
