本文選題：管制 + 刑罰�。� 參考：《安徽財經(jīng)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：在當(dāng)今世界刑罰輕緩化的大背景下,許多國家都在積極探索限制自由刑的理論研究和司法制度創(chuàng)新并在實踐中廣泛運用。管制作為具有中國特色的限制自由刑,產(chǎn)生于解放戰(zhàn)爭時期,并伴隨著我國國情在不斷發(fā)展變化,先后經(jīng)歷了異化時期和高速發(fā)展時期,同時管制作為我國唯一的限制自由刑以其自身獨有的特點,在發(fā)展的各個階段均與世界刑罰輕緩化的特點相契合,但理論界對管制的研究卻一直處于缺乏的狀態(tài),雖然有些文獻(xiàn)關(guān)注管制,但系統(tǒng)的著作少之又少。隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會、文化政治的發(fā)展,管制在司法實踐中存在較多的問題,學(xué)界對管制的存廢存在較大爭議,持廢止論觀點的學(xué)者認(rèn)為管制創(chuàng)制和發(fā)展時期賴以生存的歷史條件已不復(fù)存在、管制的存在損害刑罰體系的科學(xué)性,管制在實踐操作中難以達(dá)到懲罰和改造犯罪的目的,因此應(yīng)當(dāng)予以廢除。持存留論觀點的學(xué)者認(rèn)為理應(yīng)予以保留。同時學(xué)界的主流觀點也是傾向予以保留,并在原有的基礎(chǔ)上對管制加以修正。國家通過一系列的立法活動也表明對管制存廢的態(tài)度與學(xué)界是一致的,1979年刑法、1997年刑法、2011年《刑法修正案八》與2015年《刑法修正案九》均在立法上對管制的內(nèi)容做了修改和完善�？梢钥闯�,管制作為限制自由刑是無法從刑罰體系中剝離的,在糾結(jié)于管制的存廢之爭已無必要。但同時要認(rèn)識到修正后管制在司法實踐中依然存在懲罰力度弱、適用范圍和對象狹窄、執(zhí)行主體力度不足和執(zhí)行主體權(quán)責(zé)失衡等缺陷,影響著管制在司法實踐中效果的發(fā)揮,對于這些不足,有針對性的提出合理建議予以完善,增設(shè)強制勞動制度和引入易科制度增強管制的懲罰力度,擴(kuò)大管制的適用范圍和對象增強其在司法實踐中的適用范圍,充實執(zhí)行機(jī)構(gòu)的人力資源和擴(kuò)寬公眾參與渠道以增強執(zhí)行機(jī)構(gòu)的主體力量,賦予執(zhí)行機(jī)關(guān)充分的調(diào)查權(quán)、強制權(quán)和追捕的權(quán)利來改善執(zhí)行機(jī)構(gòu)權(quán)責(zé)失衡的局面。
[Abstract]:Under the background of the mitigation of punishment in the world today, many countries are actively exploring the theoretical research and judicial system innovation of the restriction of free punishment, which are widely used in practice. As a restricted punishment with Chinese characteristics, regulation came into being during the War of Liberation. With the continuous development and change of our country's national conditions, it has experienced the period of alienation and the period of rapid development. At the same time, as the only restricted free punishment in our country, with its own unique characteristics, in each stage of the development of the world penalty is consistent with the characteristics of mitigation, but the theory of regulation has been in a state of lack. Although some literature focuses on regulation, there are very few systematic works. With the development of economy, society, culture and politics, there are many problems in the judicial practice of regulation. The scholars who hold the view of abrogation hold that the historical conditions on which control was created and developed to survive no longer exist, the existence of control damages the scientific nature of the penalty system, and it is difficult to achieve the purpose of punishing and reforming crimes in practice. Therefore, it should be abolished. The scholars who hold the existential view think that it should be preserved. At the same time, the mainstream point of view of the academic community is also tend to retain, and on the basis of the original regulation to be revised. Through a series of legislative activities, the state also shows that the attitude towards the control and abolition is consistent with the academic circle. The contents of the legislation on the control of the criminal law are: 1979 Criminal Law, 1997 Criminal Law, 2011 Criminal Law Amendment VIII and 2015 Criminal Law Amendment IX. It has been revised and improved. It can be seen that control as a restriction of free punishment can not be separated from the penalty system, and it is unnecessary to struggle for the existence or abolition of control. But at the same time, we should realize that there are still some defects in the judicial practice, such as weak punishment, narrow scope of application and object, insufficient force of executive subject and imbalance of power and responsibility of subject, which affect the effect of regulation in judicial practice. For these shortcomings, we should put forward some reasonable suggestions to perfect them, add the compulsory labor system and introduce the system of changing branches to strengthen the punishment of the control, expand the scope of application and the object of the control, and strengthen the scope of application in the judicial practice. Strengthen the human resources of the executive organization and widen the channels of public participation in order to strengthen the main force of the executive organization, and endow the executive organ with the full investigation power, the compulsory right and the right of pursuit to improve the situation of the imbalance of the executive agency's power and responsibility.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽財經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 李懷勝;;憲法視野下的刑事立法權(quán)及其限制[J];刑事法評論;2014年01期

2 趙秉志;王俊平;;改革開放三十年我國刑法立法的成就與展望[J];人民檢察;2008年21期

，

本文編號：1858272