单位犯罪立法模式比较研究

发布时间：2018-03-13 05:02

本文选题：单位犯罪　切入点：立法模式　出处：《吉林大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：经济的繁荣和发展使得单位犯罪种类和数量增多成为一种必然现象，打击和抑制单位犯罪的必要性越来越显著。我国刑法采取总则和分则结合的方式对单位犯罪进行了规制，分则规定了150个单位犯罪的罪名，但是在司法实践中，涉及单位犯罪的判决却不多，刑法有关单位犯罪的规定在实践中的适用率很低，这种情况主要是由我国刑法关于单位犯罪成立条件和处罚方式的立法模式不合理导致的。运用比较研究的方法，以美国、英国、德国、法国、意大利和日本六个典型国家为例，对各主要法域的单位犯罪立法模式特点进行比较分析，有助于界定和分析我国单位犯罪立法模式的特点和缺陷，并为解决这种立法模式导致的问题提供借鉴。通过比较分析我们可以看到，无论是对单位犯罪规定了刑事责任的法域，还是对单位行为规定了行政责任的法域，如果不探究其对单位处罚的形式与性质，只研究其对单位犯罪的归责和处罚方式，它们的立法模式都有一个共同的逻辑特征：在关于单位犯罪成立的定罪逻辑中都采取“分离模式”；在关于单位犯罪的处罚模式中都采取“并列模式”。具体地说，国外判定单位承担责任的逻辑,都是在危害结果出现以后，先确定该结果是由单位成员的行为导致的，然后再考虑如何将责任归咎于单位本身，但是归咎的依据和标准因为各国所采取的理论和原则而有所不同。无论是哪种理论，关于单位责任和单位成员责任的判断过程都是分开进行的，单位成员责任按照自然人犯罪成立条件判断，而单位犯罪的制度设计就是为了给单位犯罪提供一个独立的判定标准。在处罚方式上，对单位的处罚和对自然人的处罚也是分开进行的，认为单位和自然人都是独立的并列的犯罪主体。单位成员是自然人犯罪的主体，只对自己的行为负责，单位是单位犯罪的唯一主体，也只对自己的行为负责，单位成员承担自己的责任并不能分担或减免单位责任。从同一原则和上级责任原则发展到组织体责任原则，实现了个人责任和单位责任的彻底分离。而我国单位犯罪的立法模式呈现出一种“整体化”的模式：在关于单位犯罪成立的定罪逻辑中采用“包容模式”；在关于单位犯罪的处罚逻辑中采取“分担模式”。具体地说，我国单位犯罪中，单位和成员并非处于并列对等的地位，单位成员不具有完全独立的犯罪主体地位，只是作为单位的构成要素而存在，在单位犯罪成立条件中，单位是作为单位犯罪的唯一主体，单位的行为包容成员的行为，单位的意志包容成员的意志，单位犯罪体现出一种“由单位集体决定或者负责人决定”，并由单位下级成员实施的一种自上而下的整体性行为。单位犯罪的制度只评价单位的整体行为和意志，不单独评价单位成员的行为。在处罚上，采取双罚制为主，单罚制为辅的方式，单位成员并不是对自己的行为独立负责，而是作为单位构成要素对单位责任进行分担。单位犯罪套用的是自然人犯罪构成的体系，“整体化”的立法模式并没有为单位犯罪寻求独立的判定标准，也没有为处罚单位提供合理的依据，失去了其应有的制度功能。这种模式有其固有缺陷：理论及立法规定与司法实践相矛盾，，存在逻辑困境；成立单位犯罪的条件不明确，认定单位犯罪较困难，司法实践中单位犯罪适用率低；不能有效的预防和打击单位犯罪，缩小了对单位犯罪的处罚范围。为了从根本上解决以上问题，我们有必要改变和完善现在的立法模式，而域外的单位犯罪立法模式为我们提供了参考和借鉴。
[Abstract]:The prosperity and development of economy makes the unit crime type and quantity increase has become an inevitable phenomenon, necessity and suppression of unit crime hit more and more significant. The criminal law of our country adopt general and specific provisions of unit crime regulations, provisions of the 150 units of the criminal charges, but in judicial practice, involving the unit crime judgment does not, provisions of the criminal law about unit crime rate of application in practice is very low, this situation is mainly caused by our country criminal law about the unit crime legislation condition and the unreasonable punishment.
By using the method of comparative study, to the United States, Britain, Germany, France, the six typical countries of Italy and Japan as an example, a comparative analysis of the unit crime legislation pattern characteristics of the main law domain, contributes to the definition and analysis of the characteristics of crime legislation pattern unit and defects, and provide reference for solving the cause this kind of legislation pattern.
Through the comparative analysis we can see that both of the unit crime stipulated scope of law of criminal responsibility, or the unit act law of administrative responsibility, if not through the unit in the form of punishment and nature, only on the unit crime liability and punishment, they have a legislative mode a common feature: take "separation logic model" in logic about unit crime conviction in; take "parallel mode" in a unit crime punishment mode.
Specifically, the foreign judgment unit responsible for the logic, are in harm results, first determine the result is caused by the behavior of members of the unit, and then consider how to blame the unit itself, but on the basis and standard for the theory and principles adopted by different countries vary both. What kind of theory, judgment about the unit responsibility and the responsibility of the members of the unit are carried out separately, the members of the unit in accordance with the conditions set up the responsibility of natural person crime judgment, and system design of the unit crime is to an independent criterion for unit crime. On the punishment, the punishment of unit and natural person the punishment is carried out separately, think that the unit and natural person is the subject of crime of independent parallel. Members of the unit is the main body of the crime of natural person, only responsible for their actions, the unit is The sole body of a unit crime is only responsible for its actions. The members of the unit assume their responsibilities and cannot share or reduce the unit liability. From the same principle and the principle of superior liability to the principle of organizational responsibility, the individual responsibility and unit responsibility are completely separated.
The legislative mode of unit crime in China shows a "holistic" mode: the "inclusive" mode of conviction about unit crime in logic; logic in punishment of unit crime by "sharing model". Specifically, the unit crime in China, units and members are not in parallel peer status, members of the unit crime subject does not have full independence, just as the elements of units exist in unit crime conditions, as the only unit is the subject of unit crime, the unit behavior Bao Rongcheng member of the act, the unit will include members of the will of the unit crime reflects a kind of "by the unit of collective decision or the person responsible for the decision, the overall behavior of a top-down implementation by the unit and subordinate members of the unit crime. The system is only the behavior of the whole meaning and evaluation unit Chi doesn't evaluate individual members' behavior alone. In punishment, dual punishment system is the main form, and single punishment is subsidiary. The members of a unit are not responsible for their own behavior independently, but they share the responsibility of units as a unit.
To the unit crime crime is a natural system, legislative model of "integration" and did not seek independent criteria for unit crime, does not provide a reasonable basis for the punishment of the unit, lost its system function. This model has its inherent defects: Theory and legislation and judicial practice of contradiction there is a logical, dilemma; set up the unit crime conditions is not clear, unit crime is difficult in judicial practice, the unit crime rate is low; cannot prevent and combat units effectively reduced crime, unit crime punishment scope. In order to solve the above problem fundamentally, we need to change and perfect the legislative mode now however, outside of the unit crime legislation mode and provide reference for us.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】