贪污罪的刑罚配置研究

发布时间：2018-04-16 21:08

本文选题：贪污罪 + 刑罚配置　；参考：《湘潭大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：贪污腐败已然成为社会之积弊,近年来反腐力度非常大,取得了巨大的成就。贪污罪作为一种典型的贪利型职务犯罪,不仅侵害了国家财产,更加使得国家公职人员的廉洁性被破坏殆尽。但是各类案件处理的结果却很让人费解,很多情节相似但判决结果迥异或者犯罪情节差异极大但判决结果却没有很大区别。究其原因,贪污罪刑罚配置上的缺陷不得不说是一个较大的因素。最新出台的刑法修正案的改变了过去很长一段时间贪污罪定罪量刑所坚持的唯数额论,修改为“数额+情节”的二元定罪量刑模式,使得定罪量刑的标准更趋于合理公正,这不可谓不是一个进步。《刑法修正案(九)》关于贪污罪的规定确定了一个相对合理的法定刑的阶梯结构,即三年以下有期徒刑、三年以上十年以下有期徒刑、十年以上有期徒刑、无期徒刑、死刑,各个幅度之间相互衔接,避免了重叠,并且由轻到重规定了贪污罪的法定刑幅度,改变了97刑法典一直以来的形式,似乎解决了长期以来其法定刑之间存在的交叉问题。同时从贪污罪规定的刑种来看,有拘役、没收财产和罚金、有期徒刑、无期徒刑以及死刑。种类较为丰富,刑种和刑度之间的配备也较为合理,但是依然缺少了贪污罪最应当配置的资格刑这一刑种,因为贪污罪作为一种特殊的身份犯罪,其利用的就是国家工作人员这一特殊资格,而资格刑所规制的就是利用特殊资格进行犯罪的行为。因此就整个贪污罪的刑罚配置体系而言,其变化并不大,也没有解决贪污罪刑罚配置存在的主要问题,比如说贪污罪刑罚种类配置不充分、定罪量刑标准不明确、贪污罪与其他罪名之间的法定刑不协调、贪污罪刑罚配置的单一性。这些立法上存在的缺陷与不足也导致了司法适用的难度,比如说贪污罪缓刑以及免于刑事处罚的适用比例过高,而导致这些刑罚配置不合理的原因在于对贪污罪刑罚配置的研究缺乏一种理论的支撑以及罪量与刑量相对应原则的指导。笔者主张以刑罚的报应以及功利相统一为根据,遵循罪刑均衡原则、节俭性原则以及人道性原则的要求,从提高贪污罪死刑的适用标准、完善贪污罪资格刑的内容和形式、理性配置贪污罪“终身监禁”以及在司法适用时严格限制和控制贪污罪“免于刑事处罚”以及缓刑等方面对贪污罪刑罚配置加以完善,以期实现罪刑均衡,彰显刑罚的公正。
[Abstract]:Corruption has become a social drawback. In recent years, corruption has made great achievements.As a typical corruption crime, corruption crime not only infringes national property, but also destroys the integrity of public officials.However, the results of all kinds of cases are puzzling, many circumstances are similar but the result of judgment is very different, or the circumstances of crime are very different, but the result of judgment is not very different.The reason is that the defects in penalty allocation of corruption crime have to be said to be a larger factor.The latest amendments to the Criminal Law have changed the means-only theory of conviction and sentencing for corruption offences for a long time, and modified the dualistic conviction and sentencing model of "amount circumstances" to make the standard of conviction and sentencing more reasonable and just.This is not a step forward. The provisions of the Amendment to the Criminal Law (9) on the crime of corruption define a relatively reasonable ladder of legal penalties, that is, fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years and fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years and not more than ten years.Imprisonment of not less than 10 years, life imprisonment, and death penalty, the various ranges are linked to each other, avoiding duplication, and changing the form of the 97 Criminal Code from light to heavy by prescribing the statutory range of punishment for corruption offences.Seems to solve its long-term legal penalty between the existence of the intersection problem.It also includes criminal detention, confiscation of property and fines, prison terms, life imprisonment and the death penalty.The variety is relatively rich, and the equipment between the punishment and the punishment is more reasonable, but there is still a lack of the most appropriate punishment for the crime of corruption, which is the qualification penalty, because the crime of corruption is regarded as a special status crime.It uses the special qualification of state functionary, and the penalty of qualification regulates the criminal behavior of using special qualification.Therefore, as far as the penalty allocation system of the whole corruption crime is concerned, its change is not great, nor does it solve the main problems existing in the allocation of the penalty for corruption crime. For example, the allocation of penalty types of corruption crime is not sufficient, the standard of conviction and sentencing is not clear.Corruption crime and other charges between the legal penalty is not coordinated, corruption penalty allocation of the single.These shortcomings and deficiencies in legislation also lead to difficulties in the application of justice, such as suspended sentences for corruption offences and excessive rates of exemption from criminal penalties.The reason why the allocation of penalty is unreasonable lies in the lack of a theoretical support for the study of the allocation of penalty for corruption and the guidance of the corresponding principle of the amount of crime and the amount of punishment.Based on the retribution of punishment and the unity of utilitarianism, the author advocates that the principle of balance between crime and punishment, the principle of thrift and the principle of humanity should be followed to improve the applicable standard of the death penalty for corruption crime and to perfect the content and form of the qualification penalty for corruption crime.Rational allocation of corruption crime "life imprisonment", strict restriction and control of corruption crime "exemption from criminal punishment" and suspension of punishment, etc., in order to achieve a balance between crime and punishment and to highlight the justice of punishment.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】