论刑法之不得已原则

发布时间：2018-05-03 04:17

本文选题：不得已原则 + 刑法的目的　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：不得已在刑法的规范体系中指的是，为了能够实现刑法保护法益的目的，刑法只能而且必须调整其他社会规范（包括其他法律规范）无法有效调整的严重侵害法益的行为，同时要求罪刑相当。刑法的不得已性从根本上说是由刑法的目的所决定的，刑法目的的实现机理是刑法不得已的现实基础，，而受刑法目的及其实现手段制约的调整对象则是刑法不得已的直接依据。保护法益是国家制定刑法的目的。刑法通过发挥其威慑效应来实现保护法益的目的，其威慑效应来源于两个方面：犯罪化的标签威慑和刑罚的威慑。刑法的目的及其实现手段限制了刑法的调整对象。首先，刑法犯罪化标签威慑效应的有效发挥要求刑法调整的行为尽可能的少：一方面，刑法只能调整严重侵害法益的行为，另一方面，其他社会规范能够调整的行为刑法亦不介入调整；其次，刑法保护法益的目的决定了对于严重侵害法益的行为刑法必须介入调整，否则，该目的无从体现，其存在本身都将受到质疑；再次，刑法以保护包括犯罪人在内的全体社会成员的法益为目的，却以限制或剥夺犯罪人的人身自由、财产乃至生命等法益为手段，这种手段与目的的二律背反关系的缓和要求刑法只有在保护绝大多数社会成员的法益时，才能对犯罪人的法益进行限制或剥夺，并且这种剥夺必须以刚好足以保护绝大多数社会成员的法益为限，即刑罚必须与犯罪相适应；最后，只有在罪刑相当的条件下才能使刑罚威慑效应与惩罚的强度之间保持正相关的函数关系。基于以上论证，笔者在文章第二部分阐释了刑法不得已原则的具体含义，并在刑法不得已性与刑法的谦抑性的区别、刑法不得已性在刑法理论中的定位、刑法不得已原则对我国罪刑法定原则的补位等三个方面展开论述；认为不得已原则的应该取代谦抑性，并成为刑法的根本原则，对我国罪刑法定原则进行机能补位，成为形式上符合刑罚法规规定却不具有实质违法性的行为出罪的强大事由。文章第三部分是刑法不得已原则在立法侧面和司法侧面的本体展开。最后结语则是从法治社会良法之治的高度肯定刑法不得已原则的整体价值。文章试图在理论上证成一个刑法原则——不得已原则。研究刑法不得已原则的最重要的理论意义在于它是刑事立法、司法中的一个有效分析工具。主要研究方法为文献资料的归纳分析与演绎推理。通过对刑法目的的梳理、刑法威慑机理的分析、刑法调整对象的确定，笔者发现刑法不得已原则是刑法自身原因使然，具有脉络清晰的理论基础，而不是立法者的宽容。通过对比分析笔者还发现，刑法不得已原则具有取代刑法谦抑性的充足理由。
[Abstract]:In the normative system of criminal law, it means that, in order to achieve the purpose of criminal law protection, criminal law can only and must adjust other social norms (including other legal norms) can not be effectively adjusted serious violations of legal interests, At the same time, the crime is required to be equal. The necessity of criminal law is fundamentally determined by the purpose of criminal law. The realization mechanism of criminal law is the realistic foundation of criminal law, while the object of adjustment restricted by the purpose of criminal law and its means of realization is the direct basis of criminal law. The interest of the law of protection is the purpose for the country to formulate the criminal law. By exerting its deterrent effect, the criminal law realizes the purpose of the law of protection. Its deterrent effect comes from two aspects: the criminalized label deterrent and the penalty deterrent. The purpose of criminal law and its means of realization limit the object of adjustment of criminal law. First of all, the effective exertion of deterrent effect of criminal label in criminal law requires as few actions as possible: on the one hand, criminal law can only adjust the behavior that seriously infringes legal interests, on the other hand, Other social norms can adjust the behavior criminal law also do not intervene in the adjustment; secondly, the purpose of criminal law protection law determines that the criminal law of serious violations of legal interests must be involved in the adjustment, otherwise, the purpose can not be reflected. Its existence itself will be questioned. Thirdly, the criminal law aims to protect the legal interests of all members of society, including the criminal, but to restrict or deprive the criminal person of personal freedom, property and even life and other legal interests as a means. The detente of the two laws against the relationship between the means and the ends requires that the criminal law restrict or deprive the legal interests of the criminals only when they protect the legal interests of the vast majority of members of society. And this deprivation must be limited to the legal interests that are just enough to protect the vast majority of members of society, that is, the penalty must be appropriate to the crime; finally, Only under the condition that the crime and punishment are equal, the relationship between the deterrent effect of penalty and the intensity of punishment can be positively related. Based on the above argumentation, in the second part of the article, the author explains the concrete meaning of the principle of the last resort of the criminal law, and the difference between the necessity of the criminal law and the modesty of the criminal law, and the orientation of the necessity of the criminal law in the theory of criminal law. The last principle of criminal law discusses the supplement of the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime in our country, and holds that the principle of necessity should replace the principle of modesty and become the fundamental principle of criminal law, and make a functional supplement to the principle of legality of crime in our country. It has become a powerful reason for committing crimes that are formally in line with the provisions of penal laws and regulations but do not have substantial illegality. The third part of the article is the principle of the last resort in the legislative and judicial aspects of the Noumenon. Finally, the conclusion is to affirm the overall value of the principle of criminal law as a last resort from the perspective of good law in a society governed by the rule of law. This article attempts to prove in theory a principle of criminal law-the principle of necessity. The most important theoretical significance of studying the principle of criminal law is that it is an effective analytical tool in criminal legislation and judicature. The main research methods are inductive analysis and deductive reasoning. Through the analysis of the purpose of criminal law, the mechanism of deterrence of criminal law, and the determination of the object of adjustment of criminal law, the author finds that the principle of criminal law as a last resort is the cause of criminal law itself and has a clear theoretical basis, not the tolerance of legislators. Through comparative analysis, the author also finds that the principle of criminal law has sufficient reasons to replace the modesty of criminal law.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924

【参考文献】