限制死刑与“死刑和解”辨正

发布时间：2018-05-05 00:20

本文选题：限制死刑 + 刑事和解　；参考：《西南交通大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：2012年3月14日,全国人大会议审议通过了《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法修正案》。在新设的“当事人和解的公诉案件诉讼程序”一章中,对于轻伤害案件、过失犯罪案件适用刑事和解的规定,正式确认了刑事和解在我国的合法地位。然而正是基于刑事和解制度的确立,以及国内外废除死刑、保障人权的呼声不断高涨,法学理论界和实务部门针对“死刑案件能否被和解”展开了激烈的争论。我国刑法、刑事诉讼法没有规定“死刑和解”,但是在我国司法实践中却存在这样的现象,即把最终罪该判处死刑的案件进行“和解”。近年来许多学者一直都在讨论这个问题,赞成者有之,反对者亦有之。就赞成方而言,他们认为“死刑和解”是限制死刑的有效径途,“死刑和解”应当被纳入我国刑事和解的范畴中去。反对方则认为这些观点是对限制死刑思想的曲解,对司法正义的破坏。因此,我们有必要厘清限制死刑与“死刑和解”相关概念的区别,以纠正“死刑和解”司法理念的错误。本文将从五个部分研究相关问题：第一章的绪论主要介绍论文研究的背景、研究现状、研究意义和研究方法。第二章对“死刑和解”的提出,以及在司法实践中运用造成的影响进行论述。具体分析“死刑和解”被提出的背景和理论基础,并以司法实践中发生的的“死刑和解”案件作为论据,还对“死刑和解”案件造成的社会反响从不同角度解析。第三章对限制死刑思想进行解析,包括其产生的渊源,和我国传统法律文化的伦理基础,以及在我国司法实践中的具体体现。同时,在我国保留死刑的法制背景下,论述保留死刑与限制死刑之间的逻辑关系,以及二者存在的合理性问题。第四章将综合前三章的整体内容,将限制死刑与“死刑和解”的概念、理念以及现实可能性结合起来讨论,批判“死刑和解”的理论谬误,从理论与实践中对“死刑和解”进行否定,区分限制死刑与“死刑和解”,证明二者在逻辑上不能证立。最后一章得出本文的结论,坚持发展我国的限制死刑思想,反对“死刑和解”。
[Abstract]:On March 14, 2012, the National people's Congress deliberated and adopted the Amendment to the Criminal procedure Law of the people's Republic of China. In the new chapter of "Proceedings of Public Prosecution cases of parties' Reconciliation", the criminal reconciliation is applied in the case of minor injury and negligent crime, which formally confirms the legal status of criminal reconciliation in our country. However, it is based on the establishment of the criminal reconciliation system, the abolition of the death penalty at home and abroad, and the rising voice of protecting human rights, the legal theorists and practical departments have launched a fierce debate on whether or not the death penalty cases can be reconciled. China's criminal law, criminal procedure law does not provide for "death penalty reconciliation", but in our judicial practice, there is such a phenomenon, that is, the ultimate crime should be sentenced to death in the case of "reconciliation". In recent years, many scholars have been discussing this issue. On the pro-side side, they think that "death penalty reconciliation" is an effective way to limit the death penalty, and "death penalty reconciliation" should be included in the scope of criminal reconciliation in our country. The opposition views these views as a misinterpretation of the idea of limiting the death penalty and a breach of judicial justice. Therefore, it is necessary for us to clarify the differences between the concepts of restricting the death penalty and the "death penalty reconciliation", so as to correct the mistakes of the judicial concept of "death penalty reconciliation". This paper will study the relevant issues from five parts: the first chapter of the introduction mainly introduces the research background, research status, research significance and research methods. The second chapter discusses the death penalty reconciliation and the influence caused by its application in judicial practice. This paper concretely analyzes the background and theoretical basis of "reconciliation of death penalty", takes the case of "reconciliation of death penalty" in judicial practice as an argument, and analyzes the social repercussions caused by "reconciliation of death penalty" from different angles. The third chapter analyzes the thought of limiting death penalty, including the origin of its origin, the ethical basis of our traditional legal culture, as well as the concrete embodiment in the judicial practice of our country. At the same time, under the legal background of retentionist death penalty in our country, the logical relationship between retentionist death penalty and restricted death penalty is discussed, and the rationality of both is discussed. The fourth chapter will synthesize the whole content of the first three chapters, will limit the death penalty and "death penalty reconciliation" the concept, the idea as well as the realistic possibility union discussion, criticizes "the death penalty reconciliation" the theory fallacy, In theory and practice, the author negates "death penalty reconciliation", differentiates between "death penalty reconciliation" and "death penalty reconciliation", and proves that they can not be proved logically. The last chapter draws the conclusion of this paper, insists on developing our country's limit death penalty thought, opposes "death penalty reconciliation".
【学位授予单位】：西南交通大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924;D925.2

【参考文献】