量刑情节限制暴力犯罪死刑适用研究

发布时间：2018-05-08 11:57

  本文选题：量刑情节 + 暴力犯罪　； 参考：《武汉大学》2014年博士论文

【摘要】：暴力犯罪,尤其是故意杀人、故意伤害、抢劫、强奸等严重暴力犯罪严重威胁国家、社会的稳定和民众的安全感,古今中外都是被打击的重点。从犯罪和刑罚的相互关系及发展历史来看,暴力犯罪和死刑有着天然的契合度。然而,死刑制度在当今面临着前所未有的质疑和挑战,截止2012年底,全球198个国家中已有140个国家完全废除或者事实上废除了死刑,诸多国际公约及国际组织也大力呼吁仍保留死刑的国家尽快废除死刑。废除死刑,尤其是暴力犯罪的死刑,已经不是一个单纯的法律问题,而是演变成为一个面临民意强大压力的政治抉择。当今世界,一些大国,如中国、美国、日本等国家仍保留死刑,暴力犯罪,特别是致命性暴力犯罪的多发无疑是这些国家保留死刑的原因之一,但是,从各国不同时期的死刑统计数据来看,在死刑被废除或被严格控制适用后,暴力犯罪的数量并没有大幅增加,一些国家的暴力犯罪数量甚至还呈现下降趋势。我国近10年来的主要暴力犯罪统计数据也显示,在死刑复核权收归最高人民法院行使,暴力犯罪死刑案件数量大幅度减少的情况下,严重暴力犯罪数量也呈现下降态势。这就不能不让我们思考死刑是否是遏制暴力犯罪最有效的手段这一问题。 我国理论界对死刑的主流观点是废除死刑,我们国家的死刑政策则是“保留死刑,严格控制和慎重适用死刑”,但从近些年来有关死刑民意的调查来看,我国多数民众的主流意见是反对废除死刑,尤其是反对废除暴力犯罪的死刑。基于国情,我国现阶段废除死刑还很不现实,但考察死刑在当今世界的状况,废除死刑已经是国际潮流和历史趋势。在全球百分之七十以上的国家已经废除死刑,且即使是保留死刑的大国实际被执行死刑的人数也很少的情况下,我国成为世界上公认的执行死刑人数最多的国家,我国的死刑制度和死刑政策面临着巨大的压力和挑战。随着国内外形势的发展变化,我国官方对死刑的立场也发生了重大变化,2007年死刑复核权收归最高人民法院统一行使,2011年《刑法修正案(八)》在立法上一次性废除了13个非暴力犯罪死刑罪名,2013年十八届三中全会通过的《中共中央关于全面深化改革若干重大问题的决定》进一步提出完善人权司法保障制度,逐步减少适用死刑罪名,这充分说明减少和限制死刑适用在我国已经具有政策和法律上的保障。限制死刑有两种方式,立法限制和司法限制。立法限制是指在立法上减少死刑之罪,这是最直接也最有效的限制死刑方式,但在立法上减少死刑之罪,尤其是暴力犯罪的死刑罪名,受到各方面因素的限制,短时期内社会难以达成共识。司法限制是指在司法过程中通过司法手段控制死刑的适用,实现司法过程中降低死刑适用数量的目的。要实现司法限制死刑适用,就必须找到一个切入口。量刑情节无疑就是这一切入口,因为量刑情节是刑罚裁量的基础,在具体案件中,通过适用案中的具体量刑情节,实现刑罚裁量的公平和公正。对于暴力犯罪来说,量刑情节的正确认定与适用具有重大意义,因为这涉及到死刑的适用,因此,系统研究量刑情节限制暴力犯罪死刑的适用问题,不仅有助于死刑制度的理论研究,拓展这一问题的研究层次和领域,而且有助于司法实务,为司法实践中正确裁量死刑和严格控制死刑提供理论指导和参考。本文正是立足于此研究量刑情节限制暴力犯罪死刑适用的相关问题。 本文共分为五章,主要包括以下内容： 第一章“量刑情节与暴力犯罪死刑限制适用概述”,本部分主要界定量刑情节的概念和暴力犯罪刑法学意义上的概念,以及量刑情节在限制暴力犯罪死刑适用中的重要意义。即为实现暴力犯罪死刑限制适用的目的,就必须充分发挥量刑情节在限制死刑方面的重要作用,并通过不断总结司法实践,推动立法控制死刑。 第二章“法定量刑情节与暴力犯罪死刑限制适用”,本部分主要研究法定量刑情节在限制暴力犯罪死刑适用方面的地位和作用,提出应充分发挥法定从宽量刑情节在限制暴力犯罪死刑适用方面的积极作用,努力削减从严情节在限制暴力犯罪死刑适用方面的消极作用,同时应完善刑法典中特殊犯罪主体的相关规定,充分发挥特殊犯罪主体在限制暴力犯罪死刑适用方面的作用。本章重点选取在司法实务中常见的自首、坦白、累犯、未成年人、老年人、精神病人这几种法定量刑情节,结合具体案例阐述如何准确认定上述量刑情节及如何发挥其在限制暴力犯罪死刑适用中的作用,发现并提出存在的相关问题。 第三章“酌定量刑情节与暴力犯罪死刑限制适用”,本部分主要研究酌定量刑情节在限制暴力犯罪死刑适用方面的地位和作用。在界定酌定量刑情节概念和范围的基础上,重点选取被害人过错、犯罪动机、犯罪手段、危害结果、民事赔偿这几种涵盖罪前、罪中、罪后的酌定量刑情节,结合具体案例分析上述量刑情节在个案中对限制暴力犯罪死刑适用的作用及需要完善的问题。 第四章“共同犯罪案件量刑情节与暴力犯罪死刑限制适用”,本部分主要研究共同暴力犯罪案件中的量刑情节如何限制死刑的适用问题。我国刑法将共同犯罪人分为主犯、从犯、胁从犯和教唆犯,这不仅是共同犯罪人的分类,也是刑法裁量中的量刑情节。在共同犯罪中,死刑仅应适用于“罪责最为严重的主犯”。本章结合具体案例阐述如何准确认定“罪责最为严重的主犯”,并选取雇凶犯罪这一司法实践中罪责认定较为复杂的共同犯罪类型,论述对“罪责最为严重的主犯”的认定及死刑限制适用问题。 第五章“量刑情节与暴力犯罪死刑限制适用的思考和完善”,本部分重点研究如何充分发挥量刑情节对暴力犯罪死刑限制适用的功能,提出应对现有立法、司法规定进行完善,以解决暴力犯罪死刑适用标准过于模糊、死刑适用对象较为宽泛、常见暴力犯罪死刑罪名适用规则缺失等立法、司法层面存在的相关问题。
[Abstract]:Violent crimes, especially intentional homicide, intentional injury, robbery, rape and other serious violent crimes, seriously threaten the country, social stability and the sense of security of the people, both at home and abroad are the key points. From the relationship between crime and punishment and the history of development, the crime of violence and death penalty have a natural fit. Facing unprecedented challenges and challenges, by the end of 2012, 140 of the 198 countries in the world have completely abolished or de facto abolition of the death penalty. Many international conventions and international organizations have also strongly called for the abolition of capital punishment as soon as possible, and the abolition of the death penalty, especially the violent crime, is not a single death penalty. The simple legal problem has evolved into a political choice facing the strong pressure of public opinion. In today's world, some countries such as China, the United States, Japan, and other countries still retain the death penalty, violent crimes, especially deadly violent crimes, are undoubtedly one of the reasons for these countries to retain the death penalty, but from the death penalty of different countries. Statistics show that the number of violent crimes has not increased significantly after the death penalty is abolished or strictly controlled, and the number of violent crimes in some countries is even declining. In the past 10 years, the statistics of major violent crimes in China also show that the death penalty reverification is in the exercise of the Supreme People's court and the death penalty case. In the case of a substantial reduction in the number of pieces, the number of serious violent crimes also presents a downward trend. This can not allow us to think about whether death penalty is the most effective means of containment of violent crime.
The mainstream view of the death penalty in China's theorists is to abolish the death penalty. The death penalty policy of our country is "keeping the death penalty, strictly controlling and applying the death penalty carefully". But from the survey of the public opinion on the death penalty in recent years, the mainstream opinion of most people in our country is to oppose the abolition of the death penalty, especially the death penalty against the abolition of violent crimes. It is unrealistic to abolish the death penalty at the present stage in our country. However, it is an international trend and a historical trend to investigate the situation of the death penalty in the present world and abolish the death penalty. The death penalty has been abolished in more than seventy percent countries all over the world, and even if the number of people who have retained the death penalty in the actual execution of the death penalty, our country has become the world. China's death penalty system and the death penalty policy are faced with great pressure and challenge. With the development and change of the domestic and foreign situation, the position of the official death penalty has also changed greatly. In 2007, the Supreme People's Court of the death penalty reversion was uniformly exercised, and the 2011 amendment (eight) > In legislation, 13 non violent crimes were abolished in one time. In the third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee 2013, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China decided to deepen the reform of a number of major issues and further improved the human rights judicial guarantee system and gradually reduced the application of the death penalty charges. This account of reducing and restricting the application of the death penalty has already been applied in our country. There are two ways of restricting the death penalty, legislative restrictions and judicial restrictions. Legislative restrictions are the crime of reducing the death penalty in legislation, which is the most direct and most effective way to limit the death penalty, but the crime of reducing the death penalty in legislation, especially the death penalty for violent crimes, is limited by various factors and short period. It is difficult to reach a consensus within the internal society. Judicial restrictions refer to the application of judicial means to control the death penalty in the process of judicature and the purpose of reducing the amount of the death penalty to be applied in the process of judicature. To realize judicial restrictions on the application of the death penalty, a cut entrance must be found. The sentencing plot is undoubtedly the entrance to the sentence, because the sentencing plot is a penalty discretion. In the specific case, in the specific case, through the specific circumstances of sentencing in the case, it can realize the fairness and impartiality of the penalty discretion. For the violent crime, the correct identification and application of the sentencing circumstances is of great significance, because it involves the application of the death penalty, so the application of the sentencing circumstances to restrict the death penalty of violent crimes is systematically studied, not only It is helpful to the theoretical research of the death penalty system, to expand the research level and field of this problem, and to help the judicial practice, to provide theoretical guidance and reference for the correct discretion of death penalty and the strict control of death penalty in judicial practice. This paper is based on the related issues of the application of the sentencing circumstances to restrict the death penalty of violent crimes.
This article is divided into five chapters, which mainly include the following:
The first chapter, "the outline of the circumstances of sentencing and the death penalty for violent crime", this part mainly defines the concept of the circumstances of sentencing and the concept of criminal law in violent crime, and the significance of the circumstances of sentencing in the application of the death penalty for violent crimes. The important role of criminal circumstances in restricting death penalty, and by constantly summing up judicial practice, promoting legislation to control death penalty.
The second chapter "the legal circumstances of sentencing and the application of the death penalty for violent crime". This part mainly studies the status and role of the statutory sentencing circumstances in restricting the application of the death penalty for violent crimes, and puts forward that the positive role of the statutory leniency plot should be fully played in the application of the death penalty of violent crimes, and the strict circumstances should be reduced to the limit. The negative effect of the application of the death penalty in violent crime should be made, and the relevant provisions of the subject of special crimes in the criminal code should be perfected, and the role of the special criminal subject in the application of the death penalty should be fully exerts. The emphasis is on the methods of voluntary surrender, confession, recidivism, minors, old age and mental patients in the judicial practice. Quantitative sentence plot, combined with specific cases to elaborate how to accurately identify the circumstances of the above sentencing and how to play its role in the application of the death penalty in the restriction of violent crimes, and to find and put forward the existing problems.
The third chapter "the discretionary circumstances of sentencing and the application of the death penalty for violent crime". This part mainly studies the position and role of the discretion of the sentencing circumstances in restricting the application of the death penalty for violent crimes. On the basis of defining the concept and scope of the discretionary circumstances of sentencing, the author focuses on the selection of the victim's fault, the motive of the crime, the means of crime, the result of the damage, the civil compensation These cases, which cover the discretionary circumstances of sentencing after the crime, in the crime and after the crime, combine with the specific cases to analyze the role of the above-mentioned sentencing circumstances in the case of restricting the death penalty of violent crimes and the problems that need to be perfected.
The fourth chapter "the circumstances of the sentencing of common crime cases and the application of the death penalty of violent crime". This part mainly studies how the circumstances of sentencing in the cases of common violent crime restrict the application of the death penalty. In our criminal law, the common offender is divided into the principal offender, the accessory, the coerced offender and the abettor, which is not only the classification of the common criminal but also the criminal law. In the common crime, the death penalty should be applied only to "the most serious offender". In this chapter, in combination with specific cases, this chapter expounds how to accurately identify "the most serious offender", and selects the common crime type which is more complicated in the judicial practice of the crime of hired murder, and discusses the most serious crime. The identification of the principal offender and the application of the death penalty.
The fifth chapter, "the thinking and improvement of the application of the sentence of sentencing and the death penalty of violent crime", this part focuses on how to give full play to the function of the application of the sentencing circumstances to the death penalty of violent crime, and put forward the existing legislation and the judicial provisions to be perfected so as to solve the application of the death penalty of violent crimes too vague and the object of death penalty to be more applicable. Broad, common crime of violence, death penalty, the application of rules, such as the lack of legislation, judicial aspects of the relevant problems.

【学位授予单位】：武汉大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.1
，

本文编号：1861300