利益衡量在刑事责任认定中的运用

发布时间：2018-06-04 18:21

本文选题：利益衡量 + 刑法方法论　；参考：《山东大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：虽然利益衡量被引入中国比较晚,但是自从其引入中国后便引起学术界与司法实务界的高度关注。因为利益衡量首先是在民法领域中被运用,所以在刑事领域中讨论的比较少。但是这种问题在近几年里有所变化,利益衡量在刑法领域也受到了青睐,但是将利益衡量运用到刑事司法实践来认定刑事责任,仍然遭到很多学者的质疑,即便有的学者赞同将利益衡量运用到刑事司法实践,仍旧有很多顾虑。本文就试图找出利益衡量在刑法学界受到质疑的原因,并且通过论证,以使这种质疑不攻自破。其次在现有的研究中,利益衡量的理论定位以及在认定刑事责任中如何具体运用都没有相对成熟的模式,所以文章在明确将刑事司法领域中的利益衡量定位为方法论的基础上给出了其在认定刑事责任中的具体操作过程,并且分情况结合案例对其具体介绍,以期对利益衡量在刑事司法中的科学运用贡献一己之力。本文在查阅梳理大量文献的基础上,采取了从一般到特殊的演绎方法,并且辅之以归纳法、比较、图表等方法,以期能够条理清楚地表达论证出自己的观点,并且在论证的过程中穿插案例,从而尽量做到论证充分。本文共分为四部分。首先在第一部分介绍利益衡量的基本理论。利益衡量理论可以追溯至德国黑克的利益法学和韦斯特曼的评价法学,以及日本加藤一郎在批判概念法学的基础上提出的利益衡量理论,还有星野英一的利益考量论。在德国和日本关于利益衡量理论存在很多不同之处。而且尽管在同一国家,不同学者主张的利益衡量也并非完全相同,但是概括而言,德国的利益衡量仅仅是一种弥补法律漏洞的方法,而日本的利益衡量则明显具有方法论的意义。而自从20世纪末利益衡量被引入中国后,关于利益衡量理论的研究大都集中在行政法、民法等领域及司法实践,只有近些年才开始逐渐引入刑法领域,而且能否适用于刑法领域仍然备受争议。追根究底,对罪刑法定的片面认识是利益衡量深入刑法领域所面临的主要障碍,而如果站在追求实质正义的角度来理解罪刑法定,那么障碍也就不攻自破。因为利益衡量天生是一种价值判断,所以有被滥用的可能。正因如此,在通过利益衡量认定刑事责任的过程中,需要遵循三个原则。普遍性与特殊性相统一即在所有案件中利益衡量普遍存在,但只有在复杂案件中利益衡量的价值才更加凸显；合理性与合法性相统一即通过利益衡量得出合理的结论后,司法工作人员要寻求法律支持,使得该结论合法化；第三条原则是法意与民意相统一的原则。明确了利益衡量的适用原则那么接下来就是关于利益衡量在刑事责任认定中的具体操作过程。在文章的第三部分针对罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪、是否适用兜底条款、以及如何衡量刑事责任的大小这四种情形,结合具体的案例分别加以阐述利益衡量的具体运用过程,最后总结出利益衡量在认定刑事责任过程中的操作流程,即在司法实践的各个阶段如需进行利益衡量,首先需要司法工作人员处于一种“空白状态”,摆脱法律条文的纠缠,走出自己的职业惯性思维,站在社会普通群众的角度,以自己的直观感受得出初步的结论,然后根据掌握的法律事实和法律知识,根据法律规定将初步的结论合法化,而且这个过程可以重复,直到得出合理又合法的结论为止。最后利益衡量在认定刑事责任的运用过程中要明确三个方面,首先是应该将利益衡量定位为一种刑法方法论。原因有两点：第一,我国的利益衡量直接源于日本,而日本的利益衡量理论是属于方法论的范畴；第二,刑事责任认定中的利益衡量不仅仅是补充法律漏洞而且是普遍存在的思维过程,其运用过程决定了理论定位。其次,要处理好利益衡量与具体的刑法解释方法之间的关系,即如果能够通过刑法解释方法解决刑事责任的直接认定问题,那么该案件就不是文中所说的疑难案件,没有必要凸显利益衡量在认定刑事责任过程中的作用。最后,要消除民意会对法意绑架这一顾虑。这是因为民意与法意在多数情况下是重合的,当二者存在分歧时,司法工作人员需要重新审视自己的结论,避免事实认定的错误与法律适用的不准确,虽然不能唯民意是从,但群众对司法权的行使起到了监督作用。此外如果民意存在理解偏差,司法判决也会起到引导纠正作用。
[Abstract]:Although interest measurement has been introduced to China relatively late, it has aroused great concern in the academia and the judicial practice since its introduction to China. Because the interest measurement is first used in the civil law field, there are few discussions in the criminal field. However, this problem has changed in recent years, and the interest measurement is also in the field of criminal law. It has been favored, but it is still being questioned by many scholars to apply the measure of interest to criminal judicial practice. Even if some scholars agree to apply the measure of interest to criminal judicial practice, there are still many concerns. This article tries to find out the reasons for the question of interest measurement in the criminal law field, and through argument, In order to make this question unsolved. Secondly, in the existing research, the theoretical orientation of the interest measurement and how to use it in the identification of criminal responsibility have no relatively mature mode, so the article gives a definition of the criminal responsibility in the criminal judicature as the basis of the methodology. On the basis of reviewing and combing a large number of documents, this paper adopts a general to special deduction method, supplemented by methods of induction, comparison and chart, in order to be able to be clear and clear. There are four parts in this paper, which are divided into four parts. First, the basic theory of interest measurement is introduced in the first part. The theory of interest measurement can be traced back to the interest law of German hack and the evaluation law of Westerman, as well as Kato Ichiro in Japan. On the basis of critical conceptual jurisprudence, the theory of interest measurement and Hoshino Echi's theory of interest are also discussed. There are many differences between Germany and Japan about the theory of interest measurement. And although the interests of different scholars in the same country are not exactly the same, in general, the German interest measurement is only the same. A method to make up the loopholes in the law, while the Japanese measure of interest is obviously methodological, and since the introduction of interest to China at the end of the twentieth Century, most of the research on the theory of interest is concentrated in the administrative law, civil law and other fields and judicial practice. Only in recent years has it begun to gradually introduce the field of criminal law, and can it be applied to the field of criminal law It is still controversial in the field of criminal law. In the final analysis, a one-sided understanding of the legality of a crime is the main obstacle to the field of interest measurement in the field of criminal law. And if we stand in the pursuit of substantive justice to understand the legality of the crime, the obstacles will not break. Because the measure of interest is a kind of value judgment, it is abused. Maybe. Because of this, three principles should be followed in the process of determining criminal responsibility through interest measurement. The unification of universality and particularity is universal in all cases, but only in complex cases, the value of interest measurement is more prominent. After the conclusion, the judicial staff should seek legal support and make the conclusion legalized; the third principle is the principle of unification of the law and the public opinion. The following is the specific operation process of the interest measurement in the identification of criminal responsibility. The third part of the article is aimed at crime and non crime, The four cases of this crime and other crimes, whether it is applicable to the bottom of the pocket, and how to measure the size of the criminal responsibility, explain the specific application process of the interest measurement in combination with specific cases, and finally summarize the operation process of the interest measurement in the process of identifying the criminal responsibility, that is, to measure the interests at various stages of the judicial practice. First of all, the judicial staff should be in a "blank state", get rid of the entanglement of the legal provisions, get out of their own professional inertia thinking, stand in the angle of the common people of the society, draw the preliminary conclusions with their own intuitive feelings, and then legitimize the preliminary conclusions according to the legal facts and legal knowledge mastered by the law, And this process can be repeated until a reasonable and legitimate conclusion is reached. Finally, the interest measurement should be defined in three aspects in the application of criminal responsibility. First, the interest measurement should be defined as a methodology of criminal law. The theory of measurement belongs to the category of methodology. Second, the interest measurement in the identification of criminal responsibility is not only a supplementary legal loophole but also a universal thinking process. Its application process determines the theoretical orientation. Secondly, it is necessary to deal with the relationship between the interest measurement and the specific criminal interpretation method, that is, if it can be explained through criminal law. Method to solve the direct identification of criminal responsibility, then the case is not a difficult case in the article, it is not necessary to highlight the role of interest measurement in the identification of criminal responsibility. Finally, it is necessary to eliminate the concern about the abduction of the public opinion. This is because the public opinion and the meaning of the law are reclosing in most cases, when the two are divided. The judicial staff need to reexamine their own conclusions to avoid the error of the fact and the inaccuracy of the application of the law. Although the public opinion is not the only one, the masses have played a supervisory role in the exercise of judicial power. In addition, if there is a misunderstanding in the public opinion, the judicial decision will also play a guiding role.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D924

【相似文献】