刑罚正当性之功利主义根基

发布时间：2018-06-18 10:18

  本文选题：刑罚 + 惩罚　； 参考：《吉林大学》2016年博士论文

【摘要】：鉴于刑罚关乎每一个社会成员的生命、自由、财产及尊严等最根本利益,从古希腊的柏拉图和亚里士多德,到古罗马的斯多葛学派,一直到当代欧美学者,无一例外的把刑罚的正当性问题当成最主要的伦理学和法哲学问题之一。迄今为止,学者们对于刑罚正当性问题的答案仍未取得一致,反而形成了“报应主义”和“功利主义”两种刑罚观的立场分歧和理论对立。以往的相关研究对于“刑罚正当性”这一问题的分析以及对“报应主义”和“功利主义”两种刑罚观的阐释充斥着各种混乱,对于这一古老且重大问题的研究只停留在一个相当肤浅的程度上。“混乱”和“肤浅”这两大缺陷在以往相关研究的“论域”、“论据”和“结论”三方面都有所体现。学界目前公认的结论是两种理论“各有利弊、互为补充”,进而一种以“报应限制功利”为原则的所谓“综合论”或曰“一体论”成为通说,导致当前关于刑罚哲学的研究几乎成为一潭死水。另一方面,在实务界,司法人员们的脑中则充斥着有罪必罚、罪有应得等报应性的惩罚观念,成为导致过罪化、重刑化的一个重要原因。本文认为,刑罚伦理正当性的根基在于、且仅在于功利主义。一、为功利主义辩护功利主义所强调的“幸福”,并不是幸福的主观感受,而是幸福的客观条件。功利主义要求共同体保障和增进有利于其每一个成员获得幸福的基本善品,诸如各项基本自由和权利、财富、各种平等机会等等。因此功利主义可以进行效用计算和人际间的效用比较。尤其是,功利主义认为幸福的基石是自由,充分的自由是每个人能够充分实现自己各种幸福愿望的必要条件。功利主义的口号“增进最大多数人的最大幸福”的真正含义指的是“最大限度的增进每一个社会成员的幸福”,即其强调的是幸福的平等,而不是幸福的总量,功利主义不会为了幸福总量的增加而允许不同的社会成员的幸福之间存在巨大差距。因此,功利主义不会为了特定少数人的利益而损害特定大多数人的利益,也不会为了特定大多数人的利益而损害特定少数人的利益,功利主义只是允许为了增进不特定的大多数人的利益而减损不特定的少数人的利益,或者在特定的大多数人的重大利益与特定少数人的利益难以两全的情况下才允许牺牲少数人的利益。正义和道德来源于功利。通行的正义规则和道德义务是历史形成的这样一种东西:如果每一个社会成员都普遍遵守它,从整体上看就会对每一个社会成员的幸福都有利。因此,遵守和尊重通行的正义规则和道德义务,在一般情况下就是最有利于最大多数人最大幸福的。因此,功利主义并不会导致非正义和不道德(例如“惩罚无辜”),功利主义只会在极端情况下才允许突破通行的正义规则和道德义务,而这种突破只能是为了更大的正义和更真的道德。并且,对于这种突破,突破者要承担功利主义的证明义务,并且要把对通行正义规则和道德义务的突破所可能导致的引起混乱等不利后果考虑在内。因此,功利主义,作为一种以“追求人类普遍幸福”为理论宗旨的道德哲学理论,其完全应当、也能够成为刑罚正当性的伦理根基。二、刑罚正当性之功利主义证成首先必须区分“刑罚正当性”这一问题下的两个不同层面的子问题,一是“刑罚存在之正当性”问题,即“刑罚”这一事物的存在为什么是正当的;二是“刑罚分配之正当性”问题,即怎样的惩罚才是正当的。当前绝大多数关于刑罚正当性问题的学说都混淆了上述两个不同层面的问题,“一般预防会导致惩罚无辜和重刑,因此一般预防不能作为刑罚的正当目的”就属于这种典型的论域混淆,因为该论断只能说明一般预防不适于作为正当刑罚之分配的正当原则,但并不能说明其不能作为刑罚之存在的正当依据。从功利主义的立场来看,任何一项公共性的制度、规则和行动,其正当性只能从其最有利于保护或增进共同体内每一个成员的最大幸福来得到确证。犯罪即严重危害最大幸福的行为。而刑罚就是在个人良心、社区感情、道德舆论的力量不足以有效阻止人们将犯罪意愿转化为犯罪行动的情况下告知人们一旦犯罪其就将付出自己的生命、自由等最大幸福要素之代价并在一个人犯罪之后确实使其付出该代价进而迫使人们不敢将犯罪意愿转化为犯罪行动,并且通过制裁犯罪而使“最大幸福规范”的效力和权威得以确证进而达到预防犯罪效果的一套制度体系。刑罚存在之正当性就在于其是一种预防犯罪以保护和增进最大幸福的有效的和必要的工具。刑罚的预防犯罪机理包括两方面,一是通过威慑行为(使人不敢犯罪),二是通过确证规范(使人不愿犯罪)。功利主义要求刑罚分配过程中必须充分考虑能够对最大幸福目标构成影响的每一个因素,必须将预防犯罪这一目的与其他最大幸福相关因素进行平衡以实现更高的目的:保护和增进共同体内每一个成员的最大幸福。因此,功利主义并不会主张刑罚分配中的预防犯罪目的决定一切,功利主义要求刑罚分配必须采取能够最有利于保护和增进共同体内每一个成员的最大幸福的最佳方案。因此,功利主义必然支持罪责原则,因为罪责原则对于保护和增进最大多数人的最大幸福最有利。功利主义也必然不会允许重刑,因为残忍的或过于严厉的刑罚对于最大多数人的最大幸福造成的综合性不利影响必然在绝对值上大于重刑威慑所能够获得的预防犯罪收益。功利主义刑罚分配的基本精神是“迫不得已”,分配原则是“刑罚宁少勿多”和“刑罚宁轻勿重”,这与报应主义的“罪有应得”和“勿轻勿重”形成了鲜明对比。三、报应主义刑罚观批判报应主义分为哲理报应主义和直觉报应主义两种类型。前者是指肇源于康德的以哲学理论为基础的报应主义,后者是指建立在社会公众正义直觉基础上的报应主义。二者之间的共同性远远小于二者之间的差异。在哲理的报应主义内部又可分为两种类型:强势报应主义和弱势报应主义。强势报应主义的哲学基础是康德先验主义的定言命令,而康德的定言命令实际上是一种诉诸经验和后果的假言命令,因为根据康德对定言命令的证明逻辑,“为什么对犯罪必须惩罚”终究要从“如果对犯罪不惩罚会怎样”的角度进行回答。因此强势报应主义本身难以作为刑罚存在之正当性的理论根基。在刑罚分配之正当性领域,强势报应主义主张有罪必罚、刑足抵罪,必然导致理论上的和实践中的重刑倾向。因此强势报应主义无法也不应成为刑罚正当性的伦理根基。弱势报应主义的两个命题是(1)刑罚只能对有罪之人施加(2)刑罚不得超过必要限度。弱势报应主义的缺陷有三方面:第一,弱势报应主义只能指引刑罚应当怎样分配,而不能证成刑罚为何应当存在,因此弱势报应主义是一种残缺的理论,其不能为“刑罚正当性”这一总问题提供完整的理论支撑;第二,弱势报应主义与强势报应主义存在一种逻辑上的断裂,从强势报应主义的“犯罪必须受罚”无法推导出“有罪才能受罚”和“惩罚不得过度”,因此无论从逻辑上看还是从语义上看,弱势报应主义都难以归入“报应”主义的理论阵营;第三,弱势的报应主义实际上仅仅是主张惩罚要对被惩罚者“公正”,而公正是一个先于并独立于弱势报应主义的范畴,公正并不是建立在弱势报应主义的基础上,相反弱势报应主义是建立在公正的基础上,因此弱势报应主义是一种无用的理论。直觉报应主义的主张是“因为公众需要惩罚而惩罚”或曰“惩罚是为了满足公众的需要”。直觉报应主义的缺陷有四点:第一,直觉报应主义只能说明刑罚之存在的现实必要性,而无法说明刑罚之存在的伦理正当性;第二,直觉报应主义将公众报应情感的满足建立在刑罚带给被惩罚者巨大痛苦的基础上,这本身就反伦理的;第三,直觉报应主义无法为针对那些并不是大多数社会成员都会对其产生报应需求的行政犯罪的刑罚的存在作出合理解释。以上三点决定了直觉报应主义无法成为刑罚存在之正当性的理论根基。第四,在刑罚分配问题上,尤其在刑罚的司法分配领域,社会公众的意见往往是不稳定的,会受到媒体和政客的影响,因此直觉报应主义也无法作为刑罚分配的正当指引。以上强势报应主义的证明逻辑、弱势报应主义的公正要求、直觉报应主义的报应需要都可以从功利主义角度得到说明,因此报应主义完全可以被功利主义所涵盖,因此相对于功利主义来说,报应主义没有独立存在的必要。所谓报应正义的补充或限制,完全是由功利主义所决定的,任何形式的报应主义,最终终究是要去功利主义那里寻找答案,任何形式的报应主义都可以用功利主义来解释——确切的说,它们本来就是功利主义的,只是有意识或无意识的披上了报应主义的合法外衣而已。综上,刑罚的正当性的根基应当是、也只能是功利主义的,功利主义能够、也只有功利主义能够对刑罚正当性相关诸问题提供全面的、充分的根据和基础。报应主义在理论上或者是残缺的、或者是错误的、或者是多余的,在实践上则是有害的,它造成了重刑的倾向,并阻止我们对什么是更加合理的惩罚之相关要素进行进一步的思考,因此应当从刑罚理论中被彻底剔除出去。
[Abstract]:As the punishment concerns the most fundamental interests of every member of the society, such as life, freedom, property and dignity, from Platon and Aristotle in ancient Greece to the Stoics of ancient Rome, to the contemporary European and American scholars, the problem of the justification of punishment is regarded as one of the most important ethical and legal philosophies. Scholars have not agreed on the answer to the question of the justification of punishment, instead, it has formed the standpoint differences and theoretical opposition between the two kinds of penalty view of "retribution doctrine" and "utilitarianism". The previous related research on the issue of "punishment justification" and the two kinds of penalty view of "retribution doctrine" and "utilitarianism". Interpretation is full of confusion, and the study of this old and important problem is only in a fairly superficial degree. The two major defects of "chaos" and "superficial" are reflected in the three aspects of the previous related research, "argument" and "conclusion". The conclusion that the academic circles now recognised is that the two theories are "beneficial to each other". In addition, the so-called "comprehensive theory" or "one in one", based on the principle of "retribution to restrict utilitarianism", leads to the current research on the philosophy of penalty. On the other hand, in the practical field, the judiciary is full of punishments, such as guilty and deserved punishment, and so on. Concept has become an important reason that leads to a crime and a heavy punishment. This article holds that the foundation of the justification of the ethic of penal ethics lies in utilitarianism. First, the "happiness" emphasized by utilitarianism is not the subjective feeling of happiness, but the objective condition of happiness. Utilitarianism requires the community to guarantee and promote it. It is beneficial to every member of its members to obtain the basic good things of happiness, such as basic freedoms and rights, wealth, all kinds of equal opportunities, etc. so utilitarianism can be used to calculate the utility of utility and to compare the utility of human beings. The true meaning of the slogan of utilitarianism "improving the greatest happiness of the most people" means "maximizing the happiness of every member of the society", which emphasizes the equality of happiness, not the total amount of happiness, and utilitarianism will not allow for the increase of happiness. There is a huge gap between the happiness of the members of society. Therefore, Utilitarianism does not harm the interests of a particular majority for the benefit of a particular minority, nor does it harm the interests of a particular minority for the benefit of a particular majority, and utilitarianism is only allowed to derogate from the interests of the unspecific majority of people. The interests of a small number of people, or the great interests of a particular majority and the interests of a particular minority, allow the sacrifice of the interests of a few people. Justice and morality come from utilitarianism. The prevailing justice and moral obligations are such a thing in history: if every member of society is generally in compliance. Keeping it, as a whole, will be beneficial to the happiness of every member of the society. Therefore, the rule of justice and moral obligation to abide by and respect for the passage is, in general, the greatest happiness for the greatest majority. Therefore, Utilitarianism does not lead to injustice and immorality (such as "punishment of innocence"), utilitarianism only In extreme cases, it is allowed to break through the prevailing rules of justice and moral obligation, which only for the sake of greater justice and more true morality. And for this breakthrough, the breakthroughs have to bear the burden of proof of utilitarianism, and to cause confusion, which may lead to the breach of the rules of justice and the breach of the moral obligations of the Tao. Therefore, utilitarianism, as a moral philosophical theory of "pursuing universal happiness" as the theoretical purpose, should be the ethical foundation of the justification of penalty. Two, the utilitarianism of the justification of penalty must first distinguish between the two different layers under the issue of "the justification of punishment". The first is the question of "the justification of the existence of penalty", that is, why the existence of the "penalty" is justified; two is the problem of "the justification of the allocation of penalty", that is, what kind of punishment is justified. At present, most of the theories about the legitimacy of penalty have confused the above two different aspects, " General prevention leads to punishment of innocence and heavy punishment, so the general prevention cannot be the proper purpose of punishment. "It belongs to this typical domain confusion, because it can only explain the proper principle that general prevention is not suitable for the distribution of the proper penalty, but it does not show that it can not be the justifiable basis for the existence of penalty. In the standpoint of the doctrine, the legitimacy of any public institution, rule and action can only be confirmed from the greatest happiness of each member of the common body which is most conducive to the protection or promotion of the greatest happiness. The punishment is not enough for the strength of the individual, the feelings of the community, and the moral opinion of the community. When it is effective to prevent people from turning criminal will into criminal action, it tells people that once a crime is committed, it will pay its own life, freedom, and the price of the greatest happiness factor and make it pay the price after a person's crime, forcing people to dare not convert criminal will into criminal action, and make it possible to punish crimes by sanctions. The validity and authority of the "maximum happiness standard" can be confirmed and then a system system to prevent the effect of crime. The justification of the existence of the penalty is that it is an effective and necessary tool to prevent crime in order to protect and enhance the greatest happiness. The mechanism of the crime prevention includes two aspects, one is through deterrence. The two is through a confirmation code (which makes a person unwilling to commit a crime). Utilitarianism requires that every factor which can affect the maximum happiness goal must be fully considered in the process of penal distribution, and the goal of the crime prevention must be balanced with other greatest happiness related factors to achieve a higher goal: to protect and enhance the common purpose. Therefore, Utilitarianism does not advocate the decision of the purpose of crime prevention in the allocation of punishment, and utilitarianism requires that the allocation of penalty must be the best case which can best protect and enhance the greatest happiness of every member of the body. Therefore, utilitarianism is bound to support the principle of guilt, Because the principle of guilt is most beneficial to the protection and promotion of the greatest happiness of the greatest majority. Utilitarianism will certainly not allow a heavy penalty, because the comprehensive adverse effect of cruel or too severe punishment on the greatest happiness of the most people is bound to be greater than the benefits of a heavy penalty deterrent. The basic spirit of the allocation of utilitarianism is "forced to be forced", and the principle of distribution is "less punishment than no more" and "punishment rather than not heavy". This is in sharp contrast with the "deserved punishment" and "do not give weight to the weight". Three, the critical retribution doctrine of the retributive doctrine of punishment is divided into philosophical retribution and intuitional retribution doctrine. Two types. The former refers to the retribution based on the philosophical theory of Kant in Zhaoyuan. The latter refers to the retribution based on the intuition of public justice. The commonality between the two is far less than the difference between the two. In the philosophy of retribution, it can be divided into two types: strong retribution and disadvantaged retribution. The philosophical basis of strong retribution is the assertion of Kant's Transcendentalism, while Kant's order is actually a false command to resort to experience and consequences, because, according to Kant's proof of the logic of the assertions, "why punishment must be punished" is ultimately the angle of "what if the punishment will not be punished" Therefore, the strong retribution doctrine itself is difficult to be the theoretical foundation of the justification of the existence of penalty. In the field of the justification of the penalty allocation, strong retribution doctrine advocates that the punishment must be punished and the penalty foot is offset, which inevitably leads to the theory and the practice of heavy punishment. Therefore, the strong newspaper should not and should not be the justification of the penalty. The two propositions of the disadvantaged retribution doctrine are (1) the penalty can only be imposed on the guilty person (2) not to exceed the necessary limit. There are three aspects of the weakness of the disadvantaged retribution doctrine: first, the disadvantaged retribution doctrine can only guide the distribution of the penalty, but the punishment should not exist, so the disadvantaged retribution doctrine is a kind of disability. The lack of theory can not provide complete theoretical support for the general problem of "punishment justification". Second, there is a logical fracture between the weak retribution doctrine and the strong retribution doctrine, and the "crime must be punished" from the strong retribution doctrine, and the "punishment cannot be punished" and "the punishment cannot be overtaken", therefore, no matter from the logic From the semantic point of view, the disadvantaged retribution doctrine is difficult to fall into the "retribution" theory camp. Third, the disadvantaged retribution doctrine, in fact, only advocates that punishment should be "fair" to the punished, and justice is a preceder and independent of the disadvantaged retribution doctrine, and justice is not based on the basis of the disadvantaged retribution doctrine. On the contrary, the disadvantaged retribution doctrine is based on justice, so the disadvantaged retribution doctrine is a useless theory. Intuitional retribution is "punishing the public because the public needs punishment" or "punishment is to meet the needs of the public." there are four points of intuitional retribution: first, intuitionism can only be found. It explains the practical necessity of the existence of the penalty, but can not explain the ethical legitimacy of the existence of the penalty; second, intuitional retribution, based on the great pain of the penalty to the punishes, is based on the enormous pain of the penalty to the penalty; and third, intuitionism can not be aimed at those who are not the majority of the society. The members will make a reasonable explanation of the existence of the punishment of the administrative crime that it produces the retribution demand. The above three points determine the theoretical foundation that the intuitional retribution doctrine can not be the justification of the existence of the penalty. Fourth, on the issue of the allocation of penalty, especially in the field of judicial distribution of the penalty, the public opinion is often unstable and will be affected. To the influence of the media and politicians, intuitionism can not be used as a proper guide for the distribution of penalty. The proof logic of the above strong retribution doctrine, the impartiality of the disadvantaged retribution doctrine, the need of the intuitional retribution can be explained from the utilitarianism angle, so the retribution doctrine can be completely covered by utilitarianism. Therefore, relative to utilitarianism, there is no necessity for the existence of retribution. The complements or limitations of the so-called retribution justice are entirely determined by utilitarianism, and any form of retribution, ultimately, seeks the answer to utilitarianism, and any form of retribution can be explained by utilitarianism. To sum up, they are utilitarianism, only consciously or unconsciously put on the legal clothes of the retribution doctrine. To sum up, the foundation of the justification of the penalty should be only utilitarianism, utilitarianism, and only utilitarianism can provide comprehensive and full basis for all problems related to the justifiable punishment of punishment. And basics. Retribution is theoretically or incomplete, or wrong, or superfluous, and in practice it is harmful. It causes the tendency of heavy punishment and prevents us from further thinking about what is a more reasonable element of punishment, so it should be completely eliminated from the theory of penalty.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D914
，

本文编号：2035139