死缓限制减刑司法适用的实证分析

发布时间：2018-06-26 14:49

本文选题：死缓限制减刑 + 司法适用　；参考：《浙江大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：死缓限制减刑,产生于《刑法修正案(八)》的立法规定。从其被创制之日起,就饱受各种争议。虽然该制度的设立一定程度上缓解了我国“生刑过轻、死刑过重”的刑罚结构性缺陷,但从立法不明和司法裁判情节运用混乱的现实图景来看,死缓限制减刑的适用确实存在不少问题。本文通过案例的检索和运用SPSS分析工具中方差分析、决策树和回归分析等进行的实证分析,探索出死缓限制减刑司法适用的一些规则,如较低层级的法院逐步掌握裁判主导权；司法裁判严守罪刑法定和禁止重法溯及既往的原则,而裁判的选择有由轻到重的逻辑；裁判的严厉程度与从严情节数量成正比,与从宽情节数量成反比；主观性从轻情节对裁判结果具有重要影响,并有从民间矛盾、自首、坦白到其他从宽情节的排序规律；被害人数量对裁判结果具有控制性影响等。同时,适用中存在的问题则主要表现为：标准比较混乱、裁判逻辑不清晰；裁判结果不能实现罪刑均衡,司法裁判过程受到锚定效应的影响存在量刑偏差等。存在这些问题的主要原因是由于死刑三种执行方式的条件不能实现量化、不能界分,因此无法做到科学、规范的裁量。为更好地实现量刑公正,应以死缓最低执行刑期作为量刑起点,并设计参考量刑等级作为情节衡量的标准,通过从轻到重的裁判思路,运用情节控制与淘汰的方法进行裁判。同时,对裁判文书的表述方式和说理进行调整以配合司法裁判,宣示司法之权威。死缓(限制减刑)的价值当在于限制死刑,故不应盲目扩大其适用范围。废除死刑乃大势所趋,死刑废止之日,死缓(限制减刑)的前提将不复存在。因此,应当加紧对自由刑制度的探讨研究,以在死刑彻底废除之前形成较为完善的自由刑体系,实现刑罚结构的平稳过渡。
[Abstract]:The suspension of death penalty limits commutation of sentence, arising from the legislative provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment (8). From the day it was created, it has been subject to all kinds of controversy. Although the establishment of this system to some extent alleviates the structural defects of punishment in our country, which is "too light in life and excessive in death penalty", but from the reality of unclear legislation and chaotic use of judicial circumstances, There are many problems in the application of deferral restriction of commutation of sentence. Through the case retrieval and the empirical analysis of variance analysis, decision tree and regression analysis in SPSS analysis tool, this paper explores some rules of judicial application of death penalty suspension restriction, such as the lower level court gradually grasps the leading power of judgment; The judicial decision strictly obeys the principle of legality and forbids the retroactivity of the law, and the choice of the judge has the logic from light to heavy, the severity of the judgment is proportional to the number of the strict plot, and inversely proportional to the number of lenient plot. Subjective lighter circumstances have an important impact on the outcome of the referee, and there are from folk contradictions, surrender, confession to other lenient circumstances, the number of victims has a controlling impact on the outcome of the adjudication, and so on. At the same time, the main problems in the application are: the standard is confused, the logic of judgment is not clear, the result of judgment can not achieve the balance of crime and punishment, the judicial process is influenced by anchoring effect, and there are sentencing deviations and so on. The main reason for these problems is that the conditions of the three execution modes of the death penalty can not be quantified and separated, so it is impossible to achieve scientific and normative discretion. In order to realize the justice of sentencing better, we should take the minimum sentence of execution of death penalty as the starting point of sentencing, and design the reference sentencing grade as the criterion of plot measurement, and use the method of circumstances control and elimination to judge through the way of light to heavy judgment. At the same time, it adjusts the expression and reasoning of the judgment document to coordinate with the judicial judgment and to proclaim the judicial authority. The value of deferment (restriction of commutation of sentence) lies in the restriction of death penalty, so it should not be expanded blindly. Abolition of the death penalty is the general trend. On the day of abolition of death penalty, the precondition of death penalty suspension (restriction of commutation of sentence) will no longer exist. Therefore, we should step up the study of the system of free punishment in order to form a more perfect system of free punishment before the death penalty is completely abolished, and to realize the smooth transition of the structure of punishment.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D924.1

【相似文献】