论“老年免死”是否“为时过早”

发布时间：2018-11-23 13:07

【摘要】：2011年5月1日起《中华人民共和国刑法修正案（八）》已经正式在我国颁布实施了，这次刑法修正案从它的产生之始就伴随着不少争议，尤其是涉及刑法第十七条和第四十九条第二款中关于“老年人”宽宥的规定（已满七十五周岁的人故意犯罪的，可以从轻或者减轻处罚；过失犯罪的，，应当从轻或者减轻处罚。审判的时候已满七十五周岁的人，不适用死刑，但以特别残忍手段致人死亡的除外）。立法者认为这是我国司法文明化进步的一种表现，是几千年来中华传统优秀伦理的延续，彰显了政府和社会对于老年人的关怀，是贯彻党“老有所养、老有所医、老有所为、老有所学、老有所乐”的总发展要求的一种体现。作者对立法者的这一观点并不认同，而觉得此项立法严重地违背了法律公平、公正的核心原则，背离了我国刑法的立法目的，而且可能会对人们起到负面的导向作用，为今后的司法实践留下后患，同时也不符合我国目前的国情，会破坏国家和政府的公信力。所以本文从我国立法的指导思想、历史习惯、法理依据、实践操作等方面对此项规定的合理性进行论证，认为虽然此立法看似切合世界法治发展的趋势，实则属于明显的超前立法。本文针对此问题提出了部分解决方案，希望可以启示社会。同时作者力求避免进入先入为主的思维模式，从而实现自身证据的完整。
[Abstract]:Since May 1, 2011, the Criminal Law Amendment (8) of the people's Republic of China has been officially promulgated and implemented in China. This amendment has been accompanied by many disputes since its inception. In particular, it concerns the provisions of Article 17 of the Criminal Law and paragraph 2 of Article 49 on the pardon of the "elderly" (if a person who has reached the age of 75 has committed a crime intentionally, the punishment may be mitigated or mitigated; Whoever commits a negligent crime shall be given a lighter or mitigated punishment. A person who has reached the age of 75 at the time of trial shall not be subject to the death penalty except in the case of death by special cruel means). The legislator believes that this is a manifestation of the progress of judicial civilization in China, a continuation of the excellent Chinese traditional ethics over the past several thousand years, showing the care of the government and society for the elderly, and carrying out the party's "sense of security for the elderly, medical care for the elderly, and a sense of security for the elderly." An embodiment of the overall development requirements of the old and the old to learn and to be happy. The author does not agree with this viewpoint of the legislator, but thinks that this legislation seriously violates the core principles of legal fairness and justice, deviates from the legislative purpose of our criminal law, and may play a negative role in guiding people. It will destroy the public trust of the country and the government because it leaves behind the future judicial practice and does not accord with the current situation of our country at the same time. Therefore, this paper demonstrates the rationality of this provision from the aspects of the guiding ideology, historical habits, legal theory basis, practical operation and so on of the legislation of our country, and thinks that although this legislation seems to be in line with the trend of the development of the rule of law in the world, In fact, the legislation is clearly ahead of time. This paper puts forward some solutions to this problem, hoping to enlighten the society. At the same time, the author tries to avoid the preconceived mode of thinking so as to achieve the integrity of his own evidence.
【学位授予单位】：南昌大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.1

【参考文献】