论判决前犯同种数罪之处罚
发布时间：2019-03-14 10:39
【摘要】：学界关于判决前犯同种数罪的处罚方式一直未有定论，有学者主张一罚说，有学者主张并罚说，也有学者主张折中说。就其主张的理由来看，似乎都是为了使同种数罪的处罚符合罪责刑相适应的要求。殊不知，量刑精确是量刑公正的前提和必要条件，此犯罪的量刑情节不得超越其所依附的犯罪而作用于彼犯罪是量刑精确所必须遵循的原则，可称之为效力边界原则。因此，关于判决前犯同种数罪的处罚，既应当符合罪责刑相适应原则，也应符合效力边界原则。 通过全面分析一罚说、并罚说以及折中说，可以发现关于判决前犯同种数罪的处罚方式仍有进一步完善的必要。由于一罚说主张对同种数罪一罪加重或从重处理，加上量刑情节的作用各异，因而有必要区分同种数罪的量刑情节进行一一分析。通过对比分析一罚说与并罚说在不同情形下的优劣，经过罪责刑相适应原则和效力边界原则的双重检验，基本上可以得出以并罚为主、以一罚为辅的结论。
[Abstract]:There has been no definite conclusion on the punishment of the same number of crimes before sentencing. Some scholars have advocated one punishment theory, some scholars have advocated the concurrent punishment theory, and some scholars have advocated the concessionary theory. As far as the reasons for this claim are concerned, it seems that the punishment of the same number of crimes meets the requirements of the punishment of responsibility and punishment. It is unknown that sentencing accuracy is the prerequisite and necessary condition of sentencing justice. The sentencing circumstances of this crime must not exceed the crime to which it is attached and the action on the other crime is a principle that must be followed in sentencing accuracy, which can be called the principle of effectiveness boundary. Therefore, the punishment of the same number of crimes before judgment should be in line with both the principle of adaptation of criminal responsibility and punishment, and the principle of effectiveness boundary. Through a comprehensive analysis of a penalty theory, and punishment theory and compromise theory, it can be found that there is still a need to further improve the punishment mode of the same number of crimes before conviction. It is necessary to distinguish the sentencing circumstances of the same number of crimes because a penalty theory advocates aggravating or retreating the same number of crimes, and the role of the circumstances of sentencing is different. By comparing and analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of one-penalty theory and one-penalty theory under different circumstances, through the double test of the principle of adaptation of crime and punishment and the principle of effectiveness boundary, we can basically draw a conclusion that parallel punishment is the main punishment and one penalty is auxiliary.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.1
本文编号：2439908
[Abstract]:There has been no definite conclusion on the punishment of the same number of crimes before sentencing. Some scholars have advocated one punishment theory, some scholars have advocated the concurrent punishment theory, and some scholars have advocated the concessionary theory. As far as the reasons for this claim are concerned, it seems that the punishment of the same number of crimes meets the requirements of the punishment of responsibility and punishment. It is unknown that sentencing accuracy is the prerequisite and necessary condition of sentencing justice. The sentencing circumstances of this crime must not exceed the crime to which it is attached and the action on the other crime is a principle that must be followed in sentencing accuracy, which can be called the principle of effectiveness boundary. Therefore, the punishment of the same number of crimes before judgment should be in line with both the principle of adaptation of criminal responsibility and punishment, and the principle of effectiveness boundary. Through a comprehensive analysis of a penalty theory, and punishment theory and compromise theory, it can be found that there is still a need to further improve the punishment mode of the same number of crimes before conviction. It is necessary to distinguish the sentencing circumstances of the same number of crimes because a penalty theory advocates aggravating or retreating the same number of crimes, and the role of the circumstances of sentencing is different. By comparing and analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of one-penalty theory and one-penalty theory under different circumstances, through the double test of the principle of adaptation of crime and punishment and the principle of effectiveness boundary, we can basically draw a conclusion that parallel punishment is the main punishment and one penalty is auxiliary.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.1
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 游伟,陆建红;论刑法上的“从重处罚”[J];法律科学.西北政法学院学报;2000年06期
2 贾莲君;论同种数罪应当并罚[J];法律科学.西北政法学院学报;1995年02期
3 蔡桂生;;论连续犯与同种数罪的区分及刑事处罚[J];福建法学;2007年02期
4 董超;张磊;;试论单位责任人员犯与单位犯罪相同罪名的应数罪并罚[J];法律适用;2008年12期
5 张小虎;;多次行为的理论定性与立法存疑[J];法学杂志;2006年03期
6 刘志伟;;数罪并罚若干争议问题研讨[J];法学杂志;2009年04期
7 林亚刚;张莉琼;;反复实施危害行为的成罪及处罚模式探讨[J];法学评论;2009年03期
8 郑培兵;同种数罪应该数罪并罚[J];法学;1982年01期
9 张明楷;;论同种数罪的并罚[J];法学;2011年01期
10 李克勤;魏迪;;数罪并罚制度的实践难题及完善对策——来自浙江省金华地区的情况报告[J];河北公安警察职业学院学报;2008年04期
相关博士学位论文 前2条
1 房丽;数罪并罚限制加重原则之解构[D];吉林大学;2012年
2 闵辉;数罪并罚制度研究[D];华东政法大学;2008年
，本文编号：2439908
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2439908.html
