集资诈骗罪之死刑存废探讨

发布时间：2019-06-17 16:19

【摘要】：集资诈骗罪死刑存废的讨论已经到达白热化的阶段,因此有必要对其死刑存废进行研究。对其死刑存废进行研究,首先得对其概念和犯罪构成有明确的认识,对刑法第192条的规定予以细化、详细理解便是其概念,其犯罪构成也有四要件,客体,客观方面,主体和主观方面。对集资诈骗罪死刑存废进行探讨,须历史研究和比较研究其刑罚的配置。集资诈骗罪的死刑配置并不是古已有之,而是经历了三个阶段,立法缺位,单行刑法的出台配置死刑和在刑法典中予以规定并配置死刑,由此演变得知,本罪的死刑并不是古已有之、天然存在的。比较研究得知,集资诈骗行为在国外刑法中的规定主要是按诈骗罪来处罚,诈骗罪的法定刑设置是有期监禁或是惩役,并没有死刑,这些刑罚规定都值得我们借鉴。学术界对集资诈骗罪死刑存废主要存在两种观点,死刑保留论和死刑废除论。死刑保留论者认为集资诈骗罪性质严重,社会危害性大,有保留死刑的必要,而且保留其死刑有实现威慑与教育的功能,达到很好的社会效果。死刑废除论者认为集资诈骗罪社会危害性不及暴力性犯罪,用剥夺生命来弥补财产损失不等值,并且忽视了刑罚对犯罪人的改造功能。集资诈骗罪死刑的废除是有其必要性的,从以下角度考虑,第一,给集资诈骗罪配置死刑违背了罪责刑相适应的原则,本罪行为属非暴力行为,社会危害性小于暴力犯罪,公私财产所有权、金融管理秩序和死刑所匹配的生命权不具有等价性,此外,被害者也是有过错的,应分担部分责任。第二,从法定刑设置的根据和原则来看,法定刑设置的根据主要是社会危害性,集资诈骗罪虽有社会危害性,可一定程度上也刺激了经济的发展,对其社会危害性的评价不足以支持死刑；法定刑设置的原则是公正、明确和协调原则,金融诈骗犯罪中,侵犯的客体大都是国家金融管理秩序和公私财产所有权,社会危害性相差不大,其他的都废除了死刑,而集资诈骗罪保留了死刑,这是罪与罪之间的不相协调。第三,从死刑的功能来看,集资诈骗罪的死刑并没有实现立法者的本意的威慑功能,也不必用死刑抚慰被害人的心灵创伤,更无法实现对集资诈骗行为人的教育与改造功能。第四,从社会现状来看,对集资诈骗罪适用死刑并不能遏制其产生,因为此罪产生的原因是多方面的,治本之策不在于死刑的适用,而在于金融市场的完善,有效的社会综合治理。第五,从世界立法例来看,其他国家对集资诈骗行为并没有规定死刑。对集资诈骗罪死刑存废的探讨最终是要解决集资诈骗罪刑罚配置的问题,完善集资诈骗罪的刑罚配置问题,应该删掉本条关于死刑刑罚的规定,那么刑法第199条再无存在的必要,再把第199条加重法定刑的内容并入到第192条之中。
[Abstract]:The discussion on the existence or abolition of the death penalty for the crime of fund-raising fraud has reached the stage of heated up, so it is necessary to study the existence or abolition of the death penalty. In order to study the existence or abolition of the death penalty, first of all, we should have a clear understanding of its concept and the constitution of the crime, refine the provisions of Article 192 of the Criminal Law, and understand it in detail. The constitution of the crime also has four elements, the object, the objective aspect, the subject and the subjective aspect. To discuss the existence or abolition of the death penalty for the crime of fund-raising fraud, it is necessary to make a historical study and a comparative study on the allocation of the penalty. The death penalty allocation of the crime of fund-raising fraud has not existed in ancient times, but has gone through three stages. The absence of legislation, the introduction of a separate criminal law and the provision and allocation of the death penalty in the criminal code show that the death penalty for this crime does not exist in ancient times and exists naturally. The comparative study shows that the provisions of fund-raising fraud in foreign criminal law are mainly punished according to the crime of fraud, and the legal penalty for the crime of fraud is fixed imprisonment or punishment, and there is no death penalty. These penalties are worthy of our reference. There are two main views on the retention or abolition of the death penalty for the crime of fund-raising fraud in academic circles, the theory of capital penalty retention and the theory of abolition of the death penalty. The retention of the death penalty holds that the crime of fund-raising fraud is serious in nature and harmful to the society, and it is necessary to retain the death penalty, and the retention of the death penalty has the function of deterrence and education, and achieves a good social effect. The abolitionist of the death penalty holds that the social harmfulness of the crime of fund-raising fraud is not as harmful as that of violent crime, makes up for the unequal loss of property by depriving one's life, and neglects the transformation function of penalty to the perpetrator. It is necessary to abolish the death penalty for the crime of fund-raising fraud. First, the allocation of the death penalty for the crime of fund-raising fraud violates the principle of adaptation of responsibility and punishment. This crime is a non-violent act, the social harm is less than the violent crime, the ownership of public and private property, the financial management order and the death penalty match the right to life is not equivalent. In addition, the victim is also at fault and should share part of the responsibility. Second, from the basis and principle of the establishment of legal punishment, the basis of legal punishment is mainly social harmfulness. Although the crime of fund-raising fraud has social harmfulness, it also stimulates the development of economy to a certain extent, and the evaluation of its social harmfulness is not enough to support the death penalty. The principle of legal punishment is justice, clarity and coordination. In the crime of financial fraud, the object of infringement is mostly the national financial management order and the ownership of public and private property, and the social harmfulness is not much different. The others have abolished the death penalty, while the crime of fund-raising fraud retains the death penalty, which is the disharmony between the crime and the crime. Third, from the point of view of the function of the death penalty, the death penalty for the crime of fund-raising fraud does not realize the intended deterrence function of the legislator, nor does it need to comfort the spiritual trauma of the victims with the death penalty, let alone realize the function of education and transformation of the perpetrators of fund-raising fraud. Fourth, from the point of view of the social situation, the application of the death penalty to the crime of fund-raising fraud can not curb its emergence, because the causes of this crime are various, the fundamental solution lies not in the application of the death penalty, but in the perfection of the financial market and the effective comprehensive management of the society. Fifth, from the perspective of world legislation, other countries do not provide for the death penalty for fund-raising fraud. The discussion on the retention or abolition of the death penalty for the crime of fund-raising fraud is ultimately to solve the problem of penalty allocation for the crime of fund-raising fraud and to perfect the penalty allocation for the crime of fund-raising fraud. The provisions of this article on the death penalty should be deleted. Then Article 199 of the Criminal Law is no longer necessary, and then the content of article 199 aggravating the legal penalty is incorporated into Article 192.
【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.1

【参考文献】