刑法中的法律拟制探微
发布时间：2019-06-30 19:54
【摘要】：鉴于刑法中的法律拟制在刑法立法及司法实践中的颇多困惑,本文分两部分研究,第一部分旨在厘清刑法中法律拟制的含义、特征、功能、正当性,第二部分通过分析中国刑法中的法律拟制的分类,归纳总结中国刑法中法律拟制存在的问题从而提出改善建议。本文从古往今来相关学者关于法律拟制的论述开始,探讨一般性的法律拟制的含义,然后结合刑法基本原则对刑法中的法律拟制进行界定,得出刑法中的法律拟制分为两个层次的含义,分别用以判定是否为刑法中的法律拟制和判定刑法中的法律拟制是否适当。第一层次的含义为刑法明文规定对于不同行为依照相同行为及其法律后果处断的主观构造,第二层次的含义为价值上符合严格规则性、法的谦抑性以及罪刑均衡性的现代刑法应然之义的主观构造。从而将刑法中的法律拟制界定为,刑法明文规定对于不同行为依照相同行为及其法律后果处断的适当性的主观构造。 由刑法中的法律拟制的两层次判定标准,进而分析中国刑法中的法律拟制分类,从而归纳总结出中国刑法中法律拟制的四大问题,分别为存在最高司法机关运用法律拟制“造法”的现象,拟制条款太过繁冗且部分缺乏外观特征难以辨识适用困难,拟制存在刑法万能主义的工具主义倾向,存在法律拟制的随意性现象。然后针对性地对中国刑法中法律拟制的改善提出建议,分别为严格限定法律拟制的主体,精简法律拟制条款并外观化,践行拟制立法的实质正义观的同时摈弃刑法万能的工具主义观,应当审慎科学地拟制立法并体现司法实践的经验。
[Abstract]:In view of the perplexity of the legal system in the criminal law legislation and judicial practice, this paper is divided into two parts. The first part is to clarify the meaning, characteristics, functions and legitimacy of the legal formulation in the criminal law. The second part summarizes the problems existing in the legal drafting in the Chinese criminal law by analyzing the classification of the legal drafting in the Chinese criminal law, and puts forward some suggestions for improvement. This paper begins with the discussion of legal fiction by relevant scholars from ancient times to the present, discusses the meaning of general legal fiction, and then defines the legal fiction in criminal law according to the basic principles of criminal law, and draws the conclusion that the legal system in criminal law is divided into two levels, which are used to determine whether it is the legal system in criminal law and whether the legal system in criminal law is appropriate. The meaning of the first level is the subjective structure that the criminal law explicitly stipulates that different acts should be judged according to the same behavior and its legal consequences, and the second level means the subjective structure of the modern criminal law which accords with the strict regularity, the modesty of the law and the balance of crime and punishment. Thus, the legal formulation in criminal law is defined as the subjective structure of the appropriateness of different acts in accordance with the same behavior and its legal consequences. According to the two-level judgment standard of legal formulation in criminal law, and then analyzes the classification of legal fiction in Chinese criminal law, this paper sums up the four major problems of legal fiction in Chinese criminal law, respectively, the phenomenon that the highest judicial organ uses law to make "making law", the draft clause is too complicated and some of the lack of appearance characteristics are difficult to identify and apply, and there is a instrumentalist tendency of criminal law omnipotence. There is an arbitrary phenomenon of legal fiction. Then it puts forward some suggestions on the improvement of legal formulation in Chinese criminal law, namely, strictly limiting the subject of legal formulation, simplifying and externalizing the provisions of legal formulation, practicing the view of substantive justice of draft legislation and abandoning the universal instrumental view of criminal law, and should carefully and scientifically formulate legislation and reflect the experience of judicial practice.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924
本文编号：2508205
[Abstract]:In view of the perplexity of the legal system in the criminal law legislation and judicial practice, this paper is divided into two parts. The first part is to clarify the meaning, characteristics, functions and legitimacy of the legal formulation in the criminal law. The second part summarizes the problems existing in the legal drafting in the Chinese criminal law by analyzing the classification of the legal drafting in the Chinese criminal law, and puts forward some suggestions for improvement. This paper begins with the discussion of legal fiction by relevant scholars from ancient times to the present, discusses the meaning of general legal fiction, and then defines the legal fiction in criminal law according to the basic principles of criminal law, and draws the conclusion that the legal system in criminal law is divided into two levels, which are used to determine whether it is the legal system in criminal law and whether the legal system in criminal law is appropriate. The meaning of the first level is the subjective structure that the criminal law explicitly stipulates that different acts should be judged according to the same behavior and its legal consequences, and the second level means the subjective structure of the modern criminal law which accords with the strict regularity, the modesty of the law and the balance of crime and punishment. Thus, the legal formulation in criminal law is defined as the subjective structure of the appropriateness of different acts in accordance with the same behavior and its legal consequences. According to the two-level judgment standard of legal formulation in criminal law, and then analyzes the classification of legal fiction in Chinese criminal law, this paper sums up the four major problems of legal fiction in Chinese criminal law, respectively, the phenomenon that the highest judicial organ uses law to make "making law", the draft clause is too complicated and some of the lack of appearance characteristics are difficult to identify and apply, and there is a instrumentalist tendency of criminal law omnipotence. There is an arbitrary phenomenon of legal fiction. Then it puts forward some suggestions on the improvement of legal formulation in Chinese criminal law, namely, strictly limiting the subject of legal formulation, simplifying and externalizing the provisions of legal formulation, practicing the view of substantive justice of draft legislation and abandoning the universal instrumental view of criminal law, and should carefully and scientifically formulate legislation and reflect the experience of judicial practice.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前8条
1 李凤梅;;法律拟制与法律类推:以刑法规范为视角[J];法学杂志;2006年01期
2 王伟国;;司法解释单独适用之争[J];民主与法制;2009年17期
3 张明楷;;立法解释的疑问——以刑法立法解释为中心[J];清华法学;2007年01期
4 褚玉龙;梁亚维;;司法解释无权修改法律——评最高法[2006]1号司法解释第六条[J];人大研究;2006年04期
5 李振林;;盗窃罪中的法律拟制问题研究——以《刑法修正案(八)》第39条的规定为视角[J];西南政法大学学报;2011年03期
6 赵运锋;张东平;;论刑法分则中的法定拟制[J];行政与法;2008年03期
7 吴锦展;;论罪责刑相适原则及司法实现[J];知识经济;2010年19期
8 吴波;李振林;;我国刑法总则中的法律拟制规定评析[J];云南大学学报(法学版);2013年06期
，本文编号：2508205
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2508205.html
