發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-18 04:39

  本文選題：緩刑　切入點(diǎn)：適用制度　出處：《貴州民族學(xué)院》2011年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：刑罰的人道性、公正性、社會(huì)化是人類(lèi)自身價(jià)值珍重的必然要求,刑罰的日益輕緩化催生了緩刑制度,緩刑制度是人類(lèi)文明進(jìn)步和刑罰制度發(fā)展的產(chǎn)物。自1870年北美波士頓懫用緩刑制度以來(lái),緩刑制度在美國(guó)已經(jīng)歷了一百四十余年發(fā)展,在長(zhǎng)期的司法實(shí)踐中,已形成一套比較完善且行之有效的緩刑制度。在美國(guó),司法中緩刑的適用率較高,對(duì)罪犯適用緩刑所取得的社會(huì)效果也較為明顯。與美國(guó)相比較,我國(guó)在1979年刑法中才正式規(guī)定了緩刑制度,在司法中的適用也初有成效,并日趨完善。在理論研究上,我國(guó)學(xué)者對(duì)緩刑制度的研究有所滯后,研究的水平相對(duì)落后,需進(jìn)一步拓寬研究的范圍和深度,在司法實(shí)踐中,盡管目前大量的職務(wù)犯罪以緩刑的形式而結(jié)案,并對(duì)職務(wù)犯罪適用緩刑進(jìn)一步作了規(guī)制,但總體上緩刑的適用率較低�；诖�,筆者通過(guò)比較研究的方法,對(duì)美國(guó)和我國(guó)的緩刑制度若干問(wèn)題進(jìn)行比較研究,發(fā)現(xiàn)優(yōu)劣,以期進(jìn)一步完善我國(guó)的緩刑制度。本文由四個(gè)部分的內(nèi)容組成:一是比較中美緩刑適用制度。中美兩國(guó)緩刑的適用范圍均過(guò)窄,僅限于輕刑的罪犯,有待拓寬;美國(guó)的緩刑適用制度中確立了量刑前報(bào)告制度,尤其注重人格調(diào)查內(nèi)容,較為合理,值得借鑒。二是比較中美緩刑考察制度。美國(guó)設(shè)置了專(zhuān)門(mén)的緩刑機(jī)構(gòu)以對(duì)緩刑實(shí)施考察,美國(guó)緩刑考察的內(nèi)容詳盡,注重保護(hù)緩刑犯的權(quán)利。這也是我國(guó)緩刑制度的不足。三是比較中美緩刑撤銷(xiāo)制度。我國(guó)緩刑的撤銷(xiāo)條件過(guò)于嚴(yán)格和苛刻,沒(méi)有注重緩刑的個(gè)別化特點(diǎn)。另外,應(yīng)當(dāng)撤銷(xiāo)緩刑中的“情節(jié)嚴(yán)重”的具體標(biāo)準(zhǔn)規(guī)定模糊,不易司法部門(mén)操作。四是中美緩刑制度比較研究的結(jié)論。
[Abstract]:The humanity, fairness and socialization of punishment are the inevitable requirements of human being's own value, and the gradual and gentle punishment has given birth to the probation system. The probation system is the product of the progress of human civilization and the development of the penalty system. Since 1870, the probation system has been developed in the United States for more than 140 years, and has been in judicial practice for a long time. Has formed a set of relatively perfect and effective probation system. In the United States, the application rate of probation in the judicial system is higher, and the social effect of applying probation to criminals is also more obvious. Compared with the United States, In 1979 our country only formally stipulated the probation system in the criminal law, the application in the judicature also had the initial effect, and gradually consummated. In the theory research, our country scholar's research to the probation system has lagged behind, the research level is relatively backward. The scope and depth of the study need to be further broadened. In judicial practice, although a large number of job-related crimes are closed in the form of probation at present, and the application of probation to job-related crimes is further regulated, But on the whole, the application rate of probation is relatively low. Based on this, the author makes a comparative study on some problems of probation system in the United States and our country by means of comparative study, and finds out the advantages and disadvantages. In order to further improve the probation system in China, this paper consists of four parts: first, compare the applicable system of probation between China and the United States. The scope of application of probation in China and the United States is too narrow, only limited to the criminals of light punishment, to be broadened; In the application system of probation in the United States, the system of report before sentencing is established, especially the content of personality investigation, which is reasonable and worthy of reference. The second is to compare the system of probation investigation between China and the United States, and the United States has set up special probation institutions to investigate the probation. The contents of the probation investigation in the United States are detailed and the rights of the probation offenders are protected. This is also the deficiency of the probation system in China. Third, it is a comparison between China and the United States on the revocation of the suspended sentence. The conditions for the revocation of the suspended sentence in our country are too strict and harsh. There is no attention to the individualized characteristics of probation. In addition, the specific standard of "serious circumstances" in probation should be revoked, and it is difficult for the judicial department to operate. Fourth, the conclusion of comparative study on the probation system between China and the United States.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：貴州民族學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D924.1;D971.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 段暉,周衛(wèi)軍;緩刑的刑罰謙抑性考察──兼緩刑的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)探究[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2001年07期

2 翟中東;完善緩刑制度的若干建議[J];法學(xué)雜志;2001年04期

3 阮方民;對(duì)改進(jìn)我國(guó)緩刑制度的兩點(diǎn)思考[J];法學(xué);2000年10期

4 張玉龍;;緩刑撤銷(xiāo)制度比較研究[J];法制與社會(huì);2007年02期

5 江朔;;中美現(xiàn)行緩刑制度比較研究[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年26期

6 袁小玉;;中美兩國(guó)緩刑制度比較概述[J];學(xué)理論;2010年09期

7 李鐘,曹忠杰;緩刑執(zhí)行工作中存在的問(wèn)題及其解決[J];人民檢察;2003年07期

8 李國(guó);;中外社區(qū)矯正制度的比較研究[J];山東警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年05期

9 范連玉;姬鵬;單穎輝;吉延石;;內(nèi)地刑法與香港刑法緩刑制度之比較[J];社科縱橫;2008年10期

10 李英;;完善我國(guó)緩刑制度的若干思考[J];許昌學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年04期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 劉芳芳;我國(guó)的一般緩刑制度研究[D];山東大學(xué);2007年

2 李輝;中美緩刑制度比較研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：1628064