本文選題：死刑 + 規(guī)定方式�。� 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：死刑是刑法理論中十分重要的課題之一，歷來是各國刑法學(xué)研究的重要組成部分。尤其在《刑法修正案（八）》出臺以后，我國死刑罪名數(shù)量減少了大約五分之一，死刑問題又一次成為學(xué)術(shù)界爭論的焦點，但是只是重提舊論并非我的初衷，我認為無論死刑的存還是廢都是有其合理性的，在我的課題中想把此問題進行淡化，而是從死刑產(chǎn)生的社會基礎(chǔ)、死刑的形成、并最終如何制定成法律等方面對中日死刑進行對比研究。 第一部分主要是從立法角度出發(fā)，介紹一下中日兩國設(shè)置了哪些死刑罪名。中日刑法典的死刑罪名主要有以下幾點：（一）從死刑罪名主要保護的法益來看，中國刑法典以對國家利益和社會利益的保護為重點；日本刑法典更強調(diào)對社會法益的保護，但社會法益、國家法益和個人法益是相對均衡的。（二）中國刑法典中的死刑罪名以非暴力性犯罪為主；日本刑法典中的死刑罪名大多以暴力性犯罪行為為構(gòu)成要件，其中還有以要求致人死亡的危害結(jié)果為構(gòu)成要件的。只有關(guān)系國家利益的死刑罪名既不要求犯罪行為的暴力性，也不要求致人死亡的危害結(jié)果。（三）從死刑罪名的數(shù)量上來看，中國刑法典中的死刑罪名目前有55個；日本刑法典中的死刑罪名雖有17個，但從這些罪名適用的對象和行為來說，卻遠遠不僅有17個。 第二部分主要是從死刑的規(guī)定方式方面對中日死刑作簡要概述，死刑的規(guī)定方式有惟一死刑和選擇性死刑。中日死刑在規(guī)定方式方面的區(qū)別主要有幾下幾點：（一）在絕對死刑的規(guī)定數(shù)量上，我國刑法分則中規(guī)定了絕對死刑的數(shù)量是4個，而日本刑法典中規(guī)定了絕對死刑的罪名僅有一個。（二）在相對死刑的規(guī)定數(shù)量上，我國刑法中共有7個罪名規(guī)定了相對死刑，而日本刑法典中并沒有關(guān)于相對死刑的規(guī)定。（三）在選擇性死刑方面，日本刑法典規(guī)定的12個死刑罪名中有6個規(guī)定了2年、3年或者5年的短期自由刑，而在我國刑法中與死刑共同規(guī)定的有期徒刑為10年或者15年，都是重刑。（四）在刑罰的排列方式方面，日本刑法典中關(guān)于死刑的規(guī)定方式有六種，而且刑罰均由重及輕依次排列。我國刑法中的死刑規(guī)定方式中只有第232條即故意殺人罪采用“處死刑、無期徒刑或者10年有期徒刑”，其余五種都是以由輕到重的方式排列的。 第三部分主要是從死刑的適用條件方面作簡單概述，分析了我國和日本在死刑適用條件上的不同和相同之處。中國現(xiàn)行刑法對犯罪時不滿十八周歲的人、審判的時候懷孕的婦女，不適用死刑。審判的時候已滿七十五周歲的人一般也不適用死刑，只有以特別殘忍手段致人死亡的情況除外。日本刑法中規(guī)定對犯罪時未滿十八周歲的人不適用死刑。對作為被告人的女性即使懷孕也可以判處死刑，只是對死刑應(yīng)當(dāng)暫停執(zhí)行。對于被判處死刑的心神喪失者，只有在控制和辨認能力恢復(fù)以后才可以執(zhí)行死刑。但是，，適用條件除了有以上不同之處以外，也是有相同之處的。不管哪一個國家，死刑作為一種以極端的方式剝奪他人生命的刑罰，在實現(xiàn)公平與正義的同時，都注定了不可以亂用死刑，所以在死刑的適用問題上，都需要設(shè)定一些特殊的范疇，以實現(xiàn)個人利益和國家利益之間的均衡。 第四部分主要是從三個方面介紹中日兩國的死刑執(zhí)行方式：第一,死刑是否公開執(zhí)行，公開執(zhí)行的話如何公開，不公開的話又是怎樣的執(zhí)行情況；第二,死刑執(zhí)行的機關(guān)及原因；第三,中日兩國死刑的具體執(zhí)行方式及其變化。（一）關(guān)于死刑是否公開執(zhí)行，中國出于政治目的和一般預(yù)防的的考慮，曾過度追求死刑的公開執(zhí)行，但在20世紀80年代以后隨著法制觀念和人權(quán)意識的不斷提高，死刑執(zhí)行方式由槍決向兩種執(zhí)行方式的過渡。到20世紀90年代末期進入了一個相對秘密執(zhí)行的時期。日本自從明治后期開始一貫貫徹死刑絕對秘密執(zhí)行的方針，直至今日也是如此。（二）中國的死刑執(zhí)行機關(guān)由作出一審判決的法院和審判法官擔(dān)任，在法官的指揮下，由武警或是司法干警具體操作，作為國家法律運行監(jiān)督機關(guān)的檢察院也會派員參加對整個執(zhí)行過程進行監(jiān)督。日本的死刑執(zhí)行依據(jù)是法務(wù)大臣的執(zhí)行死刑的判決書，一般由監(jiān)獄等的工作人員進行，除此以外，檢察官和檢察事務(wù)官以及經(jīng)過特別許可的人才可以參加。（三）在死刑執(zhí)行方式方面，中國傳統(tǒng)采用槍決方式，1990年以后采取注射和槍決兩種方式。與此相比，自明治以來日本一直適用絞首的方式執(zhí)行死刑，至今已有上百年的歷史。但是兩國對于死刑執(zhí)行方式也有著共同之處：（一）無論死刑是否公開執(zhí)行，都是出于對國家利益和社會利益的考慮，都是為了塑造國家形象和維護國家統(tǒng)治的正當(dāng)性。（二）死刑的執(zhí)行方式都是向著更加人道的方向發(fā)展的。 第五部分主要是對中日死刑的前刑罰進行比較研究。在我國刑罰體系中，最接近死刑的刑罰方式雖然說是無期徒刑，但是由于死刑本身包含兩種執(zhí)行方式即死刑立即執(zhí)行和死刑緩期二年執(zhí)行，所以刑罰方式由輕及重的順序應(yīng)該為無期徒刑→死刑緩期二年執(zhí)行→死刑立即執(zhí)行。一旦判處了死刑緩期二年執(zhí)行，只要在兩年緩刑考驗期內(nèi)無故意犯罪，就可以避免被執(zhí)行死刑，在很大程度上減少了死刑案件執(zhí)行的人數(shù)。在日本刑罰體系中，與死刑最接近的刑罰方式就是無期徒刑，刑罰的輕重關(guān)系非常明了：無期徒刑→死刑，但日本的無期徒刑本身也有很大的裁量范圍，既包括絕對的無期徒刑，也包括相對的無期徒刑。中日死刑的前刑罰雖然有以上的區(qū)別，但也不無相似之處，日本的刑罰體系在很長的一段時間內(nèi)與我國的刑罰體系一樣，存在著結(jié)構(gòu)性的缺陷，即主要表現(xiàn)為死刑和徒刑之間的差距過大。無論是我國還是日本的刑法，都在替代死刑的刑罰方式上下了很大的功夫，但是死刑的前刑罰并非僅僅起到是替代死刑的作用，而且也是使死刑制度本身更加完善，使刑罰體系趨于完整和減少死刑案件數(shù)量的必不可少的一部分。
[Abstract]:Death penalty is one of the most important subjects in the theory of criminal law. It has always been an important part of the study of criminal law in various countries. Especially after the introduction of the amendment of criminal law (eight), the number of death penalty charges has been reduced by about 1/5, and the death penalty has become the focus of the academic debate again, but it is not my original intention to repeat the old theory. It is reasonableness that the death penalty and the abolished capital of the death penalty are reasonable. I want to desalination the problem in my subject, but from the social basis of the death penalty, the formation of the death penalty, and finally how to make it into law to compare the death penalty between China and Japan.
The first part is mainly from the legislative point of view of the death penalty charges set up between China and Japan. The main criminal charges of the Chinese and Japanese penal code are as follows: (I) from the legal benefits of the main protection of the death penalty, the Chinese penal code focuses on the protection of the national and social interests, and the Japanese penal code emphasizes the society. The protection of legal interest, but the social legal interest, the national legal interest and the personal legal benefit are relatively balanced. (two) the death penalty charges in the Chinese penal code are mainly non violent crimes; most of the death penalty charges in the Japanese penal code are composed of violent crimes, among which the consequences of the death of the people are the essential elements. The death penalty charges relating to the interests of the state do not require neither the violence of the criminal act nor the result of the harm caused by the death. (three) in terms of the number of death penalty charges, there are 55 crimes in the criminal code of China at present; although there are 17 crimes in the criminal code of Japan, they are far from the object and behavior applicable to these crimes. There are not only 17 far away.
The second part is mainly a brief overview of the death penalty in terms of the provisions of the death penalty. The provisions of the death penalty have the only death penalty and the selective death penalty. The difference between the Chinese and Japanese death penalty in the way of the regulation is mainly several points: (I) the number of the absolute death penalty stipulates that the number of the absolute death penalty in the criminal law of China is 4. There is only one charge of absolute death penalty in the Japanese criminal code. (two) in the amount of relative death penalty, there are 7 crimes in China's criminal law that stipulate relative death penalty, while in the Japanese penal code, there is no regulation on relative death penalty. (three) there are 6 of the 12 death sentences stipulated in the Japanese criminal code in the aspect of the selective death penalty. For 2 years, 3 years or 5 years of short-term free punishment, and in our criminal law and the death penalty jointly stipulated in the sentence of 10 years or 15 years, all are heavy sentences. (four) in the arrangement of the penalty, the Japanese penal code on the death penalty in six, and the penalty in order of weight and light in order. The death penalty stipulated in the criminal law of our country Only 232nd of the ways of intentional homicide are "death penalty, life imprisonment, or 10 years of imprisonment", and the rest of the five are arranged from light to heavy.
The third part is a brief overview of the applicable conditions of the death penalty, and analyses the differences and similarities between China and Japan on the conditions for the application of the death penalty. In the current criminal law, people who are less than eighteen years old in criminal law and women who are pregnant at the time of trial do not apply the death penalty. People at the age of seventy-five are generally not well disposed at the time of trial. With the death penalty, except for the death of a person with a special cruel means. The Japanese criminal law stipulates that the death penalty is not applicable to a person under the age of eighteen in the case of a crime. A woman who is a defendant may be sentenced to death even if she is pregnant, only the death penalty should be suspended. The person who has been sentenced to death is only under control and recognition. The death penalty can not be executed until the ability is restored. However, the conditions of application have the same in addition to the above differences. No matter which country, the death penalty, as an extreme way of depriving others of the life of others, can not use the death penalty at the same time as the realization of fairness and justice, so the application of the death penalty is asked. In order to achieve the balance between personal interests and national interests, we need to set some special categories.
The fourth part mainly introduces the execution of the death penalty between China and Japan from three aspects: first, whether the death penalty is publicly implemented, how the public execution is open, and how the non public words are carried out; second, the organs and reasons for the execution of the death penalty; third, the specific implementation methods and changes of the death penalty between China and Japan. (I) about death Whether the punishment was carried out publicly, China had overly pursued the public execution of the death penalty for political purposes and general precautions, but after 1980s, with the continuous improvement of the concept of legal system and human rights consciousness, the execution mode of death penalty was transferred from shooting to two ways of execution. By the end of 1990s, a relative secret was entered into a relative secret. The period of implementation. Since the late Meiji period, the policy of absolute secret execution of death penalty has been consistently carried out in the late Meiji period. (two) the execution organs of the death penalty in China are held by the court and trial judge who have made a trial decision, and under the command of the judges, the armed police or the judicial officers are operated, as the supervision organ of the national law operation. The procuratorate will also take part in the supervision of the whole process of execution. The execution of the death penalty in Japan is based on the sentence of the law secretary's execution of the death penalty, which is usually carried out by the staff of the prison. In addition, the prosecutor and the prosecutor, and the persons with special permission can participate. (three) China in the way of execution of the death penalty, China There are two ways of shooting and shooting after 1990. Compared with the death penalty since Meiji, Japan has been applying the death penalty since Meiji. The two countries have a history of hundreds of years. But the two countries have common ways of executing the death penalty: (I) whether the death penalty is publicly implemented is for the benefit of the country. The interests and social interests are considered to shape the image of the country and maintain the legitimacy of the state's rule. (two) the execution of the death penalty is developed in a more humane direction.
The fifth part is mainly a comparative study of the former penalty of the death penalty in China and Japan. In our country, the most close to the death penalty in the penalty system is life imprisonment, but because the death penalty itself contains two ways of execution, namely, the execution of the death penalty and the execution of the death penalty for two years, the order of punishment from light and heavy should be a period of time. Imprisonment, death penalty, two years of execution, execution immediately. Once the sentence of death sentence is suspended for two years, the death penalty can be avoided as long as there is no intentional crime in the probation period of two years. To a great extent, the number of execution in the death penalty case is reduced. In the Japanese penal body, the most close punishment to the death penalty is no one in the Japanese penal body. The light and heavy relations between the penalty and the penalty are very clear: life imprisonment and death penalty, but Japan's life imprisonment itself also has a large range of discretion, including absolute imprisonment and relative life imprisonment. Like our country's penalty system, there are structural defects, which are mainly manifested in the large gap between death penalty and prison sentence. Both in China and in Japan, the criminal law of Japan has made great efforts to replace the punishment of death penalty, but the penalty of death penalty is not only a substitute for the death penalty, but also the death penalty. It is an essential part of perfecting the death penalty system, making the penalty system more complete and reducing the number of death penalty cases.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D924.1;D931.3

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 杜莉;;我國死刑案件被和解的非正當(dāng)性分析[J];中南林業(yè)科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2011年04期

2 潘少華;;死刑案件辯護的新機遇[J];中國律師;2010年08期

3 王舒;;傳媒視界中看《行政強制法》的“得”與“失”[J];今傳媒;2011年09期

4 黨建軍;楊立新;;死刑案件適用補強證據(jù)規(guī)則若干理論問題研究[J];政法論壇;2011年05期

5 李訓(xùn)虎;;悖論狀態(tài)中的死刑案件證明標準[J];政法論壇;2011年04期

6 陳衛(wèi)東;;刑事司法改革的新舉措——評《辦理死刑案件證據(jù)規(guī)定》及《非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)定》[J];中國法律;2010年04期

7 文心;;律師規(guī)劃“地圖” 被告人選擇“道路”貴州省律協(xié)出臺《貴州省死刑案件辯護規(guī)范指導(dǎo)意見(試行)》[J];中國律師;2010年12期

8 沈臻懿;;《死刑案件證據(jù)規(guī)定》第23條的詮釋與解讀——以鑒定意見審查判斷為視角[J];犯罪研究;2011年02期

9 許昆;;公安機關(guān)偵辦死刑案件收集物證、書證的新要求[J];中國刑事警察;2010年05期

10 張蕾;;芻議死刑執(zhí)行方式改革[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2011年04期

相關(guān)會議論文 前10條

1 高瀅;;死刑案件中被害人權(quán)利保障問題探究[A];中國犯罪學(xué)學(xué)會第十七屆學(xué)術(shù)研討會論文集[C];2008年

2 武延平;武培;;學(xué)習(xí)董老的慎刑思想 嚴格控制死刑的適用[A];董必武法學(xué)思想研究文集（第六輯）[C];2007年

3 江橋;;乾隆朝民人死刑案件的初步統(tǒng)計與分析[A];滿學(xué)研究（第三輯）[C];1996年

4 李卓凝;;淺談死刑案件的法醫(yī)臨床學(xué)問題[A];全國第十二次法醫(yī)臨床學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)交流會論文集[C];2009年

5 周道鸞;;試論死刑復(fù)核程序的完善[A];董必武法學(xué)思想研究文集（第四輯）[C];2005年

6 金澤剛;;犯罪原因與死刑限制——死刑案件給我們的一點啟示[A];中國犯罪學(xué)研究會第十三屆學(xué)術(shù)研討會論文集[C];2004年

7 呂禮華;;死刑問題探討[A];第二屆國家高級檢察官論壇論文集[C];2006年

8 溫萬名;;淺議最高人民法院擬收回死刑復(fù)核權(quán)——從董必武恤殺慎刑的法學(xué)思想談起[A];董必武法學(xué)思想研究文集（第五輯）[C];2006年

9 金澤剛;;犯罪原因與死刑限制——死刑案件給我們的一點啟示[A];犯罪學(xué)論叢（第三卷）[C];2005年

10 羅坷;梁臘梅;;我談“兩個證據(jù)規(guī)定”的背景和意義[A];第三屆西部律師發(fā)展論壇論文集[C];2010年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 實習(xí)記者 劉青青 通訊員 唐玉沙;創(chuàng)新執(zhí)行方式，力破執(zhí)行“堅冰”[N];威海日報;2008年

2 趙杰;最高院出新規(guī) 厘清“刀下留人”程序[N];第一財經(jīng)日報;2009年

3 記者 唐亞南　閆繼勇;嚴把證據(jù)關(guān) 確保把死刑案件辦成鐵案[N];人民法院報;2009年

4 陳中豫　陳瑛;寧鐵中院新執(zhí)行方式解“十年難題”[N];建筑時報;2009年

5 記者 田享華;五部門發(fā)文規(guī)范死刑證據(jù)采集[N];第一財經(jīng)日報;2010年

6 中國人民大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授 博士生導(dǎo)師 陳衛(wèi)東;保障死刑案件質(zhì)量的一個重大舉措[N];人民公安報;2010年

7 記者 趙國勤;進一步提高死刑案件辦理質(zhì)量[N];檢察日報;2009年

8 記者 歐陽晶　通訊員 龔雪 王慶新;江西強化死刑案件公訴說理[N];檢察日報;2009年

9 中國人民大學(xué)教授 博士生導(dǎo)師 陳衛(wèi)東;保障死刑案件質(zhì)量的一個重大舉措[N];檢察日報;2010年

10 本報記者 王夕;死刑何時消亡[N];北京科技報;2010年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 陳海平;死刑案件審判程序研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2010年

2 胡常龍;死刑案件程序問題研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2003年

3 陳華杰;論死刑適用的標準[D];西南政法大學(xué);2005年

4 韓紅;我國死刑案件審判程序研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2008年

5 張棟;美國死刑程序研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2006年

6 劉云濤;死緩制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2009年

7 陳果;論死刑正當(dāng)程序[D];中國人民大學(xué);2008年

8 康瑛;論減少死刑目標下的死刑適用[D];中國政法大學(xué);2007年

9 王U

本文編號：2013554