【摘要】：直接刑是直接適用的刑罰,與犯罪事實構(gòu)成直接對應(yīng)的關(guān)系,替代刑則是對本應(yīng)處以刑罰的替代,與犯罪事實之間的關(guān)系是間接的,二者是對立概念。本應(yīng)處以的刑罰稱為本刑,有替代刑即有本刑,二者是伴生概念。常刑是可以直接適用的刑罰,既可能作為直接刑,也可能作為替代刑。對直接刑還是替代刑的判斷,需要在具體法律規(guī)范中予以確定,即以直接適用的現(xiàn)實性為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；判斷常刑與否,則以直接適用的可能性為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。替代刑作為制度的成立,需要相對確定的本刑系統(tǒng),替代刑和本刑要有置換的關(guān)系,并且替代刑不能完全取代對應(yīng)的常刑,同時還要具有非擅斷的規(guī)范性。直接刑、替代刑與常刑等嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)姆▽W(xué)概念是追溯中國古代罰贖制度源流和判斷其在不同歷史時期法律性質(zhì)的必要工具。罰與贖的概念在古代經(jīng)常存在混用的情形,因此不能望文生義地判斷罰贖之別,而要在特定的文本中具體分析。《尚書》呂刑建立了三個刑罰等級以適應(yīng)司法實踐的不同需要,其中的“五罰”是作為直接刑的常刑,并非替代刑；而通過比對文獻(xiàn),可知《堯典》篇的寫定年代則當(dāng)在秦漢之際,“金作贖刑”也非可信的史料,不可作為贖刑的源頭。齊桓公“薄刑罰以厚甲兵”的刑罰改革,是對刑制的整體轉(zhuǎn)化,并且由于缺乏形式化的法律,不能成立明確的本刑系統(tǒng),所以也沒有建立替代刑制度。最早的替代刑在睡虎地秦簡中才有了明確的證據(jù)。秦漢與魏晉南朝的贖有兩種不同的情形,在替代刑存在的同時,“贖某刑”這樣的固定表達(dá)卻是常刑的刑名。與罰金一樣,“贖某刑”也直接以財產(chǎn)為內(nèi)容,并且構(gòu)成一個獨立的刑種,在刑罰體系中占有重要的地位。以律文的形式規(guī)定替代刑,目前可以考證的是從晉律開始,而替代刑附列主刑則始見于梁代。南北朝時期,律分南北,有所區(qū)隔,以元魏律為宗的北律改變了晉律刑制,建立了以新五刑為主刑的刑罰體系,“贖某刑”與罰金乃喪失了作為常刑的資格,贖刑從此只作為替代刑出現(xiàn)。唐律、宋刑統(tǒng)和明律都在名例律的刑名部分以贖刑附于五刑,并在其后的條文中規(guī)定其具體的適用,其中明律終明之世未嘗更易,并且律學(xué)注解甚多,非常適合法教義學(xué)的運用。明律贖刑制度考慮到當(dāng)事人的社會身份、自然屬性和犯罪情節(jié)；而對于可適用刑罰范圍的不同規(guī)定則體現(xiàn)出立法者對于犯罪和犯罪人的不同寬大程度；明律贖刑分為全贖和余罪收贖,各有明確的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)挠嬎惴椒�；部份贖刑的適用還有消極要件,這些消極要件一般是情節(jié)非常嚴(yán)重的犯罪；贖金一般納入國家財政,而過失殺傷罪的贖金則歸屬于被害人,起到民事賠償?shù)淖饔谩?br/>[Abstract]:Direct punishment is a direct applicable penalty, which forms a direct corresponding relationship with the fact of the crime. The substitute penalty is a substitute for the penalty that should be imposed, and the relationship between the penalty and the fact of the crime is indirect, and the two are opposite concepts. The penalty that should be imposed is called the original penalty, and the substitute penalty is the original penalty. The two are concomitant concepts. Ordinary punishment is a kind of penalty that can be applied directly, either as direct punishment or as a substitute punishment. The judgment of direct punishment or substitute punishment needs to be determined in specific legal norms, that is to say, the criterion is the reality of direct application, and the possibility of direct application is the criterion to judge whether the penalty is ordinary or not. As the establishment of the system, the substitute penalty needs a relatively determined system of capital punishment, the substitute penalty and the original punishment should have a replacement relationship, and the substitute punishment can not completely replace the corresponding ordinary punishment, but also has the norm of not being arbitrary at the same time. The rigorous legal concepts of direct punishment, substitute punishment and ordinary punishment are necessary tools to trace back the origin of Chinese ancient penalization system and to judge its legal nature in different historical periods. The concept of punishment and foreclosure is often mixed in ancient times, so we can't judge the difference between punishment and redemption in a meaningful way, but we should analyze it concretely in a specific text. Lu Xing establishes three levels of punishment to meet the different needs of judicial practice. The "five punishments" are the ordinary punishment of direct punishment, not a substitute for punishment, and by comparing the literature, it can be seen that the writing and dating of Yao Dian is not credible historical data, nor can it be used as the source of redeeming punishment in the Qin and Han dynasties. The reform of Qi Huangong's penalty of "thin punishment with thick armour" is the whole transformation of the punishment system, and because of the lack of formal law, it is unable to establish a clear system of original punishment, so it has not established a system of alternative punishment. The earliest alternative punishment in the sleeping tiger Qin bamboo slips had clear evidence. There are two different cases of redeeming in Qin, Han and Wei, Jin and Southern dynasties. At the same time, the fixed expression of "redeem a punishment" is the criminal name of ordinary punishment. Just like fine, "redeem a punishment" also takes the property as the content directly, and constitutes an independent punishment, and occupies the important position in the penalty system. In the form of rule-writing, it can be proved that the substitute punishment begins with the law of Jin Dynasty, and the main punishment with the alternative punishment is first found in Liang Dynasty. In the period of the Southern and Northern dynasties, the law was divided into north and south, and the law of the Yuan Dynasty changed the system of law punishment of Jin Dynasty, and established the penalty system of taking the new five punishments as the main punishment, so that the punishment of redeeming a certain penalty and the fine was disqualified as a regular penalty. Foreclosure only appeared as a substitute from now on. In Tang Dynasty, Song Dynasty and Ming Dynasty, they were appended to the five punishments by the punishment name of the Ming Law, and the specific application was stipulated in the subsequent articles, in which the Ming Dynasty and the Ming Dynasty were not much easier, and there were many notes on the law. Very suitable for the application of the doctrine of law. The legal commutation system takes into account the social identity of the parties, natural attributes and the circumstances of the crime, while the different provisions on the applicable range of penalties reflect the different leniency of the legislator for the crime and the offender. The law of redemption is divided into total foreclosure and redemption of remaining crimes, each with clear standards and rigorous calculation methods. There are also negative elements in the application of part of the foreclosure penalty, which are generally serious crimes; ransom is generally included in the national finances. The ransom of the crime of negligent injury belongs to the victim and plays the role of civil compensation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D929

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 陸懋德;中國第一篇古史之時代考[J];清華大學(xué)學(xué)報(自然科學(xué)版);1924年02期

2 曹旅寧;秦律中所見之貲甲盾問題[J];求索;2001年06期

3 朱紅林;;竹簡秦漢律中的“贖罪”與“贖刑”[J];史學(xué)月刊;2007年05期

4 ;湖北江陵鳳凰山一六八號漢墓發(fā)掘簡報[J];文物;1975年09期

5 張建國;論西漢初期的贖[J];政法論壇;2002年05期

，

本文編號：2275548