本文選題：假釋制度 + 司法實踐��； 參考：《安徽大學》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：假釋是一種附條件地提前釋放的刑罰執(zhí)行制度,源于十八世紀的歐洲,在人身危險性理論、刑罰目的綜合理論、行刑人道化、社會化和個別化原則的基礎上產(chǎn)生的。因為具有激勵罪犯自覺接受教育改造,維護刑罰執(zhí)行機關的安全與監(jiān)管秩序；緩解刑罰執(zhí)行機關的壓力,降低行刑成本；降低罪犯再犯風險,幫助罪犯順利回歸；補救量刑差異,促進刑罰的相對公平等多種功能,假釋受到世界各國的普遍歡迎,并被廣泛的應用,在現(xiàn)代刑罰制度中具有十分重要的地位。 假釋制度自1911年清末修律時引入我國,歷經(jīng)南京民國政府和新中國成立以來的數(shù)次修訂,直至2011年《刑法修正案(八)》的出臺,在我國運行已有近百年的歷史,但是始終呈低水平的運行狀態(tài),沒有發(fā)揮其應有的功能。從我國假釋制度的現(xiàn)狀來看,我國的假釋率與周邊國家相比,處在倒數(shù)的位置,更不用說與發(fā)達國家相比；各地有關假釋的適用比例很不均衡；并且呈現(xiàn)出以減刑為主,假釋為輔的趨勢。究其原因,是由于我國司法界長期受傳統(tǒng)行刑觀念、刑事政策以及現(xiàn)行刑罰制度等原因的負面影響。筆者發(fā)現(xiàn),我國現(xiàn)行假釋制度在司法實踐存在以下問題：首先是立法層面的問題,即假釋適用的實質(zhì)條件現(xiàn)實可操作性不強,主觀隨意性較大,極易造成假釋濫用和假釋緊縮兩種極端的狀況發(fā)生,而我國正是后種情況的典型反應。在此情況下,司法機關仍然在法律之外人為增加限制條件,限定假釋率。其次是司法層面的問題,刑罰執(zhí)行機關、審判機關和檢察機關本應相互制衡,結果現(xiàn)在是刑罰執(zhí)行機關一家獨大,不利于我國假釋制度的良性發(fā)展。再者是制度層面的問題,再犯預測機制的缺位和社區(qū)矯正制度的不完善嚴重制約了我國假釋制度的發(fā)展。筆者認為我們應當盡快摒棄傳統(tǒng)行刑觀念,樹立現(xiàn)代刑罰理念,深刻理解和貫徹寬嚴相濟刑事政策,增加對未成年犯強制假釋的規(guī)定。從建立科學的再犯預測機制、保護被害人在假釋中的合法權益、完善社區(qū)矯正制度和強化檢察機關的法律監(jiān)督幾個方面,加快我國現(xiàn)代假釋制度的再完善工作。
[Abstract]:Parole is a conditional early release of the penalty execution system, originated in Europe in the 18th century, on the basis of the theory of personal danger, the comprehensive theory of the purpose of punishment, the humanization, socialization and individualization of execution. Because it can encourage criminals to accept education and reform consciously, maintain the safety and supervision order of penalty enforcement organs, alleviate the pressure of penalty enforcement organs, reduce the execution cost, reduce the risk of criminals' recidivism, and help the criminals to return smoothly. To remedy the difference in sentencing, promote the relative fairness of punishment and other functions, parole is widely welcomed and widely used in the world, and has a very important position in the modern penal system. The parole system was introduced into China at the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, after several revisions since the founding of the Republic of Nanjing Government and New China, and until the introduction of the Criminal Law Amendment (8) in 2011, it has been running in our country for nearly a hundred years. However, it has always been a low level of running state, did not play its due function. From the current situation of parole system in our country, the parole rate of our country is in the reciprocal position compared with the neighboring countries, let alone compared with the developed countries; the proportion of parole applied in various places is very uneven; and it shows that commutation of sentence is the main factor. The trend towards parole as a supplement. The reason is that the judicial circles of our country have been influenced by the traditional concept of execution, the criminal policy and the present penalty system for a long time. The author finds that the current parole system in our country has the following problems in judicial practice: first of all, the legislative level, that is, the practical conditions of parole application is not strong, subjective randomness is greater. Parole abuse and parole austerity occur easily, and China is the typical reaction of the latter. In this case, the judiciary is still outside the law artificially additional restrictions, limit the parole rate. Secondly, the judicial level, penalty enforcement organs, judicial organs and procuratorial organs should have checks and balances each other, the result is that the penalty enforcement organ is a dominant institution, which is not conducive to the healthy development of parole system in China. Furthermore, the absence of prediction mechanism and the imperfection of community correction system seriously restrict the development of parole system in China. The author believes that we should abandon the traditional concept of execution as soon as possible, set up the modern concept of punishment, deeply understand and implement the criminal policy of combining leniency and severe punishment, and increase the stipulation of compulsory parole for juvenile offenders. In order to speed up the improvement of the modern parole system in China, we should establish a scientific prediction mechanism for recidivism, protect the legitimate rights and interests of the victims in parole, perfect the community correction system and strengthen the legal supervision of the procuratorial organs.
【學位授予單位】：安徽大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D924.13;D926

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 周步青;;浙江省法院適用社區(qū)矯正刑罰的現(xiàn)狀、制約因素及對策[J];中國司法;2006年03期

2 吳愛英;;抓住機遇 加大力度 努力把司法所建設提高到一個新水平[J];中國司法;2006年10期

3 但未麗;;刑罰執(zhí)行制度研究概況及述評[J];太原師范學院學報(社會科學版);2007年01期

4 陳永生;;中國減刑、假釋程序之檢討[J];法商研究;2007年02期

5 張亞平;;美國假釋制度之趨勢及其啟示[J];甘肅政法學院學報;2008年04期

6 史輝;李衛(wèi)云;龍力;范艷;;寬嚴相濟刑事政策語境下假釋制度的改革與完善[J];貴州民族學院學報(哲學社會科學版);2008年01期

7 柳忠衛(wèi);;假釋監(jiān)督保護機構及人員之比較研究[J];河北法學;2006年03期

8 祁云順;;論我國減刑、假釋程序的重構[J];河北法學;2008年06期

9 都玉玲;;論寬嚴相濟刑事政策[J];理論導報;2010年02期

10 竹懷軍;我國假釋制度立法完善的幾點思考[J];南昌大學學報(人文社會科學版);2004年02期

相關重要報紙文章 前1條

1 記者孫春英 見習記者張學鋒;[N];法制日報;2005年

相關博士學位論文 前2條

1 侯宏林;刑事政策的價值分析[D];中國政法大學;2004年

2 王維;社區(qū)矯正制度研究[D];西南政法大學;2006年

，

本文編號：1948389