發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-08-12 08:39

【摘要】：刑事和解程序由司法實(shí)踐發(fā)展而來(lái)并最終被立法程序所認(rèn)可,是一種自下而上的立法發(fā)展。在刑事和解未被立法確認(rèn)為刑事訴訟法特別程序之前,各地方公安司法部門對(duì)刑事和解主體、客體、內(nèi)容、方式、程序等理解不同,司法實(shí)踐缺乏統(tǒng)一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。2012年刑事訴訟法修正案及相關(guān)解釋與規(guī)則對(duì)于上述問(wèn)題做出了一些明確規(guī)定。但是針對(duì)刑事和解賠償問(wèn)題并沒(méi)有做出過(guò)多具體、明確的規(guī)定,致使法院對(duì)于和解雙方在和解協(xié)議達(dá)成并履行后又因?yàn)橘r償問(wèn)題而提起附帶民事訴訟或者要求撤銷和解協(xié)議的案件做出不同的判決與說(shuō)理,有時(shí)對(duì)于同一個(gè)原因的相同訴訟請(qǐng)求,由于請(qǐng)求方的加害、被害地位不同,便產(chǎn)生不同判決。1要解決這一問(wèn)題,必須明確“賠償損失”在刑事和解中的作用、性質(zhì)與標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問(wèn)題。本文以“刑事和解程序中‘賠償損失’問(wèn)題研究”為題,以案例引出“賠償損失”是賠償還是另行補(bǔ)償這一問(wèn)題,運(yùn)用歷史歸納、文獻(xiàn)研究方法,逐漸論證“賠償損失”在刑事和解中的作用、性質(zhì)與標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問(wèn)題,最終解答這一問(wèn)題。筆者認(rèn)為刑事和解不僅涉及程序問(wèn)題,也涉及實(shí)體問(wèn)題,對(duì)賠償問(wèn)題的理解差異主要是由對(duì)程序和實(shí)體問(wèn)題的理解差異引起的。刑事和解中加害人“賠償損失”獲得從寬處理的依據(jù)是罪刑相適應(yīng)原則,因?yàn)槿狈π淌聦?shí)體處分權(quán)以及程序處分權(quán),被害人在刑事和解制度中并不存在能夠影響訴訟程序與量刑的訴訟性權(quán)利。被害人在刑事和解中所謂的和解啟動(dòng)權(quán)也不是其能獨(dú)立行使且主導(dǎo)的權(quán)利�！百r償損失”在刑事和解中的性質(zhì)是“修復(fù)的責(zé)任”,以影響預(yù)防刑的量刑情節(jié)以及報(bào)應(yīng)觀念解釋“賠償損失”的功能不足以說(shuō)明刑事和解制度的地位。和解雙方就“修復(fù)的責(zé)任”達(dá)成的合法、自愿的合意應(yīng)當(dāng)被尊重,若和解雙方明確約定了“賠償損失”為法定可獲得賠償內(nèi)容之外的賠償,則該賠償可算作是法外賠償,反之,則應(yīng)算作法定賠償,對(duì)于已經(jīng)履行完畢的約定與法定重合部分的賠償,被害人不能再次要求附帶民事賠償。
[Abstract]:Criminal reconciliation procedure is a bottom-up legislative development developed from judicial practice and finally recognized by legislative procedure. Before criminal reconciliation is recognized as a special procedure of criminal procedure law by legislation, local public security and judicial departments have different understandings of the subject, object, content, method and procedure of criminal reconciliation, and judicial practice lacks unification. One standard. The amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law in 2012 and the relevant interpretations and rules have made some clear provisions on the above issues. However, there are not too many specific and clear provisions on the issue of compensation for criminal reconciliation, resulting in the court to file incidental civil action against the two parties to the reconciliation after the settlement agreement has been reached and fulfilled. In order to solve this problem, we must make clear the role, nature and standard of compensation loss in criminal reconciliation. With the topic of "the study of compensation for loss" in criminal reconciliation procedure, this paper leads to the question of whether compensation for loss is compensation or compensated separately by cases. By using historical induction and literature research methods, this paper gradually demonstrates the function, nature and standard of compensation for loss in criminal reconciliation, and finally answers this question. Criminal reconciliation involves not only procedural issues, but also substantive issues. Differences in understanding of compensation issues are mainly caused by differences in understanding of procedural and substantive issues. In the criminal reconciliation system, the victim does not have the procedural right which can affect the procedure and sentencing. The so-called right of reconciliation initiation in the criminal reconciliation is not the right which can be exercised independently and dominated by the victim. The concept of retribution explains that the function of "compensation for loss" is not enough to explain the status of the criminal reconciliation system. Compensation, on the contrary, should be counted as statutory compensation, the victim can not claim collateral civil compensation for the compensation of the overlapping part of the agreement and statutory which has been fulfilled.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 付小容;;質(zhì)疑與回應(yīng):“賠錢減刑”的正當(dāng)性論辯[J];西南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2016年02期

2 黃云波;;論賠償對(duì)量刑、定罪與行刑的影響[J];中南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2016年01期

3 蔡震宇;;部分共犯和解量刑問(wèn)題研究——對(duì)“從寬處理”與“量刑平衡”的再認(rèn)識(shí)[J];福建警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2015年03期

4 蘇忻;;刑事和解中被害人參與權(quán)的合理實(shí)現(xiàn)[J];東疆學(xué)刊;2015年02期

5 姚顯森;;刑事和解適用中的異化現(xiàn)象及防控對(duì)策[J];法學(xué)論壇;2014年05期

6 高銘暄;張海梅;;論賠償損失對(duì)刑事責(zé)任的影響[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2014年04期

7 高永明;;基于刑事和解的賠償減刑[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2013年11期

8 陳建樺;;部分共犯適用刑事和解量刑問(wèn)題的一體化研究[J];湖南師范大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年04期

9 張品澤;;論公訴和解理念[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2013年06期

10 李貴揚(yáng);;論被害人量刑意見[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2012年06期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 林世鈺;;刑事和解,面臨三個(gè)怎么辦[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 蘇忻;刑事被害人損害賠償權(quán)保護(hù)研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2015年

2 侯雪;刑事?lián)p害賠償法律制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

3 邵海;責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)影響下現(xiàn)代侵權(quán)法的嬗變[D];重慶大學(xué);2008年

4 葛琳;刑事和解研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：2178529