本文選題：集資詐騙罪 + 死刑��； 參考：《西南政法大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文題目為我國集資詐騙罪死刑適用限制研究。研究這一問題的意義在于，減少非暴力犯罪死刑，已成為我國刑事立法的重要趨勢之一，集資詐騙罪保留死刑的做法，，與這一趨勢不一致。集資詐騙罪是我國刑法中唯一保留死刑的金融詐騙犯罪，在少用、慎用死刑的刑事政策指導下，限制集資詐騙罪死刑適用是貫徹我國死刑政策的必由之路。本文研究的基本出發(fā)點是尊重目前刑法保留集資詐騙罪死刑的做法，在此框架下從死刑適用情況、立法、司法、犯罪成因等方面分析集資詐騙罪死刑適用中存在的問題，試圖得出應當限制集資詐騙罪死刑適用的結(jié)論，并提出限制集資詐騙罪死刑適用的方法。 本文分三個主要部分。 第一部分是我國集資詐騙罪死刑適用的基本情況。從集資詐騙罪死刑設置的立法沿革出發(fā)，分析國家對集資詐騙采取的從嚴、從重政策。另外，本文搜集了45起集資詐騙罪死刑案例，并對這些案例進行數(shù)據(jù)分析，同時對其中3起案例案例進行典型分析，得出的結(jié)論是我國集資詐騙罪死刑作用有限，并沒有發(fā)揮應有的威懾作用和控制作用。 第二部分是我國集資詐騙罪死刑適用限制原因分析。主要從立法、司法、犯罪成因三個方面進行論述。立法層面上，集資詐騙罪設置死刑有悖刑法的謙抑性精神；有悖罪刑相一致的刑法基本原則；不利于保持詐騙犯罪類罪和個罪的統(tǒng)一；并不符合死刑發(fā)展的國際趨勢。在現(xiàn)階段暫時不能廢止集資詐騙罪死刑的情況下，最好的手段就是限制該罪的死刑適用。司法層面上，對于“給國家和人民利益造成特別重大損失”的認定存在對犯罪數(shù)額的過度依賴問題；對“罪行特別嚴重”的解釋有擴大化之嫌；集資詐騙數(shù)額的計算方法對于非法占有目的的推定有客觀歸罪的傾向；在非法占有目的的認定上，對于非法占有內(nèi)涵的解釋不斷出現(xiàn)偏差，非法占有目的時間點的確立不斷后延；使用推定方法認定非法占有目的存在一定風險。從犯罪成因上看，集資詐騙罪形成的根本原因在于金融秩序和民間融資規(guī)則的不完備；被害人在犯罪中的過錯顯而易見；地方政府對犯罪產(chǎn)生的責任難以推卸。正因為上述種種理由，集資詐騙罪死刑不應該再被當做打擊和預防集資詐騙罪的工具，應當在迫不得已的情況下才用。集資詐騙罪死刑適用應當受到限制。 第三部分是我國集資詐騙罪死刑適用限制的路徑分析。本文對于如何限制集資詐騙罪死刑的適用提出了六個方面的措施，分別是進一步加大死刑立即執(zhí)行替代措施的使用；進一步明確“給國家和人民利益造成特別重大損失”與“罪行極其嚴重”間的關(guān)系；進一步嚴格非法占有目的的認定標準；加大對被害人的保護與救濟，以求得被害人最大程度上的諒解，化解社會矛盾；破除對死刑過度依賴的傳統(tǒng)觀念；強化政府職能的落實。
[Abstract]:The title of this paper is the study on the limitation of death penalty for the crime of raising funds and defrauding in our country.The significance of studying this problem lies in the fact that reducing the death penalty for non-violent crimes has become one of the important trends of criminal legislation in our country. The practice of retaining the death penalty in the crime of raising funds for fraud is inconsistent with this trend.The crime of raising funds for fraud is the only crime of financial fraud that retains the death penalty in the criminal law of our country. Under the guidance of the criminal policy of less use and careful use of the death penalty, restricting the application of the death penalty for the crime of raising funds for fraud is the only way to carry out the policy of death penalty in our country.The basic starting point of this paper is to respect the current practice of retaining the death penalty for the crime of fraud by raising funds in the criminal law. Under this framework, the problems existing in the application of the death penalty for the crime of fund-raising fraud are analyzed from the aspects of the application of the death penalty, legislation, judicature, and the causes of crime.This paper tries to draw a conclusion that the death penalty should be applied to the crime of fraud by raising funds, and puts forward the methods of restricting the application of the death penalty for the crime of fraud through raising funds.This paper is divided into three main parts.The first part is the basic situation of the application of death penalty in the crime of raising funds and defrauding in our country.Starting from the legislative evolution of the death penalty for the crime of raising funds for fraud, this paper analyzes the strict and important policies adopted by the state in respect of the financing fraud.In addition, this paper collects 45 death penalty cases of the crime of fund-raising fraud, and carries on the data analysis to these cases, at the same time carries on the typical analysis to the 3 cases, draws the conclusion that the death penalty function of the crime of raising funds fraud in our country is limited.And did not play its due deterrent and control role.The second part is the analysis of the reasons why the death penalty is applicable to the crime of raising funds and defrauding.Mainly from the legislation, the judiciary, the crime causes three aspects to carry on the elaboration.On the legislative level, the establishment of the death penalty for the crime of raising funds for fraud is contrary to the modest spirit of criminal law; to the basic principles of criminal law consistent with crime and punishment; it is not conducive to maintaining the unity of crime of fraud and individual crime; it is not in line with the international trend of the development of the death penalty.The best way is to limit the application of the death penalty.At the judicial level, there exists the problem of excessive dependence on the amount of crime in the determination of "causing great losses to the interests of the state and the people", and the extension of the interpretation of "especially serious crimes".The method of calculating the amount of fund raising fraud has an objective tendency to impute the presumption of the purpose of illegal possession, and in the determination of the purpose of illegal possession, the interpretation of the connotation of illegal possession is constantly deviated.The establishment of the time point of illegal possession has been delayed, and the use of presumption method to determine the purpose of illegal possession has certain risks.From the point of view of the cause of crime, the fundamental cause of the formation of the crime of fund-raising fraud lies in the incomplete financial order and folk financing rules; the fault of the victim in the crime is obvious; and the responsibility of the local government to the crime is difficult to shirk.For all these reasons, the death penalty should no longer be used as a tool to combat and prevent the crime of fraud.The application of the death penalty for the crime of raising funds for fraud shall be restricted.The third part is the path analysis of the death penalty limitation of the crime of raising funds and defrauding in our country.This paper puts forward six measures on how to limit the application of death penalty in the crime of financing fraud, which is to further increase the use of alternative measures for immediate execution of the death penalty;Further clarifying the relationship between "particularly heavy losses to the interests of the State and the people" and "extremely serious crimes"; further tightening the criteria for determining the purpose of illegal possession; and increasing the protection and relief of victims,In order to obtain the maximum understanding of the victims, resolve social contradictions, break the traditional concept of excessive reliance on the death penalty, strengthen the implementation of government functions.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 賈宇;怯帥衛(wèi);;論法定犯罪目的的實質(zhì)——兼論犯罪目的與犯罪故意的關(guān)系[J];法律科學(西北政法大學學報);2010年04期

2 侯婉穎;;集資詐騙罪中非法占有目的的司法偏執(zhí)[J];法學;2012年03期

3 劉憲權(quán);金融犯罪數(shù)額問題的刑法分析[J];法學;1998年11期

4 朱錫廣;;取消集資詐騙罪死刑之必要性研究[J];法制與社會;2012年14期

5 宋巍;涂俊波;;從吳英案看集資詐騙罪[J];法制與社會;2012年18期

6 何德輝;;集資詐騙罪認定的難點及對策[J];甘肅行政學院學報;2010年05期

7 熊紅文;;吳英案:集資詐騙案沒有“被害人”——全國優(yōu)秀公訴人寫在吳英案二審維持死刑之后[J];法律與生活;2012年05期

8 劉興成;;吳英案與民間借貸的公共利益[J];法人;2011年12期

9 管慧慧;;論集資詐騙罪的入罪標準[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2012年06期

10 許鵬程;;淺析我國經(jīng)濟犯罪廢除死刑——以刑法修正案(八)為視角[J];法制與社會;2012年34期

本文編號：1771835