本文選題：量刑情節(jié) + 分類標(biāo)準(zhǔn)��； 參考：《西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：量刑情節(jié)在我國刑法條文中主要體現(xiàn)在刑法的61條,同時(shí)也是量刑情節(jié)適用的原則,但是條文的規(guī)定使其本身具有一定的模糊性不利于量刑情節(jié)在司法實(shí)踐中的正確把握,因此極易產(chǎn)生量刑偏差。這就需要對量刑情節(jié)的分類在抓住其本質(zhì)屬性即在事實(shí)與價(jià)值的角度的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行新的分類,以適應(yīng)不斷變化發(fā)展的司法實(shí)踐。 量刑情節(jié)在刑法中的重要作用是不言而喻的,而量刑情節(jié)能否在司法實(shí)踐中得到恰如其分的適用,直接關(guān)系到國家的長治久安和社會穩(wěn)定。因?yàn)榱啃痰牟还龝苯訐p害公平正義,司法的權(quán)威形象,也很容易導(dǎo)致受害者、罪犯以及他們的親屬,動(dòng)搖對司法公正的信心。 而實(shí)現(xiàn)量刑的公正有利于解決司法和法治社會出現(xiàn)的規(guī)則沖突。量刑則是建立在公正司法的基礎(chǔ)上的每一個(gè)具體的案件的綜合考量,并且需要特定的案件中量刑時(shí)需要要考慮的,并不需要考慮諸如累犯、立功和未成年人犯罪等和許多其他與罪行無關(guān)的量刑情節(jié)。這樣的量刑情節(jié)主要決定了刑事責(zé)任的大小并直接影響到量刑的輕重。因此,對于在一種特定的情況下,罪行的嚴(yán)重程度基本上決定了一個(gè)基本的刑事責(zé)任的大小,而不是決定刑事責(zé)任的唯一基礎(chǔ)的大小,換句話說,當(dāng)有與行為人無關(guān)的量刑與犯罪人所犯的罪并行時(shí),重罪輕判和輕罪重判是合理的,不是量刑不公。所以作者認(rèn)為,“重罪重判,輕罪輕判,罰當(dāng)其罪”并非量刑公正的內(nèi)涵；相反,這一表述容易誤導(dǎo)審判人員忽視罪外量刑情節(jié)的作用,反而不利于量刑公正的實(shí)現(xiàn)。尤其是近些年,隨著人民群眾對司法的快速增長的需求變得越來越高以及中國法治制度的進(jìn)步與完善,因此能否正確量刑會對量刑結(jié)果造成不同程度的影響,同時(shí)對于量刑情節(jié)理論的研究也是現(xiàn)代刑法中最應(yīng)該解決和完善的理論問題。 量刑情節(jié)的分類有利于正確適用量刑情節(jié)也有助于量刑公正的實(shí)現(xiàn),同時(shí)也利于實(shí)現(xiàn)罪刑均衡的刑法理想狀態(tài)。本文試圖在對量刑情節(jié)分類的理論基礎(chǔ)之上,從事實(shí)與價(jià)值的角度提出構(gòu)建量刑情節(jié)分類的具體方式。 作者主張建立以事實(shí)判斷為主價(jià)值判斷為輔的分類標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對量刑情節(jié)進(jìn)行類型化的分類。 本文試圖在按照以上思路的指導(dǎo)下,主要從以下幾個(gè)部分展開。 本文第一部分是導(dǎo)論,主要包括文章的研究目的與意義,本文的研究思路,本文的研究方法。 第二部分量刑情節(jié)分類的理論基礎(chǔ)。任何學(xué)科離開了其最基本的理論基礎(chǔ),都將成為“無源之水,無本之本”。這部分主要包括量刑情節(jié)分類的價(jià)值基礎(chǔ)法學(xué)客觀基礎(chǔ)、主觀基礎(chǔ)、實(shí)踐基礎(chǔ)以及在對比各種傳統(tǒng)學(xué)說的基礎(chǔ)上對量刑情節(jié)的內(nèi)涵進(jìn)行了重新界定。 因?yàn)榉缸镎撌亲非笊鐣䞍r(jià)值的,從價(jià)值理論的角度看,社會與刑法、犯罪論之間圍繞社會是否安全形成并實(shí)現(xiàn)著不同狀態(tài)和程度的價(jià)值關(guān)系。“法學(xué)主要是研究價(jià)值的至少常常涉及價(jià)值的問題”。其中,任何社會都具有的由處于主導(dǎo)地位的科學(xué)技術(shù)決定的基本特征即或者具體性或者抽象化,在總體上決定著社會對自身安全的基本要求,表達(dá)了該社會對安全能夠忍受的最低限度,是不同時(shí)期社會安全的核心利益之所在,基本特征的差異一定會影響并決定刑法中的犯罪制度,并因?yàn)樯鐣咎卣鞯脑驅(qū)е路缸镎撝g出現(xiàn)體系性的差異。為后文的展開打下理論基礎(chǔ)。量刑情節(jié)的客觀基礎(chǔ)主要體現(xiàn)為社會的危害性。社會危害性的大小反映了犯罪的的事實(shí)并作為量刑的依據(jù),它在量刑情節(jié)的基礎(chǔ)理論里面具有很強(qiáng)的功用。作為量刑的客觀基礎(chǔ)的社會危害性主要是通過社會危害性達(dá)到的量來指導(dǎo)實(shí)際審判中法官的自由裁量的。社會危害性作為我國刑法理論中的一個(gè)基礎(chǔ)概念,不僅在犯罪論而且在刑事責(zé)任論和刑罰論中廣泛使用,主要是社會危害性是一個(gè)放之犯罪論和刑罰論而皆準(zhǔn)的概念,相對地客觀且具有明確性和針對性。量刑情節(jié)的主觀基礎(chǔ)表現(xiàn)為犯罪人的人身危險(xiǎn)性。人身危險(xiǎn)性是近代刑法學(xué)派理論中獨(dú)創(chuàng)的概念,同時(shí)也是近代學(xué)派刑法理論的基石。在量刑時(shí)根據(jù)犯罪人的人身危險(xiǎn)性判處不同的刑罰在世界各國幾乎是通例。這只體現(xiàn)了罪刑相適應(yīng)原則,又體現(xiàn)了罪責(zé)相適應(yīng)的原則。量刑情節(jié)的實(shí)踐基礎(chǔ)主要體現(xiàn)在法官的自由裁量權(quán)上。因?yàn)樽鳛樾塘P裁量的一部分,量刑情節(jié)的適用過程,法官的自由裁量權(quán)是指法官審判刑事案件過程中所擁有或行使的自由裁量權(quán),它包括刑事實(shí)體法和刑事程序法兩方面的自由裁量權(quán)。那些有關(guān)法官刑事自由裁量權(quán)的實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)容,我國法學(xué)界目前還沒有統(tǒng)一的認(rèn)識。但是任何法定刑都存在一定的刑罰裁量范圍,法官代表國家在這一范圍內(nèi)決定宣告刑,刑罰裁量權(quán)主要由國家代為行使。因此對量刑情節(jié)的內(nèi)涵進(jìn)行重新界定是極為重要的。 量刑情節(jié)是我國刑法中情節(jié)的一種。它的概念實(shí)質(zhì)上并沒有在刑法中得到明確的規(guī)定,只是學(xué)者們在理論上進(jìn)行的探討。因?yàn)榱啃糖楣?jié)是對犯罪分子落實(shí)刑事責(zé)任和實(shí)現(xiàn)刑罰個(gè)別化的基礎(chǔ)。因此準(zhǔn)確界定和落實(shí)量刑情節(jié)的概念至關(guān)重要。目前學(xué)界對量刑情節(jié)這一概念僅具有最基本的理解,也比較容易接受。本文在此基礎(chǔ)上綜合了傳統(tǒng)學(xué)說的幾種觀點(diǎn)對量刑情節(jié)對比分析了最符合量刑情節(jié)本質(zhì)屬性的定義。 第三部分主要是對量刑情節(jié)進(jìn)行新的分類。首先綜合對比對傳統(tǒng)刑法理論中關(guān)于對量刑情節(jié)的分類從對比不同學(xué)說的基礎(chǔ)上作了系統(tǒng)分析。在分析對比了傳統(tǒng)刑法中九種觀點(diǎn)的基礎(chǔ)上總結(jié)現(xiàn)有理論存在的缺陷：學(xué)界對量刑情節(jié)的分類大體上就是以上9種觀點(diǎn),可以說學(xué)者的這些觀點(diǎn)基本上是相類似的,也從不同的側(cè)面反映了我國現(xiàn)階段刑法理論中量刑情節(jié)理論的學(xué)術(shù)成就,很有借鑒意義,盡管從形式上看,這些觀點(diǎn)并沒有什么不對的,但從實(shí)質(zhì)上看,作者認(rèn)為它們的缺陷是顯而易見的,即并沒有解決和回答量刑情節(jié)分類的實(shí)質(zhì)。在法定刑的限度內(nèi)什么樣的量刑情是從寬,什么樣的量刑情節(jié)是從嚴(yán),什么樣的情節(jié)是從輕,什么樣的情節(jié)又是減輕呢?這些都沒有說清楚。因此作者提出在抓住事物的本質(zhì)屬性即事實(shí)與價(jià)值的角度對量刑情節(jié)進(jìn)行分類,首先先確定量刑情節(jié)分類的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),犯罪事實(shí)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與社會危害性標(biāo)準(zhǔn),前者是事實(shí)的,后者是價(jià)值的,也是休謨所提的“是與應(yīng)該”的不同標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；前者是抽象的,易于立法者的展開和運(yùn)用,后者是個(gè)別的,易于司法權(quán)的展開和運(yùn)用。因此確定量刑情節(jié)分類的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是正確分類的前提,應(yīng)當(dāng)首先明確量刑情節(jié)的分類標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 引出事實(shí)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和價(jià)值的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。事實(shí)的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是以客體為取向的。得出事實(shí)判斷的或許是某人或某些人,但事實(shí)判斷如果是正確的,即事實(shí)真理,那么它是不以人的意志為專一的,是具有普遍性的,即適合于所有人的。刑法中量刑情節(jié)的價(jià)值判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是量刑情節(jié)中的價(jià)值層面的范疇是由行為人主體和法益客體組成的。犯罪是最終具有社會危害性的價(jià)值事件,但由于犯罪的規(guī)范標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的差異,它存在后者社會意義或者事實(shí)意義的可能。 當(dāng)犯罪需要價(jià)值判斷的規(guī)范標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是,’社會危害性充當(dāng)了規(guī)范的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在事實(shí)判斷導(dǎo)出價(jià)值判斷的過程中,作為前提的事實(shí)判斷是客觀的不以主體意志為轉(zhuǎn)移的,但作為結(jié)論的價(jià)值判斷卻可能因推導(dǎo)具有主體性特征、作為推理結(jié)論的價(jià)值判斷也具有主體性,是與主體有關(guān)的真緣故。也就是說,推理是其自身獨(dú)特的目的、利益與需要等,從一些事實(shí)前提當(dāng)然就可推導(dǎo)出帶有主體性的結(jié)論。價(jià)值這個(gè)普遍的概念是從人們對待滿足他們需要的外界物的關(guān)系中產(chǎn)生的。并以事實(shí)判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與價(jià)值判斷的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行分析。確定事實(shí)情節(jié)與價(jià)值情節(jié)的兩種分類方式。 第四部分主要是量刑情節(jié)體系的建立。首先分析我國現(xiàn)階段量刑失衡嚴(yán)重的現(xiàn)狀并通過類型化的具體方式明確建立量刑情節(jié)體系的重要與迫切。作者提出應(yīng)該確立量刑情節(jié)體系的類型化,以及提出建立量刑情節(jié)體系類型化的意義,最后提出構(gòu)建量刑情節(jié)體系類型化的具體方式。
[Abstract]:The sentence of sentencing is mainly embodied in 61 articles of criminal law in our country's criminal law, and it is also the principle of the application of the circumstances of the sentencing. However, the provisions of the provisions make it not conducive to the correct grasp of the sentencing circumstances in the judicial practice, so it is very easy to produce the sentencing deviation. This requires the classification of the sentencing circumstances to seize it. The essential attribute is a new classification based on the perspective of fact and value in order to adapt to the changing judicial practice.
The important role of the sentencing circumstances in the criminal law is self-evident, and the circumstances of the sentencing can be properly applied in the judicial practice, which is directly related to the long-term stability and social stability of the country. Because the injustice of sentencing will directly damage the fairness and justice, the authority of the judiciary, and can easily lead to victims, criminals and them. The relatives shaken the confidence of the justice of the judiciary.
The realization of the justice of sentencing is conducive to the settlement of the conflict of rules in the judiciary and the rule of law. Sentencing is a comprehensive consideration of every specific case based on a fair judiciary, and needs to be considered in a specific case of sentencing, and it does not need to be considered as recidivism, meritorious service and juvenile delinquency and so on. Other sentencing circumstances are not related to the crime. Such a sentencing plot mainly determines the size of the criminal responsibility and directly affects the severity of the sentencing. Therefore, in a particular case, the severity of the crime basically determines the size of a basic criminal responsibility, not the only basis for determining the criminal responsibility. In other words, when there is a parallel between the sentencing and the crime committed by the perpetrator, the heavy conviction and the misdemeanor are reasonable, not the injustice of the sentencing. Therefore, the author believes that the connotation of "heavy conviction, misdemeanor and punishment as a crime" is not the connotation of sentencing justice; on the contrary, this expression may mislead the trial personnel to ignore the sentencing circumstances outside the crime. In recent years, in recent years, as the people's demand for the rapid growth of the judiciary has become more and more high and the rule of law in China is progresses and perfected, the correct sentencing will affect the sentencing results in varying degrees, and the study of the theory of sentencing is also modern. The theoretical problem that should be solved and perfected most in the criminal law.
The classification of the circumstances of the sentencing is beneficial to the correct application of the circumstances of sentencing and the realization of the impartiality of sentencing. At the same time, it is also conducive to the realization of the ideal state of criminal law. This article tries to put forward a specific way of constructing the classification of sentencing and sentencing on the basis of the theory of the classification of sentencing circumstances.
The author advocates classifying the circumstances of sentencing by establishing a classification standard supplemented by fact judgment and value judgment.
Under the guidance of the above ideas, this article mainly launches from the following parts.
The first part of this paper is an introduction, which mainly includes the purpose and significance of the article, the research ideas of this paper, and the research methods of this article.
The second part is the theoretical basis of the classification of the sentencing plot. Any subject, leaving its basic theoretical basis, will become "the water of the passive, no book". This part mainly includes the objective basis of the value basic law, the subjective foundation, the practical basis and the sentencing plot on the basis of the comparison of the various traditional theories. The connotation is redefined.
Because the theory of crime is the pursuit of social value, from the point of view of the theory of value, the relationship between society and criminal law and the theory of criminology forms and realizes the value relation of different states and degrees. "Law is mainly a problem of value at least," in which any society has a dominant position. The basic characteristics, or concreteness or abstraction of the scientific and technological decision, determine the basic requirements of the society on its own security in general, and express the minimum limit that the society can endure to security. It is the core interest of the social security in different periods, and the differences in basic characteristics will affect and determine the criminal in the criminal law. The system of crime, which leads to systematic differences between the theory of crime because of the basic social characteristics, lays a theoretical foundation for the development of the latter. The objective basis of the sentencing plot is mainly embodied in the harmfulness of the society. The size of the social harmfulness reflects the facts of the crime and is the basis for the sentencing, and it is the basic theory of the circumstances of the sentencing. The social harmfulness of the objective basis of sentencing is mainly to guide the discretion of the judges in the actual trial by the amount of social harmfulness. The social harmfulness is a basic concept in the criminal theory of our country, which is not only widely used in the theory of crime but also in the theory of criminal responsibility and the theory of penal punishment. The main reason is that the social harmfulness is a concept which is universally applicable to criminal theory and penalty theory. It is relatively objective and clear and pertinent. The subjective basis of the sentencing plot is the personal danger of the criminal. Personal danger is the original concept in the modern criminal law school theory, and it is also the cornerstone of the modern school of criminal law theory. According to the personal dangerousness of the criminal, the sentence is almost a common example in the world. It embodies the principle of adaptation to crime and the principle of adaptation to the crime. The practical basis of the circumstances of the sentencing is mainly embodied in the discretion of the judge. As part of the penalty discretion, the circumstances of the sentencing are applicable. The judge's discretion refers to the discretion of the judge in the process of criminal cases. It includes the right of discretion in two aspects of the criminal substantive law and the criminal procedure law. There is a certain range of penalty discretion, and the judge declares the sentence on behalf of the state in this scope, and the discretion of the penalty is mainly exercised by the state. Therefore, it is very important to redefine the connotation of the circumstances of the sentencing.
The plot of sentencing is one of the plots in the criminal law of our country. Its concept is not clearly defined in the criminal law, but it is only a theoretical discussion by scholars. Because the sentencing plot is the basis for the criminal responsibility to be carried out and the individualization of the penalty, the exact definition and implementation of the concept of the sentencing circumstances is critical. At present, the academic circle has only the most basic understanding of the concept of the sentencing plot and is easy to accept. On this basis, this paper combines several viewpoints of the traditional theory to the comparative analysis of the definition of the essential attribute of the sentencing plot.
The third part is mainly to make a new classification of the sentencing plot. First, a systematic analysis is made on the basis of the comparison of the classification of the sentencing circumstances in the traditional criminal law theory on the basis of the comparison of the contrast of the classmate. In general, the class is the above 9 points of view. It can be said that the views of the scholars are basically similar. They also reflect the academic achievements of the theory of sentencing plot in the present stage of criminal law in China. The defect is obvious, that is, it does not solve and answer the essence of the classification of the sentencing plot. In the limit of the legal penalty, what kind of sentencing is lenient, what kind of sentencing plot is strict, what kind of plot is light, what kind of plot is mitigated? These are not clear. So the author put forward to seize the thing in the book. The qualitative attribute is the classification of the sentencing plot in the perspective of fact and value, first of all, to determine the standard of the classification of the sentencing plot first, the criminal fact standard and the social harmfulness standard, the former is the fact, the latter is the value, and it is also the different standard of "is and should" proposed by Hume; the former is abstract and easy to carry out and apply the legislator. The latter is other, and it is easy to carry out and apply the judicial power. Therefore, the criteria for the classification of the sentencing circumstances are the premise of the correct classification, and the classification standards of the sentencing circumstances should be first defined.
The criterion of judgment and the standard of judgment of value. The criterion of the fact is oriented by the object. It may be that the fact is judged by someone or someone, but if the fact is correct, that is, the truth is true, then it is not exclusive to human will and is universal, that is, the amount of the criminal law. The value judgment standard of the criminal plot is the category of the value level in the sentencing plot, which is composed of the subject of the actor and the object of the legal interest. The crime is the eventual value event with social harmfulness, but it has the possibility of the social meaning or the fact meaning of the latter due to the difference of the standard of the crime.
When a crime needs a standard standard of value judgment, the social harmfulness acts as a standard. In the process of judging the value of the fact, the fact judgment as the premise is not transferred by the subjective will, but the value judgment of the conclusion may be derived from the subjective characteristic, as the price of the reasoning conclusion. The value judgment also has the subjectivity, which is the true cause related to the subject. That is to say, the reasoning is its own unique purpose, the interests and the needs and so on. From some facts preconditions, of course, it can deduce the conclusion with the subjectivity. The universal concept of value is derived from the relationship between people and the external objects that meet the needs of the people. The standard of real judgment and the criterion of value judgement are analyzed. Two classifications of facts and value plots are determined.
The fourth part is mainly the establishment of the sentencing plot system. First, it analyzes the present situation of the serious sentencing imbalance in our country at the present stage and makes clear the importance and urgency of establishing the system of sentencing plot through the specific type of punishment. The author puts forward that the type of sentencing plot system should be established, and the significance of establishing the system of sentencing plot is put forward, and the most important thing is to set up a sentencing plot system. Then it puts forward specific ways to construct sentencing plot system.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.13;D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 劉以賓;300%的量刑“誤差率”[J];百姓;2004年05期

2 尹曉;甄宏;;論“民憤”在量刑中的角色定位[J];廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2005年04期

3 王海明;關(guān)于應(yīng)該、善和價(jià)值存在本性的幾種理論[J];思想戰(zhàn)線;2003年02期

，

本文編號：1792501