本文選題：死緩 + 死刑��； 參考：《安徽財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文從死緩的起源著手分析,得出死緩的本質(zhì)是一種附條件暫時(shí)不執(zhí)行死刑的死刑執(zhí)行制度,死刑判決是適用死緩的前提條件,即無(wú)死刑就無(wú)死緩。結(jié)合我國(guó)實(shí)際,我國(guó)應(yīng)當(dāng)在肯定保留死刑和死緩制度同時(shí)存在的合理性和現(xiàn)實(shí)必要性的前提下,堅(jiān)持少殺、慎殺的刑事政策,以限制和減少死刑的執(zhí)行,從而最終達(dá)到改造、教育犯罪分子的刑罰價(jià)值。從世界廢除死刑的大背景和我國(guó)對(duì)死刑執(zhí)行的門(mén)檻步步提高的立法傾向性來(lái)看,死緩制度的現(xiàn)實(shí)直接目的就是限制和減少死刑的執(zhí)行。為達(dá)此目的,就需要準(zhǔn)確的理解死緩適用和變更執(zhí)行的條件。我國(guó)死緩制度尚存諸多不足之處,主要體現(xiàn)在規(guī)定死緩定義抽象、模糊,對(duì)其變更執(zhí)行的適用條件的含義界定不統(tǒng)一。從死緩設(shè)立之目的出發(fā),對(duì)“罪行極其嚴(yán)重”的界定只能從行為的主客觀(guān)方面入手,而不能包含人身危險(xiǎn)性的內(nèi)容,也即從刑法懲罰的對(duì)象來(lái)看,“罪行極其嚴(yán)重”是一種行為刑法觀(guān)的表述。人身危險(xiǎn)性是指犯罪分子再犯的可能性,強(qiáng)調(diào)的是特殊預(yù)防和犯罪分子是否具有改造和教育可能性,是一種行為人刑法觀(guān)的表述。因此,只有人身危險(xiǎn)性極高的犯罪分子才應(yīng)當(dāng)被執(zhí)行死刑,即人身危險(xiǎn)性極高才是“必須立即執(zhí)行”的實(shí)質(zhì)含義。進(jìn)而得出“罪行極其嚴(yán)重”是進(jìn)入死刑判決的唯一標(biāo)準(zhǔn),而人身危險(xiǎn)性的高低能且只能作為區(qū)別死緩和死刑立即執(zhí)行的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在明確死緩適用條件的實(shí)質(zhì)含義后,結(jié)合死緩減少和限制死刑執(zhí)行之設(shè)立目的,從提高死刑執(zhí)行門(mén)檻和降低死緩門(mén)檻兩個(gè)角度出發(fā),針對(duì)死緩立法上的不足提出相對(duì)應(yīng)的完善之策,通過(guò)建立先死刑判決,再死緩,再死刑立即執(zhí)行的梯形遞進(jìn)的模式限制死刑執(zhí)行。因此,筆者對(duì)刑法第48條重構(gòu)為:死刑只適用罪行極其嚴(yán)重的犯罪分子。對(duì)于判處死刑的犯罪分子,應(yīng)當(dāng)同時(shí)宣告緩期兩年執(zhí)行;若其具有極高的人身危險(xiǎn)性,可以立即執(zhí)行死刑。其主要目的有兩點(diǎn),其一,在刑法典中進(jìn)一步提高死緩的地位;其二,明確界定人身危險(xiǎn)極高才是死刑犯應(yīng)該被執(zhí)行死刑的唯一標(biāo)準(zhǔn),更加明確地指導(dǎo)司法適用死緩。此外,筆者對(duì)刑法第50條的死緩變更執(zhí)行的條件進(jìn)一步完善,將“故意犯罪,情節(jié)惡劣”限定為是處最低刑為5年以上有期徒刑的故意犯罪,進(jìn)一步提高死緩進(jìn)入死刑執(zhí)行的門(mén)檻;將考驗(yàn)期間重大立功表現(xiàn)的變更執(zhí)行結(jié)果重構(gòu)為立即減為無(wú)期徒刑;增加考驗(yàn)期一般立功表現(xiàn)的變更執(zhí)行結(jié)果,將其結(jié)果規(guī)定為:兩年考驗(yàn)期滿(mǎn)后減為25年有期徒刑。其目的是在堅(jiān)守罪責(zé)刑相適應(yīng)的刑法原則前提下,更合理地重構(gòu)死緩變更執(zhí)行的刑罰體系,以此更大限度地調(diào)動(dòng)死緩犯罪分子接受改造和教育的積極性,切實(shí)減少死刑執(zhí)行的數(shù)量。
[Abstract]:Based on the analysis of the origin of death reprieve, this paper draws a conclusion that the essence of death reprieve is a system of execution of death penalty with conditions that do not carry out the death penalty temporarily. Death penalty sentence is the precondition of applying death reprieve, that is, there is no death sentence without death penalty. In combination with the reality of our country, our country should insist on the criminal policy of killing less and carefully under the premise of affirming the rationality and practical necessity of both the retention of the death penalty and the suspension of death penalty, so as to limit and reduce the execution of the death penalty, so as to achieve the ultimate reform. The penalty value of educating criminals. From the background of the abolition of the death penalty in the world and the legislative tendency to raise the threshold of execution of the death penalty in our country, the immediate purpose of the death penalty suspension system is to limit and reduce the execution of the death penalty. To this end, it is necessary to accurately understand the conditions for deferral application and change execution. There are still many deficiencies in the system of death-suspension in our country, which is mainly reflected in the abstract and fuzzy definition of death reprieve, and the inconsistent definition of the meaning of the applicable conditions for its change and execution. Starting from the purpose of suspending the establishment of the death penalty, the definition of "extremely serious crime" can only start from the subjective and objective aspects of the act, and not include the content of personal dangerousness, that is, the object of punishment in criminal law. "the crime is extremely serious" is a kind of behavior criminal law view expression. Personal dangerousness refers to the possibility of reoffending by criminals, which emphasizes the special prevention and the possibility of reformation and education of criminals, which is the expression of the criminal law view of the perpetrator. Therefore, only criminals with very high personal danger should be executed, that is, very high personal danger is the essential meaning of "must be executed immediately". The conclusion is that "the crime is extremely serious" is the only standard to enter the death penalty, and the personal danger can only be used as the standard to distinguish the death penalty from the death penalty immediately. After clarifying the essential meaning of the condition of death reprieve, combining the purpose of reducing death penalty and restricting the execution of death penalty, the author sets out from two angles: raising the threshold of execution of death penalty and lowering the threshold of death reprieve. In view of the deficiency of death penalty suspension legislation, the author puts forward the corresponding perfect measures, and restricts the execution of death penalty by establishing the trapezoidal progressive mode of first death sentence, then death penalty suspension, and then execution immediately. Therefore, the author reconstructs Article 48 of the Criminal Law as: the death penalty is only applicable to criminals who commit extremely serious crimes. Criminals sentenced to death shall be suspended for a period of two years at the same time; if they have a high degree of personal danger, the death penalty may be executed immediately. Its main purpose has two points, one is to further improve the status of death penalty reprieve in the Criminal Code; the other is to clearly define that the extremely high personal danger is the only standard for the death penalty to be executed, and to guide the judicial application of the death penalty suspension more clearly. In addition, the author has further improved the conditions for the execution of the suspension of death penalty in Article 50 of the Criminal Law, limiting "intentional crime, aggravated circumstances" as an intentional crime punishable by a minimum penalty of more than five years of fixed-term imprisonment. Further raising the threshold for the death penalty to enter the execution of the death penalty; reconstructing the results of the changes in the performance of major meritorious service during the test period to immediate commutation to life imprisonment; and increasing the results of the changes in the performance of the general meritorious service during the test period, The result will be reduced to 25 years after the two-year test expires. Its purpose is to, on the premise of adhering to the principle of criminal law that the crime, responsibility and punishment adapt to the punishment, to more reasonably reconstruct the penalty system of changing the execution of the death penalty, so as to arouse the enthusiasm of the criminals on the death penalty reprieve to receive reform and education to a greater extent. Effectively reduce the number of executions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D924.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 倪澤仁,周林;政治話(huà)語(yǔ)與法理邏輯——對(duì)我國(guó)死緩制度的反思[J];國(guó)家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年06期

2 陸詩(shī)忠;死緩制度的立法完善[J];檢察實(shí)踐;2004年04期

3 劉霜;;論死緩制度的缺憾及其彌補(bǔ)[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2005年06期

4 胡劍;;死緩制度廢除論[J];承德職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年03期

5 杜蓉娟;任忠臣;;淺析死緩制度之缺陷[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年18期

6 朱牧野;;淺談我國(guó)死緩制度的改革[J];西安社會(huì)科學(xué);2009年03期

7 蘇哲;;死緩制度的當(dāng)代價(jià)值[J];江蘇警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年04期

8 高銘暄;徐宏;;中國(guó)死緩制度的三維考察[J];政治與法律;2010年02期

9 王忠毅;;我國(guó)死緩制度的法律性質(zhì)初探[J];法學(xué)研究;1991年05期

10 謝波;;論我國(guó)死緩制度的缺陷及其改造[J];山西師大學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年02期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 高騰;;論死緩制度的缺陷[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2008年第3輯）[C];2008年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前4條

1 汕頭市人民檢察院 黃瑩;完善我國(guó)死緩制度的若干思考[N];汕頭日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

2 貴州大學(xué)法學(xué)034班 肖軍海;淺議我國(guó)死緩制度的立法與完善[N];經(jīng)濟(jì)信息時(shí)報(bào);2007年

3 王威;完善死緩制度宜增設(shè)超長(zhǎng)期徒刑[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

4 麥子;殺害親屬戀人“罪輕一等”？[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 劉云濤;死緩制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2009年

2 何顯兵;死緩制度研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 王曉旭;論死緩制度[D];河南大學(xué);2009年

2 謝珂;論死緩制度中的“不是必須立即執(zhí)行”[D];鄭州大學(xué);2015年

3 王國(guó)富;我國(guó)死緩制度的合理性反思[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

4 程佩茹;我國(guó)死緩犯改造中存在的問(wèn)題及對(duì)策[D];甘肅政法學(xué)院;2016年

5 王吟;我國(guó)死緩制度立法研究[D];安徽財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2017年

6 高騰;論死緩制度的廢除[D];貴州大學(xué);2008年

7 傅偉韜;論我國(guó)死緩制度的適用及完善[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年

8 程兵;死緩制度研究[D];山東大學(xué);2009年

9 李振;論死緩制度的適用[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

10 李國(guó)杰;我國(guó)死緩制度研究[D];河南大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：1798514