本文選題：不得已原則 + 刑法的目的�。� 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：不得已在刑法的規(guī)范體系中指的是，為了能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)刑法保護(hù)法益的目的，刑法只能而且必須調(diào)整其他社會規(guī)范（包括其他法律規(guī)范）無法有效調(diào)整的嚴(yán)重侵害法益的行為，同時要求罪刑相當(dāng)。刑法的不得已性從根本上說是由刑法的目的所決定的，刑法目的的實現(xiàn)機(jī)理是刑法不得已的現(xiàn)實基礎(chǔ)，，而受刑法目的及其實現(xiàn)手段制約的調(diào)整對象則是刑法不得已的直接依據(jù)。保護(hù)法益是國家制定刑法的目的。刑法通過發(fā)揮其威懾效應(yīng)來實現(xiàn)保護(hù)法益的目的，其威懾效應(yīng)來源于兩個方面：犯罪化的標(biāo)簽威懾和刑罰的威懾。刑法的目的及其實現(xiàn)手段限制了刑法的調(diào)整對象。首先，刑法犯罪化標(biāo)簽威懾效應(yīng)的有效發(fā)揮要求刑法調(diào)整的行為盡可能的少：一方面，刑法只能調(diào)整嚴(yán)重侵害法益的行為，另一方面，其他社會規(guī)范能夠調(diào)整的行為刑法亦不介入調(diào)整；其次，刑法保護(hù)法益的目的決定了對于嚴(yán)重侵害法益的行為刑法必須介入調(diào)整，否則，該目的無從體現(xiàn)，其存在本身都將受到質(zhì)疑；再次，刑法以保護(hù)包括犯罪人在內(nèi)的全體社會成員的法益為目的，卻以限制或剝奪犯罪人的人身自由、財產(chǎn)乃至生命等法益為手段，這種手段與目的的二律背反關(guān)系的緩和要求刑法只有在保護(hù)絕大多數(shù)社會成員的法益時，才能對犯罪人的法益進(jìn)行限制或剝奪，并且這種剝奪必須以剛好足以保護(hù)絕大多數(shù)社會成員的法益為限，即刑罰必須與犯罪相適應(yīng)；最后，只有在罪刑相當(dāng)?shù)臈l件下才能使刑罰威懾效應(yīng)與懲罰的強(qiáng)度之間保持正相關(guān)的函數(shù)關(guān)系。 基于以上論證，筆者在文章第二部分闡釋了刑法不得已原則的具體含義，并在刑法不得已性與刑法的謙抑性的區(qū)別、刑法不得已性在刑法理論中的定位、刑法不得已原則對我國罪刑法定原則的補(bǔ)位等三個方面展開論述；認(rèn)為不得已原則的應(yīng)該取代謙抑性，并成為刑法的根本原則，對我國罪刑法定原則進(jìn)行機(jī)能補(bǔ)位，成為形式上符合刑罰法規(guī)規(guī)定卻不具有實質(zhì)違法性的行為出罪的強(qiáng)大事由。文章第三部分是刑法不得已原則在立法側(cè)面和司法側(cè)面的本體展開。最后結(jié)語則是從法治社會良法之治的高度肯定刑法不得已原則的整體價值。 文章試圖在理論上證成一個刑法原則——不得已原則。研究刑法不得已原則的最重要的理論意義在于它是刑事立法、司法中的一個有效分析工具。主要研究方法為文獻(xiàn)資料的歸納分析與演繹推理。通過對刑法目的的梳理、刑法威懾機(jī)理的分析、刑法調(diào)整對象的確定，筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)刑法不得已原則是刑法自身原因使然，具有脈絡(luò)清晰的理論基礎(chǔ)，而不是立法者的寬容。通過對比分析筆者還發(fā)現(xiàn)，刑法不得已原則具有取代刑法謙抑性的充足理由。
[Abstract]:In the normative system of criminal law, it means that, in order to achieve the purpose of criminal law protection, criminal law can only and must adjust other social norms (including other legal norms) can not be effectively adjusted serious violations of legal interests, At the same time, the crime is required to be equal. The necessity of criminal law is fundamentally determined by the purpose of criminal law. The realization mechanism of criminal law is the realistic foundation of criminal law, while the object of adjustment restricted by the purpose of criminal law and its means of realization is the direct basis of criminal law. The interest of the law of protection is the purpose for the country to formulate the criminal law. By exerting its deterrent effect, the criminal law realizes the purpose of the law of protection. Its deterrent effect comes from two aspects: the criminalized label deterrent and the penalty deterrent. The purpose of criminal law and its means of realization limit the object of adjustment of criminal law. First of all, the effective exertion of deterrent effect of criminal label in criminal law requires as few actions as possible: on the one hand, criminal law can only adjust the behavior that seriously infringes legal interests, on the other hand, Other social norms can adjust the behavior criminal law also do not intervene in the adjustment; secondly, the purpose of criminal law protection law determines that the criminal law of serious violations of legal interests must be involved in the adjustment, otherwise, the purpose can not be reflected. Its existence itself will be questioned. Thirdly, the criminal law aims to protect the legal interests of all members of society, including the criminal, but to restrict or deprive the criminal person of personal freedom, property and even life and other legal interests as a means. The detente of the two laws against the relationship between the means and the ends requires that the criminal law restrict or deprive the legal interests of the criminals only when they protect the legal interests of the vast majority of members of society. And this deprivation must be limited to the legal interests that are just enough to protect the vast majority of members of society, that is, the penalty must be appropriate to the crime; finally, Only under the condition that the crime and punishment are equal, the relationship between the deterrent effect of penalty and the intensity of punishment can be positively related. Based on the above argumentation, in the second part of the article, the author explains the concrete meaning of the principle of the last resort of the criminal law, and the difference between the necessity of the criminal law and the modesty of the criminal law, and the orientation of the necessity of the criminal law in the theory of criminal law. The last principle of criminal law discusses the supplement of the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime in our country, and holds that the principle of necessity should replace the principle of modesty and become the fundamental principle of criminal law, and make a functional supplement to the principle of legality of crime in our country. It has become a powerful reason for committing crimes that are formally in line with the provisions of penal laws and regulations but do not have substantial illegality. The third part of the article is the principle of the last resort in the legislative and judicial aspects of the Noumenon. Finally, the conclusion is to affirm the overall value of the principle of criminal law as a last resort from the perspective of good law in a society governed by the rule of law. This article attempts to prove in theory a principle of criminal law-the principle of necessity. The most important theoretical significance of studying the principle of criminal law is that it is an effective analytical tool in criminal legislation and judicature. The main research methods are inductive analysis and deductive reasoning. Through the analysis of the purpose of criminal law, the mechanism of deterrence of criminal law, and the determination of the object of adjustment of criminal law, the author finds that the principle of criminal law as a last resort is the cause of criminal law itself and has a clear theoretical basis, not the tolerance of legislators. Through comparative analysis, the author also finds that the principle of criminal law has sufficient reasons to replace the modesty of criminal law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐衛(wèi)東;西原春夫;關(guān)哲夫;李潔;賈宇;梅傳強(qiáng);李永升;徐岱;馮衛(wèi)國;童德華;陳忠林;張旭;李韌夫;華偉;閔春雷;李邦友;高珊琦;陳玉范;夏勇;王充;;刑法謙抑在中國——四校刑法學(xué)高層論壇[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2007年01期

2 張明楷;論刑法的謙抑性[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);1995年04期

3 卓凱;;刑法的不得已性——中國話語下的刑法謙抑[J];江西公安�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報;2010年05期

4 張穎杰;李茂華;;刑法謙抑性思想溯源[J];南華大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2006年05期

5 崔敏;;關(guān)于對基本法律的修改權(quán)限問題[J];人大研究;2007年04期

6 儲槐植;;刑法目的斷想[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2008年01期

7 陳興良;;刑法機(jī)能的話語轉(zhuǎn)換——刑法目的論的一種探討路徑[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2008年01期

8 張明楷;;刑法目的論綱[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2008年01期

9 曲新久;;刑法目的論要[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2008年01期

10 周光權(quán);;論刑法目的的相對性[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2008年01期

本文編號：1836932