本文選題：限制死刑 + 刑事和解��； 參考：《西南交通大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：2012年3月14日,全國(guó)人大會(huì)議審議通過(guò)了《中華人民共和國(guó)刑事訴訟法修正案》。在新設(shè)的“當(dāng)事人和解的公訴案件訴訟程序”一章中,對(duì)于輕傷害案件、過(guò)失犯罪案件適用刑事和解的規(guī)定,正式確認(rèn)了刑事和解在我國(guó)的合法地位。然而正是基于刑事和解制度的確立,以及國(guó)內(nèi)外廢除死刑、保障人權(quán)的呼聲不斷高漲,法學(xué)理論界和實(shí)務(wù)部門(mén)針對(duì)“死刑案件能否被和解”展開(kāi)了激烈的爭(zhēng)論。我國(guó)刑法、刑事訴訟法沒(méi)有規(guī)定“死刑和解”,但是在我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中卻存在這樣的現(xiàn)象,即把最終罪該判處死刑的案件進(jìn)行“和解”。近年來(lái)許多學(xué)者一直都在討論這個(gè)問(wèn)題,贊成者有之,反對(duì)者亦有之。就贊成方而言,他們認(rèn)為“死刑和解”是限制死刑的有效徑途,“死刑和解”應(yīng)當(dāng)被納入我國(guó)刑事和解的范疇中去。反對(duì)方則認(rèn)為這些觀點(diǎn)是對(duì)限制死刑思想的曲解,對(duì)司法正義的破壞。因此,我們有必要厘清限制死刑與“死刑和解”相關(guān)概念的區(qū)別,以糾正“死刑和解”司法理念的錯(cuò)誤。 本文將從五個(gè)部分研究相關(guān)問(wèn)題：第一章的緒論主要介紹論文研究的背景、研究現(xiàn)狀、研究意義和研究方法。第二章對(duì)“死刑和解”的提出,以及在司法實(shí)踐中運(yùn)用造成的影響進(jìn)行論述。具體分析“死刑和解”被提出的背景和理論基礎(chǔ),并以司法實(shí)踐中發(fā)生的的“死刑和解”案件作為論據(jù),還對(duì)“死刑和解”案件造成的社會(huì)反響從不同角度解析。第三章對(duì)限制死刑思想進(jìn)行解析,包括其產(chǎn)生的淵源,和我國(guó)傳統(tǒng)法律文化的倫理基礎(chǔ),以及在我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中的具體體現(xiàn)。同時(shí),在我國(guó)保留死刑的法制背景下,論述保留死刑與限制死刑之間的邏輯關(guān)系,以及二者存在的合理性問(wèn)題。第四章將綜合前三章的整體內(nèi)容,將限制死刑與“死刑和解”的概念、理念以及現(xiàn)實(shí)可能性結(jié)合起來(lái)討論,批判“死刑和解”的理論謬誤,從理論與實(shí)踐中對(duì)“死刑和解”進(jìn)行否定,區(qū)分限制死刑與“死刑和解”,證明二者在邏輯上不能證立。最后一章得出本文的結(jié)論,堅(jiān)持發(fā)展我國(guó)的限制死刑思想,反對(duì)“死刑和解”。
[Abstract]:On March 14, 2012, the National people's Congress deliberated and adopted the Amendment to the Criminal procedure Law of the people's Republic of China. In the new chapter of "Proceedings of Public Prosecution cases of parties' Reconciliation", the criminal reconciliation is applied in the case of minor injury and negligent crime, which formally confirms the legal status of criminal reconciliation in our country. However, it is based on the establishment of the criminal reconciliation system, the abolition of the death penalty at home and abroad, and the rising voice of protecting human rights, the legal theorists and practical departments have launched a fierce debate on whether or not the death penalty cases can be reconciled. China's criminal law, criminal procedure law does not provide for "death penalty reconciliation", but in our judicial practice, there is such a phenomenon, that is, the ultimate crime should be sentenced to death in the case of "reconciliation". In recent years, many scholars have been discussing this issue. On the pro-side side, they think that "death penalty reconciliation" is an effective way to limit the death penalty, and "death penalty reconciliation" should be included in the scope of criminal reconciliation in our country. The opposition views these views as a misinterpretation of the idea of limiting the death penalty and a breach of judicial justice. Therefore, it is necessary for us to clarify the differences between the concepts of restricting the death penalty and the "death penalty reconciliation", so as to correct the mistakes of the judicial concept of "death penalty reconciliation". This paper will study the relevant issues from five parts: the first chapter of the introduction mainly introduces the research background, research status, research significance and research methods. The second chapter discusses the death penalty reconciliation and the influence caused by its application in judicial practice. This paper concretely analyzes the background and theoretical basis of "reconciliation of death penalty", takes the case of "reconciliation of death penalty" in judicial practice as an argument, and analyzes the social repercussions caused by "reconciliation of death penalty" from different angles. The third chapter analyzes the thought of limiting death penalty, including the origin of its origin, the ethical basis of our traditional legal culture, as well as the concrete embodiment in the judicial practice of our country. At the same time, under the legal background of retentionist death penalty in our country, the logical relationship between retentionist death penalty and restricted death penalty is discussed, and the rationality of both is discussed. The fourth chapter will synthesize the whole content of the first three chapters, will limit the death penalty and "death penalty reconciliation" the concept, the idea as well as the realistic possibility union discussion, criticizes "the death penalty reconciliation" the theory fallacy, In theory and practice, the author negates "death penalty reconciliation", differentiates between "death penalty reconciliation" and "death penalty reconciliation", and proves that they can not be proved logically. The last chapter draws the conclusion of this paper, insists on developing our country's limit death penalty thought, opposes "death penalty reconciliation".
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南交通大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D924;D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 游偉;唐震;余劍;李長(zhǎng)坤;;死刑案刑事和解之感性與理性[J];東方法學(xué);2009年03期

2 盧建平;;死緩制度的刑事政策意義及其擴(kuò)張[J];法學(xué)家;2004年05期

3 陳興良;死刑存廢之應(yīng)然與實(shí)然[J];法學(xué);2003年04期

4 梁根林;;死刑案件被刑事和解的十大證偽[J];法學(xué);2010年04期

5 宋英輝;向燕;;我國(guó)刑事和解的正當(dāng)性解構(gòu)[J];河北法學(xué);2008年05期

6 賈曼;;淺議死刑案件刑事和解的弊端[J];河南廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年02期

7 蔣娜;;“最嚴(yán)重的犯罪”與死刑的嚴(yán)格限制——兼及“死刑和解”的誤區(qū)矯正[J];湖南師范大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年03期

8 劉明祥;日本死刑制度的現(xiàn)狀與我國(guó)死刑制度的展望[J];江海學(xué)刊;2004年05期

9 叢日云;近代人權(quán)學(xué)說(shuō)的思想來(lái)源[J];遼寧師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2000年01期

10 董士曇;;刑事和解模式及其中國(guó)式構(gòu)建[J];求索;2007年09期

，

本文編號(hào)：1845341