發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-08 11:57

  本文選題：量刑情節(jié) + 暴力犯罪�。� 參考：《武漢大學(xué)》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：暴力犯罪,尤其是故意殺人、故意傷害、搶劫、強(qiáng)奸等嚴(yán)重暴力犯罪嚴(yán)重威脅國(guó)家、社會(huì)的穩(wěn)定和民眾的安全感,古今中外都是被打擊的重點(diǎn)。從犯罪和刑罰的相互關(guān)系及發(fā)展歷史來(lái)看,暴力犯罪和死刑有著天然的契合度。然而,死刑制度在當(dāng)今面臨著前所未有的質(zhì)疑和挑戰(zhàn),截止2012年底,全球198個(gè)國(guó)家中已有140個(gè)國(guó)家完全廢除或者事實(shí)上廢除了死刑,諸多國(guó)際公約及國(guó)際組織也大力呼吁仍保留死刑的國(guó)家盡快廢除死刑。廢除死刑,尤其是暴力犯罪的死刑,已經(jīng)不是一個(gè)單純的法律問(wèn)題,而是演變成為一個(gè)面臨民意強(qiáng)大壓力的政治抉擇。當(dāng)今世界,一些大國(guó),如中國(guó)、美國(guó)、日本等國(guó)家仍保留死刑,暴力犯罪,特別是致命性暴力犯罪的多發(fā)無(wú)疑是這些國(guó)家保留死刑的原因之一,但是,從各國(guó)不同時(shí)期的死刑統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)看,在死刑被廢除或被嚴(yán)格控制適用后,暴力犯罪的數(shù)量并沒(méi)有大幅增加,一些國(guó)家的暴力犯罪數(shù)量甚至還呈現(xiàn)下降趨勢(shì)。我國(guó)近10年來(lái)的主要暴力犯罪統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)也顯示,在死刑復(fù)核權(quán)收歸最高人民法院行使,暴力犯罪死刑案件數(shù)量大幅度減少的情況下,嚴(yán)重暴力犯罪數(shù)量也呈現(xiàn)下降態(tài)勢(shì)。這就不能不讓我們思考死刑是否是遏制暴力犯罪最有效的手段這一問(wèn)題。 我國(guó)理論界對(duì)死刑的主流觀點(diǎn)是廢除死刑,我們國(guó)家的死刑政策則是“保留死刑,嚴(yán)格控制和慎重適用死刑”,但從近些年來(lái)有關(guān)死刑民意的調(diào)查來(lái)看,我國(guó)多數(shù)民眾的主流意見(jiàn)是反對(duì)廢除死刑,尤其是反對(duì)廢除暴力犯罪的死刑�；趪�(guó)情,我國(guó)現(xiàn)階段廢除死刑還很不現(xiàn)實(shí),但考察死刑在當(dāng)今世界的狀況,廢除死刑已經(jīng)是國(guó)際潮流和歷史趨勢(shì)。在全球百分之七十以上的國(guó)家已經(jīng)廢除死刑,且即使是保留死刑的大國(guó)實(shí)際被執(zhí)行死刑的人數(shù)也很少的情況下,我國(guó)成為世界上公認(rèn)的執(zhí)行死刑人數(shù)最多的國(guó)家,我國(guó)的死刑制度和死刑政策面臨著巨大的壓力和挑戰(zhàn)。隨著國(guó)內(nèi)外形勢(shì)的發(fā)展變化,我國(guó)官方對(duì)死刑的立場(chǎng)也發(fā)生了重大變化,2007年死刑復(fù)核權(quán)收歸最高人民法院統(tǒng)一行使,2011年《刑法修正案(八)》在立法上一次性廢除了13個(gè)非暴力犯罪死刑罪名,2013年十八屆三中全會(huì)通過(guò)的《中共中央關(guān)于全面深化改革若干重大問(wèn)題的決定》進(jìn)一步提出完善人權(quán)司法保障制度,逐步減少適用死刑罪名,這充分說(shuō)明減少和限制死刑適用在我國(guó)已經(jīng)具有政策和法律上的保障。限制死刑有兩種方式,立法限制和司法限制。立法限制是指在立法上減少死刑之罪,這是最直接也最有效的限制死刑方式,但在立法上減少死刑之罪,尤其是暴力犯罪的死刑罪名,受到各方面因素的限制,短時(shí)期內(nèi)社會(huì)難以達(dá)成共識(shí)。司法限制是指在司法過(guò)程中通過(guò)司法手段控制死刑的適用,實(shí)現(xiàn)司法過(guò)程中降低死刑適用數(shù)量的目的。要實(shí)現(xiàn)司法限制死刑適用,就必須找到一個(gè)切入口。量刑情節(jié)無(wú)疑就是這一切入口,因?yàn)榱啃糖楣?jié)是刑罰裁量的基礎(chǔ),在具體案件中,通過(guò)適用案中的具體量刑情節(jié),實(shí)現(xiàn)刑罰裁量的公平和公正。對(duì)于暴力犯罪來(lái)說(shuō),量刑情節(jié)的正確認(rèn)定與適用具有重大意義,因?yàn)檫@涉及到死刑的適用,因此,系統(tǒng)研究量刑情節(jié)限制暴力犯罪死刑的適用問(wèn)題,不僅有助于死刑制度的理論研究,拓展這一問(wèn)題的研究層次和領(lǐng)域,而且有助于司法實(shí)務(wù),為司法實(shí)踐中正確裁量死刑和嚴(yán)格控制死刑提供理論指導(dǎo)和參考。本文正是立足于此研究量刑情節(jié)限制暴力犯罪死刑適用的相關(guān)問(wèn)題。 本文共分為五章,主要包括以下內(nèi)容： 第一章“量刑情節(jié)與暴力犯罪死刑限制適用概述”,本部分主要界定量刑情節(jié)的概念和暴力犯罪刑法學(xué)意義上的概念,以及量刑情節(jié)在限制暴力犯罪死刑適用中的重要意義。即為實(shí)現(xiàn)暴力犯罪死刑限制適用的目的,就必須充分發(fā)揮量刑情節(jié)在限制死刑方面的重要作用,并通過(guò)不斷總結(jié)司法實(shí)踐,推動(dòng)立法控制死刑。 第二章“法定量刑情節(jié)與暴力犯罪死刑限制適用”,本部分主要研究法定量刑情節(jié)在限制暴力犯罪死刑適用方面的地位和作用,提出應(yīng)充分發(fā)揮法定從寬量刑情節(jié)在限制暴力犯罪死刑適用方面的積極作用,努力削減從嚴(yán)情節(jié)在限制暴力犯罪死刑適用方面的消極作用,同時(shí)應(yīng)完善刑法典中特殊犯罪主體的相關(guān)規(guī)定,充分發(fā)揮特殊犯罪主體在限制暴力犯罪死刑適用方面的作用。本章重點(diǎn)選取在司法實(shí)務(wù)中常見(jiàn)的自首、坦白、累犯、未成年人、老年人、精神病人這幾種法定量刑情節(jié),結(jié)合具體案例闡述如何準(zhǔn)確認(rèn)定上述量刑情節(jié)及如何發(fā)揮其在限制暴力犯罪死刑適用中的作用,發(fā)現(xiàn)并提出存在的相關(guān)問(wèn)題。 第三章“酌定量刑情節(jié)與暴力犯罪死刑限制適用”,本部分主要研究酌定量刑情節(jié)在限制暴力犯罪死刑適用方面的地位和作用。在界定酌定量刑情節(jié)概念和范圍的基礎(chǔ)上,重點(diǎn)選取被害人過(guò)錯(cuò)、犯罪動(dòng)機(jī)、犯罪手段、危害結(jié)果、民事賠償這幾種涵蓋罪前、罪中、罪后的酌定量刑情節(jié),結(jié)合具體案例分析上述量刑情節(jié)在個(gè)案中對(duì)限制暴力犯罪死刑適用的作用及需要完善的問(wèn)題。 第四章“共同犯罪案件量刑情節(jié)與暴力犯罪死刑限制適用”,本部分主要研究共同暴力犯罪案件中的量刑情節(jié)如何限制死刑的適用問(wèn)題。我國(guó)刑法將共同犯罪人分為主犯、從犯、脅從犯和教唆犯,這不僅是共同犯罪人的分類(lèi),也是刑法裁量中的量刑情節(jié)。在共同犯罪中,死刑僅應(yīng)適用于“罪責(zé)最為嚴(yán)重的主犯”。本章結(jié)合具體案例闡述如何準(zhǔn)確認(rèn)定“罪責(zé)最為嚴(yán)重的主犯”,并選取雇兇犯罪這一司法實(shí)踐中罪責(zé)認(rèn)定較為復(fù)雜的共同犯罪類(lèi)型,論述對(duì)“罪責(zé)最為嚴(yán)重的主犯”的認(rèn)定及死刑限制適用問(wèn)題。 第五章“量刑情節(jié)與暴力犯罪死刑限制適用的思考和完善”,本部分重點(diǎn)研究如何充分發(fā)揮量刑情節(jié)對(duì)暴力犯罪死刑限制適用的功能,提出應(yīng)對(duì)現(xiàn)有立法、司法規(guī)定進(jìn)行完善,以解決暴力犯罪死刑適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)過(guò)于模糊、死刑適用對(duì)象較為寬泛、常見(jiàn)暴力犯罪死刑罪名適用規(guī)則缺失等立法、司法層面存在的相關(guān)問(wèn)題。
[Abstract]:Violent crimes, especially intentional homicide, intentional injury, robbery, rape and other serious violent crimes, seriously threaten the country, social stability and the sense of security of the people, both at home and abroad are the key points. From the relationship between crime and punishment and the history of development, the crime of violence and death penalty have a natural fit. Facing unprecedented challenges and challenges, by the end of 2012, 140 of the 198 countries in the world have completely abolished or de facto abolition of the death penalty. Many international conventions and international organizations have also strongly called for the abolition of capital punishment as soon as possible, and the abolition of the death penalty, especially the violent crime, is not a single death penalty. The simple legal problem has evolved into a political choice facing the strong pressure of public opinion. In today's world, some countries such as China, the United States, Japan, and other countries still retain the death penalty, violent crimes, especially deadly violent crimes, are undoubtedly one of the reasons for these countries to retain the death penalty, but from the death penalty of different countries. Statistics show that the number of violent crimes has not increased significantly after the death penalty is abolished or strictly controlled, and the number of violent crimes in some countries is even declining. In the past 10 years, the statistics of major violent crimes in China also show that the death penalty reverification is in the exercise of the Supreme People's court and the death penalty case. In the case of a substantial reduction in the number of pieces, the number of serious violent crimes also presents a downward trend. This can not allow us to think about whether death penalty is the most effective means of containment of violent crime.
The mainstream view of the death penalty in China's theorists is to abolish the death penalty. The death penalty policy of our country is "keeping the death penalty, strictly controlling and applying the death penalty carefully". But from the survey of the public opinion on the death penalty in recent years, the mainstream opinion of most people in our country is to oppose the abolition of the death penalty, especially the death penalty against the abolition of violent crimes. It is unrealistic to abolish the death penalty at the present stage in our country. However, it is an international trend and a historical trend to investigate the situation of the death penalty in the present world and abolish the death penalty. The death penalty has been abolished in more than seventy percent countries all over the world, and even if the number of people who have retained the death penalty in the actual execution of the death penalty, our country has become the world. China's death penalty system and the death penalty policy are faced with great pressure and challenge. With the development and change of the domestic and foreign situation, the position of the official death penalty has also changed greatly. In 2007, the Supreme People's Court of the death penalty reversion was uniformly exercised, and the 2011 amendment (eight) > In legislation, 13 non violent crimes were abolished in one time. In the third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee 2013, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China decided to deepen the reform of a number of major issues and further improved the human rights judicial guarantee system and gradually reduced the application of the death penalty charges. This account of reducing and restricting the application of the death penalty has already been applied in our country. There are two ways of restricting the death penalty, legislative restrictions and judicial restrictions. Legislative restrictions are the crime of reducing the death penalty in legislation, which is the most direct and most effective way to limit the death penalty, but the crime of reducing the death penalty in legislation, especially the death penalty for violent crimes, is limited by various factors and short period. It is difficult to reach a consensus within the internal society. Judicial restrictions refer to the application of judicial means to control the death penalty in the process of judicature and the purpose of reducing the amount of the death penalty to be applied in the process of judicature. To realize judicial restrictions on the application of the death penalty, a cut entrance must be found. The sentencing plot is undoubtedly the entrance to the sentence, because the sentencing plot is a penalty discretion. In the specific case, in the specific case, through the specific circumstances of sentencing in the case, it can realize the fairness and impartiality of the penalty discretion. For the violent crime, the correct identification and application of the sentencing circumstances is of great significance, because it involves the application of the death penalty, so the application of the sentencing circumstances to restrict the death penalty of violent crimes is systematically studied, not only It is helpful to the theoretical research of the death penalty system, to expand the research level and field of this problem, and to help the judicial practice, to provide theoretical guidance and reference for the correct discretion of death penalty and the strict control of death penalty in judicial practice. This paper is based on the related issues of the application of the sentencing circumstances to restrict the death penalty of violent crimes.
This article is divided into five chapters, which mainly include the following:
The first chapter, "the outline of the circumstances of sentencing and the death penalty for violent crime", this part mainly defines the concept of the circumstances of sentencing and the concept of criminal law in violent crime, and the significance of the circumstances of sentencing in the application of the death penalty for violent crimes. The important role of criminal circumstances in restricting death penalty, and by constantly summing up judicial practice, promoting legislation to control death penalty.
The second chapter "the legal circumstances of sentencing and the application of the death penalty for violent crime". This part mainly studies the status and role of the statutory sentencing circumstances in restricting the application of the death penalty for violent crimes, and puts forward that the positive role of the statutory leniency plot should be fully played in the application of the death penalty of violent crimes, and the strict circumstances should be reduced to the limit. The negative effect of the application of the death penalty in violent crime should be made, and the relevant provisions of the subject of special crimes in the criminal code should be perfected, and the role of the special criminal subject in the application of the death penalty should be fully exerts. The emphasis is on the methods of voluntary surrender, confession, recidivism, minors, old age and mental patients in the judicial practice. Quantitative sentence plot, combined with specific cases to elaborate how to accurately identify the circumstances of the above sentencing and how to play its role in the application of the death penalty in the restriction of violent crimes, and to find and put forward the existing problems.
The third chapter "the discretionary circumstances of sentencing and the application of the death penalty for violent crime". This part mainly studies the position and role of the discretion of the sentencing circumstances in restricting the application of the death penalty for violent crimes. On the basis of defining the concept and scope of the discretionary circumstances of sentencing, the author focuses on the selection of the victim's fault, the motive of the crime, the means of crime, the result of the damage, the civil compensation These cases, which cover the discretionary circumstances of sentencing after the crime, in the crime and after the crime, combine with the specific cases to analyze the role of the above-mentioned sentencing circumstances in the case of restricting the death penalty of violent crimes and the problems that need to be perfected.
The fourth chapter "the circumstances of the sentencing of common crime cases and the application of the death penalty of violent crime". This part mainly studies how the circumstances of sentencing in the cases of common violent crime restrict the application of the death penalty. In our criminal law, the common offender is divided into the principal offender, the accessory, the coerced offender and the abettor, which is not only the classification of the common criminal but also the criminal law. In the common crime, the death penalty should be applied only to "the most serious offender". In this chapter, in combination with specific cases, this chapter expounds how to accurately identify "the most serious offender", and selects the common crime type which is more complicated in the judicial practice of the crime of hired murder, and discusses the most serious crime. The identification of the principal offender and the application of the death penalty.
The fifth chapter, "the thinking and improvement of the application of the sentence of sentencing and the death penalty of violent crime", this part focuses on how to give full play to the function of the application of the sentencing circumstances to the death penalty of violent crime, and put forward the existing legislation and the judicial provisions to be perfected so as to solve the application of the death penalty of violent crimes too vague and the object of death penalty to be more applicable. Broad, common crime of violence, death penalty, the application of rules, such as the lack of legislation, judicial aspects of the relevant problems.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：武漢大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D924.1
，

本文編號(hào)：1861300