本文選題：故意殺人罪 + 死刑　； 參考：《貴州民族大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：對于“死刑”兩個字我們早已耳熟能詳，它是以剝奪犯罪分子的生命為標志的刑罰方式，可想而知，死刑也是打擊犯罪、維護社會秩序的刑罰方法中最嚴重的一種。縱觀世界，已經(jīng)有很多國家以成文法的方式廢除了死刑，而中國作為東方大國至今還保留死刑的適用，歸根結(jié)底是受到一些因素的制約，例如：經(jīng)濟因素、政治因素、文化因素，所以基于這些原因，是不可能在現(xiàn)階段實現(xiàn)廢除死刑這一目標。司法實踐中往往通過適用死刑來實現(xiàn)懲罰犯罪的目的，久而久之人們開始慢慢意識到死刑所具有的諸多弊端。因此，代表國家行使公權(quán)力的立法機關(guān)和司法機關(guān)通過制定和運用相關(guān)的刑事政策來對死刑的限制適用作出政策性的指導(dǎo)和約束。 故意殺人罪在侵犯公民人身權(quán)利這一章犯罪中作為最嚴重的犯罪扮演者重要的角色，也是適用死刑最多的罪名。如今在廢除死刑和刑罰輕緩化的國際背景下，死刑的限制適用是我國最明智之舉。而對故意殺人罪死刑的適用進行限制，從人權(quán)的角度出發(fā)是保護了被告人基本人權(quán)，即生命權(quán)；從我國的刑事政策角度考慮，符合了嚴格限制死刑的政策；從長遠目標看，，為我國最終實現(xiàn)全面廢除死刑奠定了堅實的理論與實踐基礎(chǔ)。但是，我國刑法關(guān)于故意殺人罪和死刑的法條設(shè)置得過于簡單，導(dǎo)致在司法實踐中法官很難把握量刑的標準，不利于實現(xiàn)死刑限制適用這一目標。 本文分為緒論、正文和結(jié)語三部分，關(guān)于正文部分，筆者將分為三章進行闡述，主要內(nèi)容如下: 第一章概述，主要介紹故意殺人罪的立法現(xiàn)狀、故意殺人罪適用死刑的司法現(xiàn)狀以及故意殺人罪死刑限制適用的意義。其中故意殺人罪的立法現(xiàn)狀部分主要有罪狀設(shè)置簡單、法定刑幅度過大和法定刑配置的順序不妥當(dāng)；故意殺人罪適用死刑的司法現(xiàn)狀部分介紹法官的影響因素，即法官首選適用死刑、法官過多適用死刑立即執(zhí)行以及法官量刑時考慮民憤和社會輿論過多；故意殺人罪死刑限制適用的意義部分包括是廢除死刑的最后一道防線、有利于完善故意殺人罪的立法缺陷和有利于培育、塑造普通大眾的寬容情感。 第二章論述故意殺人罪死刑限制適用的依據(jù)，主要是理論依據(jù)和政策依據(jù)。理論依據(jù)包括刑罰的人道性要求、刑罰的公正性要求、刑罰的輕緩化要求、刑罰的效益性要求。政策依據(jù)包括寬嚴相濟刑事政策和我國的死刑政策。 第三章對故意殺人罪死刑限制適用的舉措進行論述。主要包括基于量刑角度的限制和基于工作機制角度的限制�；诹啃探嵌冗M行限制主要包括引導(dǎo)民意、被害人過錯、被害人的諒解、義憤殺人；基于工作機制角度主要包括司法解釋和案例指導(dǎo)制度。
[Abstract]:We are familiar with the word "death penalty" for a long time. It is a punishment method marked by depriving criminals of their lives. It can be imagined that the death penalty is also the most serious method of punishing crime and maintaining social order. Throughout the world, many countries have abolished the death penalty in the form of statutory law, and China, as a large eastern country, still retains the application of the death penalty, in the final analysis, it is restricted by a number of factors, such as economic factors and political factors. Cultural factors, therefore, for these reasons, is not possible at this stage to achieve the goal of abolition of the death penalty. In judicial practice, the purpose of punishing crimes is often realized by applying the death penalty. Over time, people begin to realize the disadvantages of the death penalty. Therefore, the legislative organs and judicial organs acting on behalf of the state to exercise public power make policy guidance and restrictions on the restriction of the application of the death penalty through the formulation and application of relevant criminal policies. The crime of intentional homicide plays an important role as the most serious crime and is also the most applicable crime in the crime of infringing the personal rights of citizens. Nowadays, under the international background of abolishing the death penalty and slowing down the penalty, the restriction of the death penalty is the wisest move in our country. From the perspective of human rights, it protects the basic human rights of the accused, that is, the right to life; from the angle of our country's criminal policy, it conforms to the policy of strictly restricting the death penalty; from the perspective of long-term goals, it is consistent with the policy of strictly restricting the death penalty. It lays a solid theoretical and practical foundation for the ultimate abolition of the death penalty in China. However, the law of intentional homicide and death penalty is too simple in our criminal law, which makes it difficult for judges to grasp the standard of sentencing in judicial practice, which is not conducive to the realization of the goal of restricting the application of the death penalty. This paper is divided into three parts: introduction, text and conclusion. On the text, the author will divide into three chapters to elaborate, the main content is as follows: The first chapter introduces the legislative status of intentional homicide, the judicial status of intentional homicide and the significance of restricting the application of the death penalty. Among them, the legislative status of intentional homicide mainly includes the simple setting of crime, the excessive range of statutory punishment and the improper order of the allocation of statutory punishment; the judicial status quo of the application of the death penalty for intentional homicide introduces the influencing factors of the judge. That is, judges first choose to apply the death penalty, judges overapply the death penalty immediately and judges take into account public indignation and public opinion in sentencing; the significance of restricting the application of the death penalty for intentional homicide includes, in part, the last line of defense against the abolition of the death penalty. It is propitious to perfect the legislative defect of intentional homicide, to cultivate and to mold the tolerant emotion of ordinary people. The second chapter discusses the application of death penalty in intentional homicide, mainly theoretical basis and policy basis. The theoretical basis includes the requirement of humanity, the requirement of fairness, the requirement of mitigation and the demand of benefit. The policy basis includes the criminal policy of combining leniency and severity with the death penalty policy of our country. The third chapter discusses the measures to limit the application of death penalty for intentional homicide. Mainly includes the limitation based on sentencing angle and based on working mechanism. The limitation based on sentencing mainly includes guiding public opinion, victim's fault, victim's understanding, and killing with indignation. Based on the working mechanism, it mainly includes judicial interpretation and case guidance system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：貴州民族大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.34

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 潘庸魯;;中國語境下死刑限制非常規(guī)路徑探討[J];東方法學(xué);2009年04期

2 張遠煌;;我國死刑適用標準的缺陷及其彌補方法[J];法商研究;2006年06期

3 潘庸魯;;故意殺人罪中的被害人過錯問題研究——兼論死刑限制的實然路徑選擇[J];貴州大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2010年05期

4 張敏;王非;;故意殺人罪死刑適用標準實證研究——以百例死刑案件為視角[J];廣西政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年03期

5 付立慶;故意殺人罪罪狀檢討[J];人民檢察;2003年05期

6 于占國;;試論我國死刑限制的基本途徑[J];人民論壇;2010年26期

7 趙秉志;;關(guān)于中國現(xiàn)階段慎用死刑的思考[J];中國法學(xué);2011年06期

8 陰建峰;;故意殺人罪死刑司法控制論綱[J];政治與法律;2008年11期

本文編號：1864901