本文選題：親親相隱 + 容隱制度��； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：容隱制度，又稱“親屬相容隱”、“親親得相首匿”，是我國法制史上一項重要的法律制度。該制度是指，一定范圍的親屬成員之間不得主動告發(fā)彼此的犯罪行為，否則告發(fā)者將會被追究其刑事責(zé)任。容隱制度在我國歷史上盛行兩千余年，集法律、倫理、人情于一體，在維護(hù)統(tǒng)治階級權(quán)威的同時，還體現(xiàn)了刑事法律尊重人性、體恤親情的價值蘊含。 容隱制度萌芽于西周，在秦朝初步法律化。漢宣帝地節(jié)四年(公元前66年)正式下詔確定容隱制度的合法性。唐代完善了容隱制度的規(guī)定，擴大了容隱的范圍，然后一直發(fā)展至清末。然而，自鴉片戰(zhàn)爭開始，中國封建社會受到了西方各種文化的沖擊，容隱制度被視為封建法律文化的糟粕，逐漸湮滅于歷史塵埃之中。改革開放以來，中國的法制建設(shè)取得了舉世公認(rèn)的成就。在向西方學(xué)習(xí)的同時，中國開始重新審視傳統(tǒng)法律文化，對古代盛行的容隱制度進(jìn)行一定程度上的思考和借鑒，同本國國情和歷史相結(jié)合，制定出了一部分更加人性化的法律條文，體現(xiàn)了古代傳統(tǒng)法律制度在中國現(xiàn)代刑事法律領(lǐng)域的回歸。如1997年刑法修訂之后，最高人民法院頒布的《關(guān)于審理搶劫刑事案件適用法律若干問題的意見》和《關(guān)于審理盜竊案件具體應(yīng)用法律若干問題的解釋》，對發(fā)生在家庭成員之間的輕微的搶劫行為和盜竊行為，一般不以搶劫罪和盜竊罪定罪處罰，這給了家庭成員容隱這兩類輕微犯罪行為的權(quán)利；而最具代表性的應(yīng)是2012年刑事訴訟法第二次修改時增加的第188條第1款的規(guī)定，它給予了一定范圍的近親屬免于出庭作證的權(quán)利，讓我們看到了容隱制度在刑事領(lǐng)域全面回歸的希望，是此次刑事訴訟法修改的一大亮點和突破。 盡管如此，我國現(xiàn)有的刑事領(lǐng)域中關(guān)于容隱制度的規(guī)定較之古代容隱制度，仍是相差甚遠(yuǎn)，其在主體、行為方式等方面均沒有古代容隱制度那樣廣泛，現(xiàn)代法條規(guī)定也比較粗糙，不像古代那樣系統(tǒng)、詳細(xì)，但是二者注重親情、關(guān)懷人性的宗旨是一樣的。 由于對容隱制度缺乏深刻的研究，縱觀當(dāng)下我國的整個刑法體系，體現(xiàn)以上制度的法律條文寥若晨星，而且其制定出的現(xiàn)行條款過于零散，仍存在一些問題，不能完全體現(xiàn)容隱制度體恤親情、關(guān)懷人性的宗旨。如刑法中的窩藏、包庇罪、偽證罪等這類罪名的主體是一般主體，并未考慮到親屬主體的特殊情況；刑事訴訟法中新增的第188條關(guān)于免除配偶、父母、子女之間強制出庭義務(wù)的規(guī)定，主體范圍比較狹窄，且內(nèi)容比較片面，仍有較多的不足之處。 基于上述考慮，本文從我國古代盛行的容隱制度入手，細(xì)致闡述了其發(fā)展過程，在此基礎(chǔ)上總結(jié)出它的發(fā)展規(guī)律。接著分析了容隱制度的古今價值，表明了容隱制度在刑事領(lǐng)域的現(xiàn)代化是當(dāng)今刑事法律改革的迫切任務(wù)。然后概括了容隱制度在我國刑事法領(lǐng)域的體現(xiàn)和不足，最后在實體和程序方面上給出相應(yīng)的立法建議，，希望能早日在刑事領(lǐng)域找到更多體恤親情的法律。
[Abstract]:It is an important legal system in the history of China's legal system that the system of concealment is an important legal system in the history of China's legal system. This system means that a certain range of relatives may not voluntarily commit a crime to each other, otherwise the whistle blower will be investigated for its criminal responsibility. The concealment system prevails in the history of our country for more than two thousand years. Integrating law, ethics and human feelings, while maintaining the authority of the ruling class, it also embodies the value implication of criminal law respecting human nature and compassionate family ties.
The system of concealment had sprout in the Western Zhou Dynasty and initially legalized the Qin Dynasty. Four years (66 B.C.), the emperor of Han Xuan Di was formally established to determine the legality of the concealment system. The Tang Dynasty perfected the provisions of the concealment system, expanded the scope of the concealment, and then developed to the end of the Qing Dynasty. However, since the war of Opium War, the feudal society of China has been subjected to a variety of Western cultures. The system of concealment was regarded as the dross of the feudal legal culture and was gradually annihilated in the dust of history. Since the reform and opening up, China's legal construction has achieved universally recognized achievements. While learning from the west, China began to reexamine the traditional legal culture and thought to a certain extent on the prevailing system of concealment and concealment in ancient times. With reference to the national conditions and history of the country, a part of the more humanized legal provisions has been formulated, which embodies the return of the ancient traditional legal system in the field of modern Chinese criminal law. For example, after the revision of the criminal law in 1997, the Supreme People's Court issued a number of opinions on the application of laws on the application of law on the trial of robbery and punishment cases. The explanation of the specific application of the law on theft cases, the minor robbery and theft occurring among family members, is generally not convicted of robbery and theft, which gives family members the right to concealment of these two types of minor offences; and the most representative is the criminal procedure law of 2012 second. The provisions of the 188th first paragraphs increased in the time of the revision, which gave a certain range of close relatives from the right to testify in court, and let us see the hope of the full return of the concealment system in the criminal field, which is a major highlight and breakthrough in the amendment of the criminal procedure law.
In spite of this, the provisions on the concealment system in the current criminal field in our country are still far from the ancient concealment system, and there are no ancient concealment systems in the main body and the way of behavior. The provisions of the modern law are also relatively rough, unlike the ancient system and the details, but the two ones pay attention to their affection and care for human nature. The purpose is the same.
Because of the lack of deep research on the system of concealment and the whole criminal system in China, there are few legal provisions reflecting the above system, and the existing provisions are too scattered, and there are still some problems, which can not fully reflect the tenet of the system of concealment and human nature, such as the harbouring, harbouring, and false in criminal law. The main body of such crimes, such as the crime of proof, is the general subject, and does not take into account the special circumstances of the subject of the relatives; the 188th new provisions in the criminal procedure law are relatively narrow in the scope of the compulsory appearance of the spouse, parents and children, and the contents of the subject are relatively narrow, and there are still many shortcomings.
Based on the above considerations, this paper, starting with the prevailing system of concealment in ancient China, elaborated its development process and summed up its development law on this basis, then analyzed the ancient and modern values of the system of concealment, indicating that the modernization of the concealment system in the criminal field is an urgent task for the reform of the criminal law. In the field of criminal law in China, the system is inadequately represented and inadequate. Finally, the relevant legislative proposals are given in the aspects of substantive and procedural aspects. We hope to find more laws to be sympathized in the criminal field as soon as possible.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 江學(xué);親親相隱及其現(xiàn)代化[J];法學(xué)評論;2002年05期

2 高雅靜;許嘉云;;試論親屬拒證權(quán)制度在中國的構(gòu)建——兼評《刑訴法修正案》第七十一條[J];法制與社會;2012年24期

3 郭齊勇;;“親親相隱”“容隱制”及其對當(dāng)今法治的啟迪——在北京大學(xué)的演講[J];社會科學(xué)論壇(學(xué)術(shù)評論卷);2007年08期

4 王劍虹;;親親相隱制度述評[J];天府新論;2008年03期

5 張淑君;;我國《刑事訴訟法》親屬拒證權(quán)制度的具體構(gòu)建[J];中國市場;2012年05期

6 謝佑平;;訟訴文化論——兼談我國訴訟法制的現(xiàn)代化[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);1992年05期

7 俞榮根;蔣海松;;親屬權(quán)利的法律之痛——兼論“親親相隱”的現(xiàn)代轉(zhuǎn)化[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2009年03期

8 張國鈞;親屬容隱的合法性與合理性[J];倫理學(xué)研究;2005年02期

9 范忠信;中國親屬容隱制度的歷程、規(guī)律及啟示[J];政法論壇;1997年04期

10 范忠信;中西法律傳統(tǒng)中的“親親相隱”[J];中國社會科學(xué);1997年03期

本文編號：1904284