本文選題：責(zé)任主義 + 量刑��； 參考：《海南大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：責(zé)任主義是大陸法系刑法理論中的一條基本原則。關(guān)于責(zé)任原則的含義理論上有不同的見(jiàn)解,大陸法系刑法通說(shuō)認(rèn)為,責(zé)任主義可以從歸責(zé)和量刑兩個(gè)方面考慮,歸責(zé)中的責(zé)任主義即犯罪構(gòu)成要件中的“有責(zé)性”,量刑中的責(zé)任主義則是違法性與有責(zé)性相乘的結(jié)果。但是這樣理解責(zé)任主義無(wú)法積極地承認(rèn)在責(zé)任程度減輕時(shí)責(zé)任相應(yīng)的減輕,因此應(yīng)當(dāng)從非難可能性的角度理解責(zé)任主義。在量刑中貫徹責(zé)任原則要求以責(zé)任刑作為刑罰的上限,基于預(yù)防刑的考量不能超過(guò)責(zé)任刑,在預(yù)防刑與責(zé)任刑的關(guān)系上大陸法系刑法理論中還存在幅的理論與點(diǎn)的理論之間的爭(zhēng)議,從消極的責(zé)任主義的角度出發(fā)應(yīng)當(dāng)贊成點(diǎn)的理論。但是應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)識(shí)到無(wú)論是幅的理論抑或是點(diǎn)的理論都要求在責(zé)任刑之下考量預(yù)防刑的大小,這樣的思想無(wú)論是在我國(guó)刑法理論中還是在刑事司法實(shí)踐中都沒(méi)有明確體現(xiàn),也就是說(shuō)我國(guó)刑法中并沒(méi)有積極地貫徹責(zé)任主義原則,在量刑過(guò)程中仍然有對(duì)數(shù)額犯的量刑強(qiáng)調(diào)結(jié)果責(zé)任,將人身危險(xiǎn)性作為責(zé)任評(píng)價(jià)要素,繳納罰金作為刑罰減輕依據(jù),以及將前科、累犯作為法定刑升格條件等非責(zé)任主義傾向。 在責(zé)任主義原則已經(jīng)成為現(xiàn)代法治國(guó)家刑法的基本原則的情況下,我國(guó)的刑法理論和司法實(shí)踐還都未能明確指出責(zé)任主義原則。這種情況的形成主要是因?yàn)?我國(guó)刑法中未能明文規(guī)定責(zé)任主義作為量刑的指導(dǎo)原則以及量刑實(shí)踐中“三步式”量刑方法沒(méi)有很好地區(qū)分不同的量刑情節(jié),并且整個(gè)量刑過(guò)程是一個(gè)逐漸遞加的過(guò)程。因此,通過(guò)將我國(guó)刑法第五條理解為責(zé)任主義原則的體現(xiàn),在具體的司法實(shí)踐當(dāng)中按照影響責(zé)任刑與影響預(yù)防刑的不同重新劃分量刑情節(jié),在量刑情節(jié)的適用上嚴(yán)格按照從責(zé)任刑到預(yù)防刑的順序。通過(guò)在我國(guó)刑法理論和量刑實(shí)踐中貫徹責(zé)任主義限定國(guó)家刑罰權(quán),更好地保障被告人的人權(quán)。
[Abstract]:Responsibility doctrine is a basic principle in the theory of criminal law in continental law system. There are different views on the meaning of the principle of liability in theory. The general theory of criminal law in civil law system holds that liability doctrine can be considered from two aspects of imputation and sentencing, and that liability doctrine in imputation is the "responsibility" in the constitutive elements of a crime. Responsibility doctrine in sentencing is the result of multiplying illegality and responsibility. However, this understanding of responsibilitarianism can not actively acknowledge the corresponding reduction of responsibility when the degree of responsibility is reduced, so we should understand responsibilitarianism from the angle of possibility of blame. Carrying out the principle of responsibility in sentencing requires that the penalty of responsibility should be taken as the upper limit of the penalty, and the consideration based on the penalty of prevention should not exceed the penalty of responsibility. In the relation between preventive punishment and liability penalty, there is still a dispute between the theory of the scope of criminal law and the theory of point in the theory of criminal law of civil law system. From the angle of negative liability doctrine, we should approve the theory of point. However, we should realize that both the theory and the point theory require that the size of preventive punishment should be considered under the responsibility penalty, which is not clearly reflected in the theory of criminal law or in the practice of criminal justice in our country. That is to say, there is no positive implementation of the principle of responsibilism in the criminal law of our country. In the process of sentencing, there is still an emphasis on the result responsibility for the amount of crime in the sentencing process. As well as the criminal record, recidivism as a statutory penalty upgrade conditions and other non-responsibilistic tendencies. Under the circumstance that the principle of responsibility has become the basic principle of the criminal law of the modern country ruled by law, the theory of criminal law and judicial practice in our country have not clearly pointed out the principle of responsibility doctrine. The formation of this situation is mainly due to the fact that the criminal law of our country has failed to explicitly stipulate responsibility doctrine as the guiding principle of sentencing and that the "three-step" sentencing method in sentencing practice does not distinguish between different circumstances of sentencing very well. And the whole sentencing process is a gradual addition process. Therefore, through the understanding of the fifth article of our criminal law as the embodiment of the principle of responsibilitarianism, in the specific judicial practice, the circumstances of sentencing should be reclassified according to the difference between the punishment of influence responsibility and the penalty of influence on prevention. In the application of sentencing circumstances strictly according to the order from responsibility to prevention. In order to better protect the human rights of the accused, the theory of responsibility and the practice of sentencing in our country limit the right of punishment by carrying out the doctrine of responsibility.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：海南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 趙秉志,吳林華;論盜竊罪數(shù)額的認(rèn)定問(wèn)題(下)[J];法律適用;1999年12期

2 張?zhí)旌?;量刑公正及判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];法學(xué)雜志;2011年02期

3 馮春萍;;淺析我國(guó)死刑量刑體系中經(jīng)濟(jì)賠償?shù)暮侠硇耘c局限性[J];法學(xué)雜志;2012年05期

4 王良順;;論量刑根據(jù)──兼及刑法第61條的立法完善[J];法學(xué)家;2009年05期

5 肖世杰;;中德(日)量刑基準(zhǔn)之比較研究[J];法學(xué)家;2009年05期

6 熊秋紅;;中國(guó)量刑改革:理論、規(guī)范與經(jīng)驗(yàn)[J];法學(xué)家;2011年05期

7 梁根林;責(zé)任主義刑法視野中的持有型犯罪[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2003年04期

8 王恩海;;論量刑基準(zhǔn)的確定[J];法學(xué);2006年11期

9 馬榮春;;罪刑相適應(yīng)原則與罪責(zé)刑相適應(yīng)原則之辨[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年03期

10 文姬;;人身危險(xiǎn)性與責(zé)任主義[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1948506