發(fā)布時間：2018-06-04 18:21

  本文選題：利益衡量 + 刑法方法論��； 參考：《山東大學》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：雖然利益衡量被引入中國比較晚,但是自從其引入中國后便引起學術界與司法實務界的高度關注。因為利益衡量首先是在民法領域中被運用,所以在刑事領域中討論的比較少。但是這種問題在近幾年里有所變化,利益衡量在刑法領域也受到了青睞,但是將利益衡量運用到刑事司法實踐來認定刑事責任,仍然遭到很多學者的質疑,即便有的學者贊同將利益衡量運用到刑事司法實踐,仍舊有很多顧慮。本文就試圖找出利益衡量在刑法學界受到質疑的原因,并且通過論證,以使這種質疑不攻自破。其次在現(xiàn)有的研究中,利益衡量的理論定位以及在認定刑事責任中如何具體運用都沒有相對成熟的模式,所以文章在明確將刑事司法領域中的利益衡量定位為方法論的基礎上給出了其在認定刑事責任中的具體操作過程,并且分情況結合案例對其具體介紹,以期對利益衡量在刑事司法中的科學運用貢獻一己之力。本文在查閱梳理大量文獻的基礎上,采取了從一般到特殊的演繹方法,并且輔之以歸納法、比較、圖表等方法,以期能夠條理清楚地表達論證出自己的觀點,并且在論證的過程中穿插案例,從而盡量做到論證充分。本文共分為四部分。首先在第一部分介紹利益衡量的基本理論。利益衡量理論可以追溯至德國黑克的利益法學和韋斯特曼的評價法學,以及日本加藤一郎在批判概念法學的基礎上提出的利益衡量理論,還有星野英一的利益考量論。在德國和日本關于利益衡量理論存在很多不同之處。而且盡管在同一國家,不同學者主張的利益衡量也并非完全相同,但是概括而言,德國的利益衡量僅僅是一種彌補法律漏洞的方法,而日本的利益衡量則明顯具有方法論的意義。而自從20世紀末利益衡量被引入中國后,關于利益衡量理論的研究大都集中在行政法、民法等領域及司法實踐,只有近些年才開始逐漸引入刑法領域,而且能否適用于刑法領域仍然備受爭議。追根究底,對罪刑法定的片面認識是利益衡量深入刑法領域所面臨的主要障礙,而如果站在追求實質正義的角度來理解罪刑法定,那么障礙也就不攻自破。因為利益衡量天生是一種價值判斷,所以有被濫用的可能。正因如此,在通過利益衡量認定刑事責任的過程中,需要遵循三個原則。普遍性與特殊性相統(tǒng)一即在所有案件中利益衡量普遍存在,但只有在復雜案件中利益衡量的價值才更加凸顯；合理性與合法性相統(tǒng)一即通過利益衡量得出合理的結論后,司法工作人員要尋求法律支持,使得該結論合法化；第三條原則是法意與民意相統(tǒng)一的原則。明確了利益衡量的適用原則那么接下來就是關于利益衡量在刑事責任認定中的具體操作過程。在文章的第三部分針對罪與非罪、此罪與彼罪、是否適用兜底條款、以及如何衡量刑事責任的大小這四種情形,結合具體的案例分別加以闡述利益衡量的具體運用過程,最后總結出利益衡量在認定刑事責任過程中的操作流程,即在司法實踐的各個階段如需進行利益衡量,首先需要司法工作人員處于一種“空白狀態(tài)”,擺脫法律條文的糾纏,走出自己的職業(yè)慣性思維,站在社會普通群眾的角度,以自己的直觀感受得出初步的結論,然后根據(jù)掌握的法律事實和法律知識,根據(jù)法律規(guī)定將初步的結論合法化,而且這個過程可以重復,直到得出合理又合法的結論為止。最后利益衡量在認定刑事責任的運用過程中要明確三個方面,首先是應該將利益衡量定位為一種刑法方法論。原因有兩點：第一,我國的利益衡量直接源于日本,而日本的利益衡量理論是屬于方法論的范疇；第二,刑事責任認定中的利益衡量不僅僅是補充法律漏洞而且是普遍存在的思維過程,其運用過程決定了理論定位。其次,要處理好利益衡量與具體的刑法解釋方法之間的關系,即如果能夠通過刑法解釋方法解決刑事責任的直接認定問題,那么該案件就不是文中所說的疑難案件,沒有必要凸顯利益衡量在認定刑事責任過程中的作用。最后,要消除民意會對法意綁架這一顧慮。這是因為民意與法意在多數(shù)情況下是重合的,當二者存在分歧時,司法工作人員需要重新審視自己的結論,避免事實認定的錯誤與法律適用的不準確,雖然不能唯民意是從,但群眾對司法權的行使起到了監(jiān)督作用。此外如果民意存在理解偏差,司法判決也會起到引導糾正作用。
[Abstract]:Although interest measurement has been introduced to China relatively late, it has aroused great concern in the academia and the judicial practice since its introduction to China. Because the interest measurement is first used in the civil law field, there are few discussions in the criminal field. However, this problem has changed in recent years, and the interest measurement is also in the field of criminal law. It has been favored, but it is still being questioned by many scholars to apply the measure of interest to criminal judicial practice. Even if some scholars agree to apply the measure of interest to criminal judicial practice, there are still many concerns. This article tries to find out the reasons for the question of interest measurement in the criminal law field, and through argument, In order to make this question unsolved. Secondly, in the existing research, the theoretical orientation of the interest measurement and how to use it in the identification of criminal responsibility have no relatively mature mode, so the article gives a definition of the criminal responsibility in the criminal judicature as the basis of the methodology. On the basis of reviewing and combing a large number of documents, this paper adopts a general to special deduction method, supplemented by methods of induction, comparison and chart, in order to be able to be clear and clear. There are four parts in this paper, which are divided into four parts. First, the basic theory of interest measurement is introduced in the first part. The theory of interest measurement can be traced back to the interest law of German hack and the evaluation law of Westerman, as well as Kato Ichiro in Japan. On the basis of critical conceptual jurisprudence, the theory of interest measurement and Hoshino Echi's theory of interest are also discussed. There are many differences between Germany and Japan about the theory of interest measurement. And although the interests of different scholars in the same country are not exactly the same, in general, the German interest measurement is only the same. A method to make up the loopholes in the law, while the Japanese measure of interest is obviously methodological, and since the introduction of interest to China at the end of the twentieth Century, most of the research on the theory of interest is concentrated in the administrative law, civil law and other fields and judicial practice. Only in recent years has it begun to gradually introduce the field of criminal law, and can it be applied to the field of criminal law It is still controversial in the field of criminal law. In the final analysis, a one-sided understanding of the legality of a crime is the main obstacle to the field of interest measurement in the field of criminal law. And if we stand in the pursuit of substantive justice to understand the legality of the crime, the obstacles will not break. Because the measure of interest is a kind of value judgment, it is abused. Maybe. Because of this, three principles should be followed in the process of determining criminal responsibility through interest measurement. The unification of universality and particularity is universal in all cases, but only in complex cases, the value of interest measurement is more prominent. After the conclusion, the judicial staff should seek legal support and make the conclusion legalized; the third principle is the principle of unification of the law and the public opinion. The following is the specific operation process of the interest measurement in the identification of criminal responsibility. The third part of the article is aimed at crime and non crime, The four cases of this crime and other crimes, whether it is applicable to the bottom of the pocket, and how to measure the size of the criminal responsibility, explain the specific application process of the interest measurement in combination with specific cases, and finally summarize the operation process of the interest measurement in the process of identifying the criminal responsibility, that is, to measure the interests at various stages of the judicial practice. First of all, the judicial staff should be in a "blank state", get rid of the entanglement of the legal provisions, get out of their own professional inertia thinking, stand in the angle of the common people of the society, draw the preliminary conclusions with their own intuitive feelings, and then legitimize the preliminary conclusions according to the legal facts and legal knowledge mastered by the law, And this process can be repeated until a reasonable and legitimate conclusion is reached. Finally, the interest measurement should be defined in three aspects in the application of criminal responsibility. First, the interest measurement should be defined as a methodology of criminal law. The theory of measurement belongs to the category of methodology. Second, the interest measurement in the identification of criminal responsibility is not only a supplementary legal loophole but also a universal thinking process. Its application process determines the theoretical orientation. Secondly, it is necessary to deal with the relationship between the interest measurement and the specific criminal interpretation method, that is, if it can be explained through criminal law. Method to solve the direct identification of criminal responsibility, then the case is not a difficult case in the article, it is not necessary to highlight the role of interest measurement in the identification of criminal responsibility. Finally, it is necessary to eliminate the concern about the abduction of the public opinion. This is because the public opinion and the meaning of the law are reclosing in most cases, when the two are divided. The judicial staff need to reexamine their own conclusions to avoid the error of the fact and the inaccuracy of the application of the law. Although the public opinion is not the only one, the masses have played a supervisory role in the exercise of judicial power. In addition, if there is a misunderstanding in the public opinion, the judicial decision will also play a guiding role.
【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D924

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 劉海明;;責任認定的“削足適履”現(xiàn)象[J];法治與社會;2012年12期

2 鄭秋紅;;拒收責任認定書 輸了官司要賠付[J];山東人大工作;2001年08期

3 劉黎明;超載! 一起重大農(nóng)機事故的責任認定[J];湖南農(nóng)機;2003年05期

4 朱曉卓;;惡犬“咬”出醫(yī)療索賠,責任認定起爭議[J];南京醫(yī)科大學學報(社會科學版);2006年01期

5 彭海斌;;呆賬責任的認定和追究[J];福建金融;2009年02期

6 ;工程未經(jīng)驗收發(fā)包人即使用的表現(xiàn)形式及有關責任認定[J];建筑;2010年03期

7 王世云;對一起連鎖沉船事故的責任認定[J];中國水運;1997年06期

8 王景龍;;用人引發(fā)傷害的責任認定[J];科技致富向導;2009年11期

9 李思濤;對《責任認定書》不服怎么辦?[J];汽車與安全;2002年08期

10 榮曉莉;網(wǎng)絡帶毒軟件致人損害之責任認定[J];律師世界;2000年10期

相關會議論文 前1條

1 王鵬;;信貸責任認定作用及問題對策研究[A];科學發(fā)展與社會責任（B卷）——第五屆沈陽科學學術年會文集[C];2008年

相關重要報紙文章 前10條

1 楊慶珠 羅琰軍;銀川湖濱支行完成不良貸款責任認定與追究[N];中國城鄉(xiāng)金融報;2007年

2 黃穎;好意同乘致人損害的責任認定[N];江蘇法制報;2012年

3 特約撰稿 盧義杰 周珊珊;冒名頂替案:責任認定易，司法救濟難[N];民主與法制時報;2013年

4 本報記者 張立;責任認定較困難 預防救助都要抓[N];中國礦業(yè)報;2013年

5 本報記者 張穎川;道路管理者責任認定緣何難？[N];現(xiàn)代物流報;2013年

6 案例編寫人 重慶市江津區(qū)人民法院 楊軍;飲酒人游泳溺亡同飲者的責任認定[N];人民法院報;2013年

7 胡菲菲 張紅強;車輛被人為砸壞的保險責任認定[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2014年

8 尚秋紅　邵增兵;應對責任認定風險的對策[N];中國保險報;2011年

9 本報記者 傅丁根;責任認定怎能隨意變更[N];人民日報;2001年

10 本報記者 萬玉濤　見習記者 張亮;符合快處快賠的可先進行責任認定[N];政府采購信息報;2010年

相關碩士學位論文 前10條

1 許瑩;利益衡量在刑事責任認定中的運用[D];山東大學;2016年

2 林廣志;我國公務員行政責任認定制度探討[D];安徽大學;2012年

3 馬慶國;道路交通事故責任認定研究[D];貴州大學;2009年

4 孟仁興;責任認定理論體系研究及應用系統(tǒng)實現(xiàn)[D];北京郵電大學;2009年

5 邵偉;刑事責任認定中的被害人因素考量[D];中國政法大學;2008年

6 唐春生;道路交通事故損害賠償責任認定與歸責研究[D];湖南師范大學;2004年

7 邵玉偉;云計算下信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權侵權責任認定問題研究[D];海南大學;2015年

8 鮑敏;醉駕交強險責任認定問題研究[D];南昌大學;2012年

9 肖偉光;“雇兇殺人”案件的刑事責任認定研究[D];中國政法大學;2011年

10 陳平;網(wǎng)絡責任認定研究與實現(xiàn)[D];電子科技大學;2010年

，

本文編號：1978394