本文選題：無期徒刑 + 終身監(jiān)禁�。� 參考：《山東科技大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：死刑的廢除從長遠的刑罰發(fā)展的方向來看是其必然的趨勢,我國為了與世界接軌,制定了慎用死刑的刑事政策,在立法與司法實踐中都貫徹其精神,近幾年在刑法修正案中對死刑罪名一再的削減便說明了我國在這其中所做出的努力。在其之后的無期徒刑便納入了學界研究之中,在死刑削減后如何填補之后的量刑空白便產(chǎn)生了爭議,無期徒刑作為死刑之后的刑種,其嚴厲性僅次于死刑,在這之后便日益受到了關注,并且我國處于社會主義轉(zhuǎn)型階段,為了應對復雜而嚴重的犯罪,無期徒刑與死刑相比有著顯著的優(yōu)越性,并且外國保留無期徒刑的國家將無期徒刑作為死刑的替代刑,亦或者是作為法定的最高刑做法,也說明了無期徒刑的價值。我國對無期徒刑的規(guī)定過于簡單僵化,在法條中簡單的將無期徒刑作為死刑的替代刑或者是有期徒刑的替代刑,并且因減刑假釋的廣泛適用,無期徒刑與有期徒刑之間相差無幾,這使得人們懷疑無期徒刑存在的必要性,再加上死緩與無期徒刑之間的模糊設定,在適用中大多判處死緩的罪犯都會變更為無期徒刑,死緩與無期徒刑之間的關系較之與死刑立即執(zhí)行就顯得更為親近,從而體現(xiàn)出死刑與無期徒刑不協(xié)調(diào)。此外,無期徒刑處于有期徒刑與死刑之間,由于我國無期徒刑的缺陷所致,無期徒刑無法發(fā)揮其作為死刑與有期徒刑之間的橋梁功能。與此同時,這也變相的導致了,在我國對無期徒刑的數(shù)罪并罰制度中在適用吸收原則時,會有對其他罪不予評價或者明顯評價過輕的質(zhì)疑,違背了刑法的罪責刑相一致的原則。在限制死刑的前提下,對無期徒刑進行完善則顯得更為必要,現(xiàn)今的無期徒刑應為結合減刑假釋和死緩設置不同服刑期的不同層次的無期徒刑,以應對復雜的社會現(xiàn)狀,這種設置明顯的體現(xiàn)了無期徒刑的嚴厲性,因而不能大范圍的適用,需要對無期徒刑適用對象以及適用罪名的范圍加以限制,這在文中也進行了具體的闡述,無期徒刑的變動和完善必然會導致刑罰體系整體的變動,因而走好完善無期徒刑這一步就顯得尤為重要,以期我國的刑罰體系更加科學。
[Abstract]:The abolition of the death penalty is an inevitable trend from the direction of long-term penalty development. In order to meet the needs of the world, China has formulated a criminal policy of careful use of the death penalty, which has been carried out in both legislative and judicial practice. In recent years, the repeated reduction of death penalty charges in the amendment of Criminal Law shows the efforts of our country. Life imprisonment after the death penalty will be included in the academic research, how to fill the penalty gap after the death penalty reduction, life imprisonment as a kind of punishment after the death penalty, its severity is second only to the death penalty. Since then, more and more attention has been paid to it, and our country is in the stage of socialist transformation. In order to deal with complex and serious crimes, life imprisonment has significant advantages over the death penalty. Moreover, the value of life imprisonment is illustrated by the fact that foreign countries retain life imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty, or as a statutory maximum penalty. The provisions of life imprisonment in our country are too simple and rigid. In the articles of law, life imprisonment is simply used as an alternative to the death penalty or as a substitute for fixed-term imprisonment, and because of the widespread application of commutation and parole, The difference between life imprisonment and fixed-term imprisonment makes people doubt the necessity of life imprisonment, coupled with the vague setting between death sentence and life imprisonment, and most criminals who are sentenced to death sentence will be changed to life imprisonment in the application. The relationship between death penalty and life imprisonment is more close than the execution of death penalty, which reflects the disharmony between death penalty and life imprisonment. In addition, life imprisonment is between fixed-term imprisonment and death penalty, because of the defects of life imprisonment in China, life imprisonment can not play its role as a bridge between death penalty and fixed-term imprisonment. At the same time, this also resulted in a disguised, in our country to life imprisonment in the application of the principle of absorption, there will be no evaluation of other crimes or obvious evaluation of the light doubt, contrary to the principle of consistent criminal law. Under the premise of restricting death penalty, it is more necessary to perfect life imprisonment. Nowadays, life imprisonment should combine commutation and parole with death reprieve to set up different levels of life imprisonment to cope with the complicated social situation. This setting obviously reflects the severity of life imprisonment, so it can not be applied in a wide range. It is necessary to restrict the object of application of life imprisonment and the scope of applicable charges, which is also elaborated in this paper. The change and perfection of life imprisonment will inevitably lead to the change of the penalty system as a whole, so it is very important to perfect the life imprisonment in order to make the penalty system more scientific in our country.
【學位授予單位】：山東科技大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 魏東;;刑法總則的修改與檢討——以《刑法修正案(九)》為重點[J];華東政法大學學報;2016年02期

2 孫浩文;;淺析“終身監(jiān)禁”入刑之合理性——以刑法目的論為展開[J];中州大學學報;2016年01期

3 陳文昊;;終身監(jiān)禁刑引入背景下對減刑制度的重新審視[J];北京警察學院學報;2016年01期

4 黃京平;;終身監(jiān)禁的法律定位與司法適用[J];北京聯(lián)合大學學報(人文社會科學版);2015年04期

5 車浩;;刑事立法的法教義學反思——基于《刑法修正案(九)》的分析[J];法學;2015年10期

6 敦寧;;寬嚴相濟刑事政策視閾下的自由刑改革問題[J];刑法論叢;2014年02期

7 左建華;;論無期徒刑配刑的缺陷與完善——以寬嚴相濟刑事政策為視角[J];南陽師范學院學報;2012年02期

8 張景亮;;論我國刑罰結構之應然選擇——以《刑法修正案(八)》為視角的分析[J];信陽師范學院學報(哲學社會科學版);2011年04期

9 來君;趙青娟;;論現(xiàn)行刑罰結構的立法完善[J];青海民族大學學報(教育科學版);2011年03期

10 高銘暄;樓伯坤;;死刑替代位階上無期徒刑的改良[J];現(xiàn)代法學;2010年06期

相關重要報紙文章 前3條

1 沈帥;;淺析我國的終身監(jiān)禁制度[N];人民法院報;2016年

2 吳榮鵬;付佩;;終身監(jiān)禁刑的前世今生[N];人民法院報;2015年

3 楊學成;田甜;;完善刑罰結構 增強刑階銜接[N];人民法院報;2011年

，

本文編號：1989147