【摘要】：近代以前的終身監(jiān)禁并不是純粹以剝奪人身自由為內(nèi)容的刑罰方式,其更多地體現(xiàn)為苛酷的、恣意的身體刑和勞役刑。隨著資本主義生產(chǎn)方式的產(chǎn)生和發(fā)展,人類文明步入近代歷史。16世紀(jì)歐洲出現(xiàn)矯正院,18世紀(jì)自由刑在刑法典中明確規(guī)定。在此后漫長的刑罰發(fā)展史中,自由刑褪去“勞役”、“苦役”色彩,逐步發(fā)展為以教育改造為目的的現(xiàn)代刑罰。此間,終身監(jiān)禁呈現(xiàn)兩個方向的發(fā)展趨勢。一方面,出現(xiàn)了假釋等執(zhí)行期間的變更,緩和了終身監(jiān)禁的嚴厲性;另一方面,無假釋終身監(jiān)禁在一些國家廣泛適用,成為替代死刑的最高刑罰。現(xiàn)今,終身監(jiān)禁在多數(shù)國家的刑事立法中都被配置給了最嚴重的犯罪,涉及罪名主要集中在侵害生命權(quán)犯罪、危害公共安全犯罪以及政治、軍事犯罪。中國的自由刑之緣起,可以追溯到古代的流刑和徒刑,但真正意義上的自由刑,卻是一個舶來品�！洞笄逍滦搪伞方梃b日本、德國刑法相關(guān)規(guī)定,將無期徒刑列為基本刑種。此后至今,各個歷史時期的刑事法律均沿用這一規(guī)定。在當(dāng)前嚴格控制死刑和從嚴懲處貪腐的社會背景下,《刑法修正案(九)》對嚴重貪污受賄犯罪增設(shè)終身監(jiān)禁。我國的終身監(jiān)禁制度在概念外延、法律性質(zhì)、執(zhí)行內(nèi)容、適用對象等方面有別于國外終身監(jiān)禁,獨具中國特色。其并非一個獨立刑種,而是依附于死刑緩期執(zhí)行的一項刑罰措施,是死刑緩期執(zhí)行制度的一種新類型。這項新制度旨在繼續(xù)改善我國刑罰體系的結(jié)構(gòu)性缺陷,貫徹“慎殺、少殺”的死刑刑事政策,在腐敗犯罪刑事治理中實現(xiàn)罪刑均衡。研究終身監(jiān)禁的司法適用,需要在把握該制度的法律定位和制度價值的基礎(chǔ)上,分析法條文字、解讀相關(guān)政策。結(jié)合兩高新出的司法解釋,終身監(jiān)禁的適用條件相當(dāng)嚴苛,雖在執(zhí)行期間不適用減刑、假釋,但死刑緩期執(zhí)行期間的重大立功表現(xiàn)可以阻斷終身監(jiān)禁的適用。由于終身監(jiān)禁的適用擠壓了死刑立即執(zhí)行的適用空間,加之刑法對貪污受賄罪定罪量刑標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和從寬處罰情節(jié)的修訂,終身監(jiān)禁的規(guī)定相比于原法條的規(guī)定更有利于被告人,終身監(jiān)禁可以溯及適用于其生效前發(fā)生的貪污受賄犯罪。另外,赦免制度的存在不僅有利于終身監(jiān)禁的執(zhí)行,也能平衡刑罰的殘酷性和極端性。終身監(jiān)禁作為一項新的刑罰制度,卻沒有在刑法總則部分作出相應(yīng)規(guī)定,而僅僅出現(xiàn)在分則貪污罪、受賄罪的法定刑中,該制度在立法上有進一步發(fā)展的空間。理性審視終身監(jiān)禁的制度利弊,可以將終身監(jiān)禁規(guī)定進刑法總則部分,列于第五十條關(guān)于死刑緩期執(zhí)行變更的規(guī)定之后;將其適用范圍擴展到其他死刑和無期徒刑條款,推動我國的刑罰改革進程;在刑法中增加有關(guān)赦免制度的規(guī)定,增設(shè)赦免請求權(quán),在充分調(diào)動該制度優(yōu)勢的同時實現(xiàn)司法的妥當(dāng)性。
[Abstract]:The life imprisonment before modern times is not a penalty that takes deprivation of personal liberty as the content, and it is more embodied in the cruel, wanton physical punishment and servitude. With the emergence and development of capitalist mode of production, human civilization entered the modern history. In the long history of penalty development, the free punishment gradually developed into a modern penalty with the aim of education reform, taking away the color of "servitude" and "hard labor". Here, life imprisonment presents two directions of development. On the one hand, there are changes in the execution period, such as parole, which alleviates the severity of life imprisonment; on the other hand, life imprisonment without parole is widely used in some countries and becomes the highest penalty to replace the death penalty. Nowadays, life imprisonment is allocated to the most serious crimes in the criminal legislation of most countries, which mainly focus on crimes of violating the right to life, endangering public safety, and political and military crimes. The origin of the free punishment in China can be traced back to the ancient flowing punishment and imprisonment, but the real free punishment is an import. The Great New Criminal Law draws lessons from the relevant provisions of the Japanese and German criminal laws and lists life imprisonment as the basic type of punishment. Since then, each historical period of criminal law has followed this provision. Under the social background of strictly controlling the death penalty and punishing corruption strictly, the Criminal Law Amendment (9) adds life imprisonment to the crime of serious embezzlement and bribery. The system of life imprisonment in our country is different from foreign life imprisonment in concept extension, legal nature, executive content, applicable object and so on. It is not an independent punishment, but a penalty measure attached to the suspended execution of the death penalty, which is a new type of the system of suspending execution of the death penalty. The purpose of the new system is to continue to improve the structural defects of our country's penal system, to carry out the criminal policy of "careful killing, less killing", and to achieve a balance between crime and punishment in the criminal control of corruption crimes. In order to study the judicial application of life imprisonment, it is necessary to grasp the legal position and system value of the system, analyze the text and interpret the relevant policies. Combined with the new judicial interpretation of the two high officials, the applicable conditions of life imprisonment are quite harsh. Although commutation and parole are not applicable during the execution period, the significant meritorious performance during the suspended execution of the death penalty can block the application of life imprisonment. Since the application of life imprisonment squeezes the space for the immediate execution of the death penalty and the revision of the criminal law on the conviction and sentencing criteria and lenient circumstances of the crime of corruption and bribery, the provision of life imprisonment is more favourable to the accused than the original provision of the law. Life imprisonment can be traced back to corruption and bribery offences committed prior to its entry into force. In addition, the existence of pardon system not only benefits the execution of life imprisonment, but also balances the cruelty and extreme nature of punishment. Life imprisonment, as a new penalty system, has no corresponding provisions in the general rules of criminal law, but only appears in the statutory punishment of corruption and bribery, which has room for further development in legislation. If we examine the advantages and disadvantages of the system of life imprisonment rationally, we can include life imprisonment in the part of the general principles of criminal law, after the provisions of Article 50 on the modification of the suspension of execution of the death penalty; To extend the scope of its application to other death penalty and life imprisonment provisions to promote the process of penal reform in our country; The provisions of pardon system are added to the criminal law and the right of request for pardon is added to realize the appropriateness of judicature while fully exerting the advantages of the system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：江西財經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.1

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 武曉雯;;再議死刑之存廢與替代——以歐美等國廢止死刑的歷史實踐為切入[J];河北法學(xué);2016年11期

2 黎宏;;終身監(jiān)禁的法律性質(zhì)及適用[J];法商研究;2016年03期

3 趙赤;;《刑法修正案(九)》中的終身監(jiān)禁制度探析[J];凈月學(xué)刊;2016年03期

4 趙秉志;;論中國貪污受賄犯罪死刑的立法控制及其廢止——以《刑法修正案(九)》為視角[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2016年01期

5 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(xué)學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);2015年04期

6 曾賽剛;;死刑替代措施研究[J];大慶師范學(xué)院學(xué)報;2009年01期

7 張明楷;;死刑的廢止不需要終身刑替代[J];法學(xué)研究;2008年02期

8 黎宏;;死緩限制減刑及其適用——以最高人民法院發(fā)布的兩個指導(dǎo)案例為切入點[J];法學(xué)研究;2013年05期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前1條

1 趙秉志;;終身監(jiān)禁新規(guī)之解讀[N];法制日報;2016年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 張新u&;終身自由刑替代死刑制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

2 張秀玲;無期徒刑研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：2297236