【摘要】：學(xué)界關(guān)于判決前犯同種數(shù)罪的處罰方式一直未有定論，有學(xué)者主張一罰說，有學(xué)者主張并罰說，也有學(xué)者主張折中說。就其主張的理由來看，似乎都是為了使同種數(shù)罪的處罰符合罪責(zé)刑相適應(yīng)的要求。殊不知，量刑精確是量刑公正的前提和必要條件，此犯罪的量刑情節(jié)不得超越其所依附的犯罪而作用于彼犯罪是量刑精確所必須遵循的原則，可稱之為效力邊界原則。因此，關(guān)于判決前犯同種數(shù)罪的處罰，既應(yīng)當(dāng)符合罪責(zé)刑相適應(yīng)原則，也應(yīng)符合效力邊界原則。 通過全面分析一罰說、并罰說以及折中說，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)關(guān)于判決前犯同種數(shù)罪的處罰方式仍有進(jìn)一步完善的必要。由于一罰說主張對同種數(shù)罪一罪加重或從重處理，加上量刑情節(jié)的作用各異，因而有必要區(qū)分同種數(shù)罪的量刑情節(jié)進(jìn)行一一分析。通過對比分析一罰說與并罰說在不同情形下的優(yōu)劣，經(jīng)過罪責(zé)刑相適應(yīng)原則和效力邊界原則的雙重檢驗(yàn)，基本上可以得出以并罰為主、以一罰為輔的結(jié)論。
[Abstract]:There has been no definite conclusion on the punishment of the same number of crimes before sentencing. Some scholars have advocated one punishment theory, some scholars have advocated the concurrent punishment theory, and some scholars have advocated the concessionary theory. As far as the reasons for this claim are concerned, it seems that the punishment of the same number of crimes meets the requirements of the punishment of responsibility and punishment. It is unknown that sentencing accuracy is the prerequisite and necessary condition of sentencing justice. The sentencing circumstances of this crime must not exceed the crime to which it is attached and the action on the other crime is a principle that must be followed in sentencing accuracy, which can be called the principle of effectiveness boundary. Therefore, the punishment of the same number of crimes before judgment should be in line with both the principle of adaptation of criminal responsibility and punishment, and the principle of effectiveness boundary. Through a comprehensive analysis of a penalty theory, and punishment theory and compromise theory, it can be found that there is still a need to further improve the punishment mode of the same number of crimes before conviction. It is necessary to distinguish the sentencing circumstances of the same number of crimes because a penalty theory advocates aggravating or retreating the same number of crimes, and the role of the circumstances of sentencing is different. By comparing and analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of one-penalty theory and one-penalty theory under different circumstances, through the double test of the principle of adaptation of crime and punishment and the principle of effectiveness boundary, we can basically draw a conclusion that parallel punishment is the main punishment and one penalty is auxiliary.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(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 游偉,陸建紅;論刑法上的“從重處罰”[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年06期

2 賈蓮君;論同種數(shù)罪應(yīng)當(dāng)并罰[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1995年02期

3 蔡桂生;;論連續(xù)犯與同種數(shù)罪的區(qū)分及刑事處罰[J];福建法學(xué);2007年02期

4 董超;張磊;;試論單位責(zé)任人員犯與單位犯罪相同罪名的應(yīng)數(shù)罪并罰[J];法律適用;2008年12期

5 張小虎;;多次行為的理論定性與立法存疑[J];法學(xué)雜志;2006年03期

6 劉志偉;;數(shù)罪并罰若干爭議問題研討[J];法學(xué)雜志;2009年04期

7 林亞剛;張莉瓊;;反復(fù)實(shí)施危害行為的成罪及處罰模式探討[J];法學(xué)評論;2009年03期

8 鄭培兵;同種數(shù)罪應(yīng)該數(shù)罪并罰[J];法學(xué);1982年01期

9 張明楷;;論同種數(shù)罪的并罰[J];法學(xué);2011年01期

10 李克勤;魏迪;;數(shù)罪并罰制度的實(shí)踐難題及完善對策——來自浙江省金華地區(qū)的情況報(bào)告[J];河北公安警察職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 房麗;數(shù)罪并罰限制加重原則之解構(gòu)[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

2 閔輝;數(shù)罪并罰制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號：2439908