论未成年人犯罪前科应予消灭——一个社会学角度的分析

以社会学为视角,并结合刑法中前科及前科消灭理论进行分析,犯罪标签的存在和前科报告制度的影响,我国法律规定的未成年犯罪人的前科保护制度基本上不能消除前科对未成年犯罪人的不利影响,而这些不利影响的存在极可能导致未成年犯罪人刑罚执行完毕后之再社会化的失败,使其重新走上再犯之路,因而应明确消除未成年犯罪人的前科记录.     

社会排斥视域下的前科效应研究

从社会排斥理论来看,前科效应就是由于前科制度的存在导致了前科人员在经济、政治、公共服务和社会关系方面受到了排斥,并且前科排斥具有结构性、连锁性和传递性。为了消除前科的排斥效应,必须构建前科消灭制度。     

我国前科消灭制度新论

作为衡量罪犯再次犯罪时人身危险性与社会危害性的标准之一,前科的存在不仅体现了罪责刑相适应的刑罚理念,也实现了预防犯罪的目的。但前科长时间乃至终生存续无疑给有前科的人永久地贴上了罪犯的标签,在导致其相关法律权利和资格丧失的同时,也招致了社会的歧视和不公平待遇。前科消灭制度在社会预防与罪犯人权保护之间找到了平衡点。研究前科消灭制度不仅富有理论价值,也具有深刻的现实意义。本文拟对我国前科消灭予以全面而深刻的探索,结合我国现有立法和理论研究现状,就我国建立完备的前科消灭制度提出初步构想。     

关于前科概念的一点思考——兼与于志刚博士商榷

关于前科的概念,刑法学界争论比较激烈。于志刚博士提出前科仅限于"实施犯罪而对其判处实刑且刑罚已经执行完毕或被赦免的行为人",本文对此持否定态度,并从刑法的目的、法律的公平性原则、现行法律体系对前科的有关规定及社会对前科的理解四个方面进行论证,认为前科只需要被法院确定有罪,而不管是不执行刑罚,还是刑罚执行完毕或赦免。     

论宽严相济刑事司法政策视野下前科消灭制度的构建

一、对我国前科终身制法律规定的检讨犯罪前科作为一个学理上的词汇,在我国现行法律法规中并没有专门规定。关于前科之定义,一种观点认为:"所谓前科,是由于法院因行为人实施犯罪而对其判处刑罚且刑罚已经执行完毕或者被赦免后在一定期间内的一种法律地位。"①另一种观点则认为:"前科是指曾被宣告犯有罪行或被判处刑罚的事实。被宣告犯有罪行可以是人民法院进行的,也可以是人民检察院进行的,至于被宣告犯有何种罪行或者被判有何种刑罚及刑罚是否执行,均不影响前科的成立。"②     

论前科消灭制度

我国刑法缺乏刑罚消灭以致缺乏前科消灭的系统规定，本文就前科消灭制度。借鉴各国刑法理论研究和刑法规定作一探讨，提出了个人看法。     

“犯罪记录”和“前科”混淆性认识的批判性思考

刑法学界对于“前科”和“犯罪记录”有着普遍的混淆性认识，导致相关研究存在严重的方向性偏差，研究视角的多重错位更是导致了研究结论的非科学性。科学界分“前科”与“犯罪记录”是前科消灭制度研究的理论前提。“犯罪记录”是对犯罪事实及其刑事判决的纯粹客观记载，“前科”则是对犯罪记录的一种规范性评价，“犯罪记录”和“前科”之间是评价对象与评价结论的关系。真正影响犯罪人回归社会的，不是“前科”和“犯罪记录”，而是社会公众自发的非规范性评价，“标签效应”等均是此种非规范性评价的结果。     

刑事前科报告制度新论

刑罚适用的目的在于预防犯罪,但我国现有的前科报告制度无疑是犯罪人再社会化道路上的一块绊脚石。基于此,有学者便提出了前科消灭制度。但前科报告制度有其存在的价值,前科消灭制度也存在其弊端及不足,笔者认为,应当建立合理的前科保护制度,而不是单纯的前科消灭制度。     

前科消灭的内容与适用范围初探

前科消灭的内容应当涵容消除犯罪记录、限制犯罪记录公开和恢复权利三个层次,不宜从罪质、刑罚、对象等角度对前科消灭的适用范围作过多的限定,但可根据前科之罪的罪质,以及所适用的刑种、刑度等的不同而确立不同的前科消灭方式,以充分发挥这一制度在刑事政策上的最大功效。     

略谈我国刑法中的前科——兼与张晋清、傅清河二同志商榷

读了《法学杂志》一九八五年第五期刊登的张晋清、傅清河二同志《试谈我国刑法中的前科》一文(以下简称《前科》),颇受启发。《前科》一文的作者在否定了关于前科的三种论点(即“历史污点论”、“累犯条件论”、“折衷论”之后,提出了自己的论点。笔者同意《前科》一文对前三种论点的分析,但对张、傅二同志提出的关于前科的定义仍有不同看法,现提出来,与法学界专家、学者及张、傅二同志商榷。什么是前科,我认为首先应该弄清它的概念。在我国古代科同“课”,就是判处、课罚,即对犯人处以刑罚的意思。显而易见,科就是科刑,科是指犯罪受到的刑罚。前科就是指新罪以前犯罪受到的刑罚。     

The adequacy of China's responses to wrongful convictions

This paper examines a series of reforms that followed the discovery of high-profile wrongful convictions in China since 2005. There have been two waves of criminal justice reforms to prevent future wrongful convictions and to improve China's criminal justice system more generally. But it will be suggested in this paper that China's responses are inadequate because they allow traditional police and judicial practices that will lead to future wrongful convictions to continue. Further reforms will be suggested. First, police interrogations should be fully recorded, and the entire recording should be played back at trial. Second, the role of the defense counsel should be expanded. The use of state secrets as evidence against the accused should be curtailed. The close cooperation between the police, procuratorates and judiciary in the criminal justice should be counteracted by the creation of an independent body to review all serious convictions. Finally, the Chinese criminal justice has proven itself not safe enough to allow the broad use of capital punishment as a punishment for non-violent offences and at the very least, the immediate execution of prisoners who lose their final appeal must be abolished.     

Intermediate punishment: Redistributing or extending social control?

During the past two decades, a major area of debate has been about the meaning and consequences of the community corrections movement that has now evolved into intermediate punishment. A question underlying this debate is whether or not this movement accomplishes its expressed purpose of reducing reliance on prisons by redistributing control into the community or merely extends community control without altering previous reliance on prisons. This study assesses Florida's intermediate punishment strategy of home confinement. Data from observations of program practices and interviews with home confinement officers, offenders on the program and various family members living in the home address the operational features of the program. Pre and post program statistics (1980–1987) on state population, felony convictions and forms of correctional sanctions explore the program's impact upon the state's characteristic sanctioning trends. The findings provide no support that home confinement has reduced Florida's reliance on prisons. Specifically, throughout the decade of the 1980s, and despite the operation of a home confinement program that has involved over 100,000 offenders, Florida's use of prisons experienced major increases disproportionate to the state's population, and conviction increases. The paper concludes with discussion of ironies associated with correctional reforms and related empirical and theoretical implications.     

Community Risk Management of High-Risk Sex Offenders in Canada: Findings From a Quasi-Experimental Study

Although considerable controversy surrounds capital punishment, there is no disagreement about the injustice of executing innocent persons. While critics of the death penalty have cited the risk of executing the innocent as a reason for its abolition, adherents have dismissed the risk of error as negligible, if not inevitable, and insufficient reason to halt capital punishment. Still others have proposed or enacted reforms designed to minimize the risk of erroneous capital convictions and sentences and, hence, allow executions to go forward in deserving cases in which doubts about guilt have largely been eradicated. In this article, we examine the principled tensions that accompany attempts simultaneously to safeguard the innocent from execution while promoting the objectives of capital punishment. We focus, in particular, on reforms recently incorporated into Maryland’s death penalty law. We suggest that the existing tensions between protecting the innocent from execution and promoting the objectives of capital punishment are so pronounced that attempted reconciliation of the competing interests is difficult to defend, either in principle or in practice.     

Rethinking the restorative–retributive dichotomy: is reconciliation possible?

While the use of restorative justice within Western criminal justice systems continues to grow, its philosophical foundations remain uncertain. This inconclusiveness impacts directly upon the theoretical discussion of restorative justice and its relationship with existing paradigms of punishment, precipitating debate regarding its ability to integrate within justice systems governed by retributive paradigms. Specifically, this ambiguity of definition renders debate regarding the extent to which restorative justice philosophy exists as an alternative punishment or an alternative to punishment, and its existence as complementary or axiomatic to retributive justice unresolved. The philosophy of restorative justice, identifying its central features and addressing those previous attempts of contrasting restorative justice with the prevailing paradigm of retribution is explored here. However, it is suggested that aspirations of reconciling restorative justice philosophy with the retributive paradigm will be ultimately unsuccessful, due to the persistent latent ambiguity regarding the central foundation upon which restorative justice philosophy is built. Such concerns are also present when seeking to affirm the continued opposition of retributive and restorative justice.     

检视与重塑：宽严相济刑事政策的理论基础

宽严相济刑事政策是当下刑事法界域一个颇为热门的话语,并带动了新一轮刑事政策研究浪潮。这固然是一个可喜现象,但在繁华表象下保持一定的慎思却是必要的。基本刑事政策乃刑事法治的灵魂与导向,从根本上决定了刑事法律活动的基本框架,并将直接影响惩治犯罪与预防犯罪的效果。因此,有必要进一步夯实宽严相济政策的理论基础,提升基本刑事政策研究的理论品格,并为其实践展开作好理论准备。     

责令限期拆除行为的二元化建构及司法审查进路

责令限期拆除本是行政机关针对违法建设、违法占地行为常见的执法手段之一,但理论界和实务界对于责令限期拆除行为的性质以及可诉性存在较大争议。尽管《行政处罚法》(2021修订)第九条并未明确责令限期拆除是否属于行政处罚,但其第六项"法律、行政法规规定的其他行政处罚"作为兜底性条款为责令限期拆除的行政处罚性质保留了法律依据。基于责令限期拆除行为的"二元化"结构,若行政机关作出责令限期拆除行为居于行政执法程序的中间环节,则将其视为一种过程性的行政命令,不具有可诉性;若行政机关作出责令限期拆除行为居于行政执法程序的最终环节,无论其采取何种形式,均视为行政处罚,应当按照《行政处罚法》的规定履行查处程序并进行司法审查。     

想象竞合的功能及其存在根据

将罪数论升级为竞合论,关键在于要使罪数论的定罪量刑功能转变为竞合论的量刑功能。想象竞合是竞合论中最为重要的成员,它是一个针对自然行为犯数罪如何量刑的理论。在对想象竞合行为定罪时,犯罪构成仍是定罪的惟一标准,因此想象竞合为数罪,在判决书中,要将数罪一一列明。如果对想象竞合数罪并罚,就否定了其存在的必要性。不能对想象竞合数罪并罚的理由,就是想象竞合的存在根据。想象竞合的数罪中,不法量刑情节与特殊预防必要性的情节高度重合,数罪并罚会造成量刑中的重复评价。较轻的一罪在想象竞合的量刑中仍具有一定的发言权,即宣告刑不能低于轻罪的最低刑,同时必须考虑轻罪的附加刑。     

关于中国刑法学理论体系起点问题的思考

科学、理性的理论体系应当是一种体系性、逻辑性思考的结果。在体系性思考中,思考和选择一个恰当的体系起点,是理论体系科学化和理性化的基础性工作。传统的以社会危害性为起点的理论体系已经不能很好地符合中国法治的发展要求和刑法学体系发展的需要,而以刑罚目的为起点的刑法学体系强调刑法的理性运作和规范性特征,其基本逻辑关系表现为:通过证明刑罚目的的正当性和合理性来证明刑罚的正当性和合理性;通过证明刑罚的正当性和合理性来证明规定犯罪的正当性和合理性。在这个逻辑结构中,刑罚目的的选择是刑法学体系的核心。     

Convicted but innocent

Legal literature from the beginning of the century, as well as more recent studies, furnish us with accounts of cases of innicent men and women who were tried and convicted of serious crimes throughout the United States. This study surveys the literature on those cases and describes these wrongful convictions by the distribution of offenses, of sentences, of actual punishment inflicted, and types of error contributing to the wrongful conviction.     

CASE STUDY ON THE CAUSES OF WRONGFUL CONVICTION IN CHINESE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

In recent years, with the disclosure of wrongful convictions in the media, the topic has become a focus of attention in China. Those wrongful convictions led people to ask: What is going wrong in Chinese criminal justice system? Since late 1995, the author of this article led a group of researchers and embarked upon an empirical study of wrongful convictions in China. According to our study, false confessions extracted with torture are a major evidential cause, or direct cause, for wrongful convictions in China. However, there are indirect causes behind the problem of torture in the criminal proceedings. They are the nominal checks among the police, the procuratorate and the court; the bowing to public opinions in contradiction to legal principles; the unlawfully extended custody with tunnel vision; the nominalization of courtroom trials; and the reducing of punishment in a case of doubt. These causes of wrongful convictions reflect the institutional flaws, outdated mentalities, and improper practices in Chinese criminal proceedings.