反贪工作与贯彻宽严相济刑事政策

作为一种基本的刑事法律指导方针,宽严相济刑事政策在我国的刑事立法、司法实践活动中早有体现;但是,在司法实务过程中,以数额为主导确定定罪量刑幅度法定刑的规定,存在诸多法律或技术上的障碍和困惑,以及对贪污贿赂犯罪处理上宽严失衡客观情况的存在,都给全面贯彻宽严相济刑事政策造成了困惑和尴尬,因此,完善关于贪污贿赂犯罪的刑罚规范,并修改程序法以提高侦查机关依法打击贪污贿赂犯罪能力,将反腐败斗争纳入法治化轨道,同时完善反贪工作中运用宽严相济刑事政策的相关工作机制,成为贯彻宽严相济刑事政策的主要途径。     

当下中国反腐政策的考量诠释

当下中国在反腐败犯罪工作中必须恰当处理好宽严相济刑事政策精神、"老虎苍蝇一起打"和"受贿行贿一起抓"策略思想三者之间的关系,特别关注反腐败犯罪的刑事政策体系化问题,使得其三者在我国防治腐败犯罪中协调发挥应有作用而不至于出现政策策略上的偏差,从而在整体上为我国防治腐败犯罪具体工作和刑事法治建设大局增添"正能量"。"老虎苍蝇一起打"较为形象地宣示了我国反腐败犯罪的基本思路是实行"零容忍",但是并不能解读为反腐败犯罪在刑事政策上放弃了宽严相济刑事政策而回到了"严打"的老路。我国有关机关针对"特别重大贿赂犯罪案件"的程序性司法解释文本和司法实践做法均存在一定的刑事政策偏差,应当对"特别重大贿赂犯罪案件"进行适当的政策性限缩解释,促进我国反腐败犯罪的法治回归。     

宽严相济刑事政策的实施保障——基于理念层面的分析

宽严相济刑事政策顺利有效地实施需要一定的理念保障。首先,犯罪是一种正常的社会现象,对于犯罪的治理不是采取高压的政策,而是相对宽容的态度。其次,我国正处于社会转型时期,犯罪高发是一种常态,对于犯罪的治理只要能够控制到社会能够容忍的程度即可。再次,宽严相济刑事政策是我国深刻认识犯罪规律和刑罚功能的产物,对于犯罪的治理应当保持谦抑性。最后,宽严相济刑事政策涉及刑事司法活动的方方面面,因此,贯彻宽严相济刑事政策应当平衡实体公正与程序公正、惩罚犯罪与保障人权、保障被追诉者的权利与保护被害人的权利、司法公正与司法效率、严格执法与行使自由裁量权、法律效果与社会效果等之间的关系。     

宽严相济刑事政策与走私犯罪侦查

宽严相济刑事政策是当前刑事司法的基本指导政策,旨在从社会主义法治理念出发,运用刑事法律体系,并考虑社会综合效果,达到刑罚适用的总体衡平。在走私犯罪侦查中贯彻落实宽严相济刑事政策,应当在立案时进行合理分流,以非犯罪化处理临界案件;侦查时延伸至犯罪前后相关情节,作为量刑的重要证据,并注重保障嫌疑人的权利;终结时着重考虑有利于嫌疑人的情节,确认自首与立功,衔接检察机关公诉。     

宽严相济刑事政策的科学定位与司法适用

宽严相济的刑事政策和宽大与惩办相结合政策是两个不同的政策,它不是对“严打”方针的简单否定。宽严相济刑事政策的司法运用要注意一是调整观念,刑事司法工作不仅要维护社会稳定,而且要促进社会和谐;二是审时度势,刑事司法要适应社会发展的需求,符合犯罪自身的特点;三是把握本质,正确理解和善于运用宽严相济刑事政策;四是关注和谐,积极探索促进社会和谐的刑案处理办法。     

《刑法修正案（八）》 关于老年人犯罪从宽制度的规定

一、出台背景 （一）贯彻宽严相济刑事政策的需要宽严相济的刑事政策是党中央在构建社会主义和谐社会新形势下提出的一项重要政策,是我国的基本刑事政策。它对于最大限度地预防和减少犯罪、化解社会矛盾、维护社会和谐稳定,具有特别重要的意义。     

宽严相济刑事政策的内涵及适用

宽严相济形势政策,是党和国家总结“严打”。“惩办与宽大相结合”等政策的经验和教训,针对现时期犯罪的特点而提出的一项刑事司法基本准则。本文对宽严相济刑事政策的内涵进行了分析,并从侦查、审查起诉、审判、行刑几个方面对宽严相济刑事政策的适用提出了建议。     

宽严相济视野下惩治贪污贿赂犯罪刑事政策路径之选择

宽严相济刑事政策的提出以及我国加入《联合国反腐败公约》的背景下,我国现行惩治贪污贿赂犯罪的刑事政策必须做出调整以适应新时期与贪污贿赂犯罪做斗争的需要。     

浅析宽严相济的刑事政策

刑事政策是国家针对犯罪而采取的防治方略,是人类理性在刑事领域的产物,是社会法制文明程度的体现。一个国家的刑事政策是否适时适度,是否科学合理,直接影响着惩罚和预防犯罪的整体效果,直接关系到社会和谐稳定和国家长治久安。从和谐社会的理念和要求出发,认真研究并准确适用宽严相济刑事政策,对于有效预防控制犯罪、高效服务和谐社会的构建具有十分重要的意义。目前,宽严相济的刑事政策仍然有需要完善的地方,应当围绕不起诉范围、非刑事化处理、刑事和解制度、答疑说理制度以及社区矫正制度等方面进行完善。     

和解不起诉的必要性与可行性

宽严相济是当代中国预防和控制犯罪的基本刑事政策。检察机关作为刑事政策的践行者之一,“要切实贯彻宽严相济刑事政策,积极探索在各项检察工作中正确运用宽严相济政策的新途径、新机制、新措施,以更好地实现执法办案的法律效果与社会效     

Community Safety and Social Policy

This article examines community safety policy. In many countries community safety has become a replacement discourse for situational crime prevention, although in some countries such as the UK, it too is threatened with replacement by the narrower concerns of crime reduction. Community safety represents the apparent merging of the concerns of criminal justice and social policy, specifically over questions of social inclusion and exclusion. Focusing in the main upon UK policy, but also drawing upon experience elsewhere, this article scrutinises the policy of community safety, arguing that while it offers an inclusionary vision of crime control, its practice may be something rather different. More specifically, and in common with the trajectory of much advanced liberal social policy, in practice community safety may have an exclusionary effect. Thus, while community safety may represent the convergence of social and criminal justice policies, it does so on neoliberal rather than welfare liberal terms. It also means that community safety has a closer connection to policies of punitive sovereignty – particularly sentencing policies of mass incarceration – than might often be assumed.     

制度经济学视野下宽严相济的经济犯罪控制对策研究

随着"宽严相济"刑事政策的出台,刑法势必重新选择对经济犯罪的控制对策,以摆脱效益与公正性的困境。根据这种对策所形成的制度安排应当在减少交易成本和保障制度创新方面符合市场经济的基本要求,具体包括两个方面:构建非刑法的经济犯罪控制体系;根据经济违法行为的不同危害性构建相应的刑法控制体系。     

基于社会资本解释范式的刑事政策研究

社会资本理论为刑事政策研究提供了新的解释范式,有着重要的方法论意义。社会资本是资本的一种表现形式,是一种嵌入在社会网络中的资源。社会资本与刑事政策之间存在着密切关系:宏观而言,社会资本存量与控制犯罪效果成正比;微观而论,不同形式的社会资本对犯罪生成会产生不同的影响,进而影响到相应的刑事政策。因此,从社会资本角度来反思和发展我国现行刑事政策有着重要的理论和实践价值。     

犯罪控制的惩罚主义及其效果

1979年以来我国刑事立法和司法忽视或遗忘了刑法的特征与内在价值,高估了刑法影响人的行为的可能性,刑法一直保持着在功能化方向上的惯性,刑罚结构和刑罚适用面临着重刑主义的突出问题。我国的犯罪控制存在着惩罚主义的结构特征,然而惩罚主义的意愿和努力,并没能有效遏制犯罪规模和犯罪的总体严重程度迅猛发展的势头。在刑事政策和刑罚体系的主导思想没有做出重大调整前,刑罚轻缓化的改革仍然任重道远。     

风险社会的刑法风险及其防范

在风险社会刑法出现了一些新动向:刑法的任务由保护法益转向保护国民的安全感;预防理念从消极预防转向积极预防;犯罪圈不断膨胀;传统归责理论有所突破。这些新动向使刑法在遏制风险的同时,自身也潜藏着风险:一是不利于实现社会福利最大化;二是可能导致泛刑法化与重刑化;三是刑法的自由保障机能被弱化;四是责任原则有大范围超越的风险。要消除这些风险,必须平衡好允许的危险与禁止的危险的关系;协调好自由保障与风险防范的关系;权衡好成本与收益的关系。总之,"最好的社会政策也是最好的刑事政策"这句名言在今天仍然应当被坚持。     

醉驾入刑诸问题新探讨

醉驾入刑一年多来,其法治效果和社会效果显现,但同时也存在一些问题。在法律与政策精神上,司法机关对醉驾行为的处理既要坚持从严惩处的态度,同时也要正确贯彻宽严相济的基本刑事政策。醉驾的情形多种多样,对醉驾入罪应根据其情节的不同区别对待,同时合理理解和正确适用醉驾的标准,并从立法上完善醉驾入刑的规定。     

轻罪时代的犯罪治理方略

当今中国的犯罪现象正在经历从自然犯到法定犯、从重罪到轻罪的历史转换,犯罪治理的策略也需要与时俱进,顺势而变。具体而言,轻罪时代的犯罪治理应该彻底摈弃严打重刑思维,从宽严相济转向以宽为主的刑事政策,刑罚应整体趋轻,更多关注出刑和制裁多元化,更加注重常态治理和依法治理,刑事程序制度也应更加轻缓与灵活,同时营造更为宽容的社会环境。     

Controlling violence: criminal justice, society, and lessons from the US

Based on a lecture to policy makers in Brazil, this essay explores lessons that developing nations can learn from US experiences in the fight against violence and crime. A brief summary of trends in crime, criminal justice policy, and criminal punishment in the US over the past four decades is followed by an evaluation of the dominant imprisonment strategy of the 1970s through 1990s. It is argued that benefits of the massive increase in criminal punishment have been few and that costs have been excessive in terms of material, human, and social capital. Nonetheless, the American experience provides inspiration when we consider the broader societal potential for social organization: values and norms; self-interest and involvement in legitimate exchange networks; mobilization of social capital; and diverse mechanisms of social control. These concepts are explained, and specific institutions and mechanisms to control violence and crime are explored under each of them. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

黑社会性质组织犯罪的经济分析

黑社会性质组织犯罪的本质特征在于以违法犯罪的手段对内进行人身控制,对外进行经济控制。要有效地惩罚和预防黑社会犯罪,必须提高黑社会性质组织犯罪的预期刑罚成本,提高由于刑罚带来的机会成本的损失,并且通过实施社会效益最大化的公共政策,争取以最小的成本,取得最大的控制犯罪的收益。     

Theorizing Criminal Law Reform

How are we to understand criminal law reform? The idea seems simple—the criminal law on the books is wrong: it should be changed. But 'wrong’ how? By what norms 'wrong’? As soon as one tries to answer those questions, the issue becomes more complex. One kind of answer is that the criminal law is substantively wrong: that is, we assume valid norms of background political morality, and we argue that doctrinally the criminal law on the books does not embody those norms. Another kind of answer is that the criminal law as it stands presupposes certain empirical facts, and yet those facts do not hold. Traditionally, criminal law reform has been informed by both these answers. Analytical theorists examine doctrine for its conceptual structure, and social scientists examine the actual workings of the criminal justice system. This tidy picture is, however, challenged by social constructivist accounts of the criminal law. They challenge the stability and conceptual purity of doctrine, and they challenge the objectivity of social science. On the basis of these challenges, they undermine the ambitions of traditional criminal law reform, and argue that the only reforms to the criminal law that matter are politicized ones—that criminal law reform is pointless unless it serves the interests of the marginalized and the dispossessed. It seems undeniable that in some sense our perceptions of crime in our society are indeed moulded by social forces, and that crime does not exist independently of the social structures and processes that help to define and control it. But why should those insights have the implications for our understanding of criminal law reform that they are alleged to have? How could it follow from those insights that criminal law reform either becomes radicalized or valueless? The aim of this paper is to show that what can legitimately be taken from the emphasis on the social constructedness of crime does not require wholesale abandonment of the traditional picture of criminal law reform, even though it may require some modifications of that picture.