死刑替代位阶上无期徒刑的改良

死刑替代措施就是在不适用死刑的情况下应该采取的、用来代替死刑的刑罚方法。死刑替代措施应以现行刑罚体系为基础．以废除或限制死刑实际适用为前提进行考察．选择能够直接担当“最严厉”法定刑角色．保持足够的威慑力的刑种。死缓不是刑罚种类意义上的死刑替代措施：不得假释的终身监禁不符合“人总是可以改造的”的基本理念：无期徒刑是中国刑罚体系中仅次于死刑的刑种．蕴含有较强的威慑力．通过适当改良。能够产生足够的类似于死刑的威慑力。由于死刑制度的反人权性和反价值性．从应然层而看．死刑应当被替代是不可避免的．并且其重要性也是非常大的。     

死刑替代位阶上无期徒刑的改良

死刑替代措施就是在不适用死刑的情况下应该采取的、用来代替死刑的刑罚方法。死刑替代措施应以现行刑罚体系为基础．以废除或限制死刑实际适用为前提进行考察，选择能够直接担当“最严厉”法定刑角色，保持足够的威慑力的刑种。死缓不是刑罚种类意义上的死刑替代措施；不得假释的终身监禁不符合“人总是可以改造的”的基本理念：     

略论中国刑法中的死刑替代措施

死刑替代措施,是指基于限制死刑适用的目的,对于立法上特定性质的犯罪,司法中特殊情况下的罪犯,不适用死刑立即执行,而代之以其他刑罚处罚方法。死刑替代措施是限制死刑中不可或缺并被证明行之有效的方法。从完善既有方式、探索新的途径入手,死刑替代措施包括死刑缓期执行;严格的无期徒刑;附赔偿的长期自由刑三种。当前,有必要在立法上对刑罚体系作进一步调整、修改、完善,以全面体现死刑替代措施;在司法中,注意发挥死刑替代措施在限制死刑中的作用。     

论我国刑法中各刑种实际刑度之间的不衔接及对策

各刑种实际刑度间的不衔接指的是无期徒刑和有期徒刑之间、死刑中的死缓与无期徒刑之间、死刑立即执行与死缓之间刑罚程度的不衔接。它是我国现行刑法的一个不足之处。刑种间实际刑度的不衔接破坏了刑罚结构的科学性。因此，根据罪刑相当的原则，重新设定各刑种的实际刑度，对于实现它们之间的衔接，以及完善刑法结构都具有重要意义。     

我国刑罚制度的主要缺陷与变革

我国刑种体系缺陷,主要表现为死刑罪名过多,长期监禁刑减刑制度不合理,短期监禁刑与非监禁刑间缺失相互易科制度,社区矫正制度不完善,从而导致长期监禁刑之间衔接不合理,死缓、无期徒刑有期徒刑化并与死刑差距过大,短期监禁刑适用比例大,非监禁刑适用率低,管制、罚金功能难以发挥。刑罚裁量制度缺陷,主要表现为量刑情节标准或过于僵化或不明、量刑方法缺失。刑罚裁量制度与刑种体系密切相关,上述缺陷共同导致量刑结果呈现出重刑过多、量刑不均衡、罚金数额混乱等问题。因此,有必要从死刑、减刑、易科、数罪并罚、刑事和解、社区矫正等方面对刑罚制度予以改革,并大力推进量刑规范化改革,从而构建起科学合理的刑种体系和刑罚裁量制度。     

死刑的废止不需要终身刑替代

终身刑与无期徒刑并非等同概念；终身刑是侵害人格尊严、比死刑更为残酷的惩罚方法，不应成为死刑的替代刑；死刑的削减与废止不依赖于终身刑的设置；终身刑未具备刑罚的正当化根据，无助于刑罚体系的完善，没能顺应刑罚的发展趋势，不符合行刑的合理目标，因而不应成为-种刑罚措施；当前，我国应当在削减与废止死刑立即执行的同时，合理运用现行刑法规定的死缓与无期徒刑。     

论我国金融犯罪的刑罚配置

我国金融犯罪除不能适用管制刑以外,其他刑种均能适用。我国金融犯罪的刑罚配置,具有档次少、跨度大、刑种多的特点。应在金融犯罪中废除死刑,将无期徒刑作为法定最高刑并提高无期徒刑在司法实践中的适用比重。逐步取消倍比罚金制,明确单位罚金刑的数额,并对单位中的相关责任人员也实施一定的经济制裁。针对自然人金融犯罪,增设禁止从业资格刑;针对单位金融犯罪,增设限期整顿、解散等资格刑。细化量刑档次,减少同一量刑档次内可供选择的刑种。     

废除无期徒刑的思考——兼论相对不定期刑的替代性价值

长期以来，在我国有期徒刑和死刑之间存在着广袤的“刑期真空地带”，无期徒刑的刑期已名不副实。从制度主义的视角来看，保留死刑也好，抑或是废除死刑设立终身监禁刑也罢，都存在着如何合理地解决好“有期”与“无期”之衔接的问题。从刑罚价值上看，无期徒刑既失去了其存在的正当性基础，也不具有了可行性，理应废除。为此建议，应在刑法上确定一种新的刑种——“相对不定期刑”替代现行“无期徒刑”，以弥补我国现行刑法制度设计上的罅隙。     

经济犯罪之刑罚结构研究

刑罚在经济犯罪中的运用需要理想的刑罚结构。为此,可结合经济犯罪的特点分析各刑种在调整经济犯罪时的利弊得失,并以此为基础设计出一种以罚金刑和有期徒刑为主体,以无期徒刑和没收财产刑相结合为辅助,以拘役刑作为罚金刑替代措施处于次要地位的“三角形”式的刑罚结构模式。以此为指导,以破坏社会主义市场经济秩序罪为例,对我国现行经济犯罪的实然刑罚结构进行分析,可以发现我国现行经济犯罪的刑罚结构由于死刑、管制刑的存在,而使其具有不合理性,因此,要优化现行经济犯罪的刑罚结构,必须废除死刑,取消管制刑,并对其他刑种进行微调。     

关于死刑存废的几个问题

关于死刑存废的几个问题王凤芝死刑是剥夺犯罪分子生命的刑种，是刑罚之极，所以又称为极刑。死刑以其景强的严厉性，最大的威慑力、抑制力，最为广泛的社会影响力，长期以来在各国刑罚体系中居于重要地位，井在惩罚重大犯罪，预防犯罪方面发挥着重要作用。众所周知，国家...     

Death penalty views in China, Japan and the U.S.: An empirical comparison

Many nations impose the death penalty, yet most of the literature on capital punishment has focused on Western nations, particularly the U.S. China and Japan are two retentionist nations. Based on the data collected in 2005, this study examined the level of death penalty support and views on capital punishment among college students from China, Japan, and the U.S. It was found that Chinese respondents reported the highest level of death penalty support, followed by Japanese and U.S. students. Respondents from China and Japan were more likely to believe in the deterrence value of capital punishment than their U.S. counterparts. Views on retribution differed among the respondents. U.S. students were most likely to feel that innocent people are sentenced to death. In multivariate analyses, deterrence was the strongest correlate of death penalty views among Chinese and Japanese respondents, followed closely by retribution. For both Chinese and Japanese students, the barbarity of government taking the life of a person was the strongest predictor for opposing the death penalty. For U.S. respondents, retribution was the strongest reason for supporting capital punishment and the barbarity of executions was the strongest reason for opposing the death penalty.     

Desert, Justice and Capital Punishment

Our purpose in this paper is to consider a procedural objection to the death penalty. According to this objection, even if the death penalty is deemed, substantively speaking, a morally acceptable punishment for at least some murderers, since only a small proportion of those guilty of aggravated murder are sentenced to death and executed, while the majority of murderers escape capital punishment as a result of arbitrariness and discrimination, capital punishment should be abolished. Our targets in this paper are two recent attempts, by Thomas Hurka and Michael Cholbi respectively, to defend the view that ‘levelling down’ (that is, reducing the punishment imposed on a criminal from the punishment he absolutely deserves to a less severe punishment in order to achieve proportionality relative to the criminals who have escaped the punishment they absolutely deserve) is, in the context of capital punishment, morally permissible. We argue that both Hurka and Cholbi fail to show why the arbitrariness and discrimination objection impugns the death penalty.

死刑废除的国际要求与反思

死刑废除已经是世界性趋势和国际公约的要求,我国刑法学界已在限制死刑上达成了一定的共识,但在死刑废除的论证上还存在诸多争议。德里达对死刑的解构有助于死刑废除。死刑在关系到社会基本公正实现的同时也影响到社会的基本功利的实现,当其不再是为社会公正的基础或主要方面时,便是其被废除之日。     

中美两国死刑制度之立法原因比较

中美两国尽管在文化传统、社会制度、经济发展水平等方面均存在较大差异,但在废止或严格限制死刑的世界性潮流面前,对死刑却采取了相似的政策——既保留死刑又限制其适用,其中既有民意因素,也有政治因素。美国现阶段的高犯罪率、南方的私刑传统、历史上未经纳粹统治等因素导致其支持死刑的民意高涨,这对于政治精英、联邦最高法院及地区法官和检察官都有影响;在中国,现阶段社会治安形势恶化、礼法传统与家族主义的深远影响,以及缺少西方启蒙运动洗礼等因素导致民意支持死刑,这对于执政党、立法机关和司法机关,以及法官与检察官个人,都产生了深刻的影响。在政治因素方面,美国联邦与各州的权限划分以及盛行的联邦主义是影响其现行死刑制度的重要原因;在中国,统治者所奉行的"乱世用重典"的治国之策和重刑主义的历史传统、特殊历史时期所形成的"左"的错误,都是影响中国死刑制度的重要原因。对于中美两国死刑制度进行改造,应注意从民意与政治因素方面着手进行。     

Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall hypotheses

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall offered his opinion regarding the utility of public opinion polls as a tool for assessing the “evolving standards of decency” regarding capital punishment. His arguments became known as the Marshall hypotheses and spawned a considerable body of empirical testing. The three Marshall hypotheses are: (1) support for capital punishment is inversely associated with knowledge about it, (2) exposure to information about capital punishment produces sentiments in opposition to capital punishment, but (3) exposure to information about capital punishment will have no impact on those who support it for retributive reasons. The results of previous tests of these hypotheses were somewhat mixed but supportive. None of these studies, however, examined the effects of change in knowledge levels with changes, if any, in death penalty attitudes and beliefs as needed for a more complete test of the Marshall hypotheses. The present study addressed this shortcoming. The results provided mixed support for these three hypotheses. That is, death penalty supporters were somewhat less informed than death penalty opponents; exposure to death penalty information and knowledge gains tended to be associated with attitudinal change in a directions suggested by these hypotheses; but, retributivists' attitudes toward and beliefs about capital punishment were not any more resistant to change than were the attitudes and beliefs of non-retributivists.     

Kentuckian’s Attitudes on Capital Punishment, 1989–2016

Citizens’ attitudes toward the death penalty have been effected by the availability of life without parole (LWOP). Our analysis focuses upon data from a representative sample of Kentuckians on death penalty attitudes. The factors influencing and related to death penalty support and compared to support for LWOP are considered along with a review of Kentucky survey findings from 1989–2016. The results reveal consistent support for LWOP over the death penalty. Male Kentucky residents with a college education were most likely to support life without parole over capital punishment while male conservatives did not.     

Putting kids to death: Specifying public support for juvenile capital punishment

Using a statewide sample of 539 Tennessee residents, we explored the extent to which the public supports the death penalty for juveniles. The analysis revealed that a majority of respondents favored juvenile capital punishment, often for young offenders. The respondents, however, were less supportive of juvenile than of adult execution. Most important, as an alternative to juvenile capital punishment, nearly two-thirds of the sample favored life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP); four-fifths favored a life sentence with work and restitution requirements (LWOP+W/R). Notably, even among those who endorsed capital punishment for juveniles, a clear majority supported LWOP+W/R. Taken together, these findings reveal that although the public is willing to execute juveniles who commit first-degree murder, they prefer alternative sentencing options that avoid putting youths to death.     

The age of death: Appraising public opinion of juvenile capital punishment

Despite its original purpose to protect and rehabilitate wayward children, the juvenile system has grown more punitive and has embraced the use of harsher punishments, including execution, for juvenile offenders. Relatively little is known, however, about public attitudes toward the use of capital punishment for juveniles. This research explored the determinants of death penalty opinion, identified the minimum age at which respondents were willing to allow a juvenile to be put to death and examined the willingness of respondents to support an alternative sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). The results suggested that, while one-quarter of the sample was willing to execute juveniles who were fifteen and under at the time of the crime, there was less support for the execution of juveniles than of adults. In addition, of those who supported the use of the death penalty for juveniles, almost one-half would support LWOP as an alternative to the death penalty.     

The Death Penalty: An Unusual Punishment America is Inflicting Upon Itself

The United States is the only Western, industrialized nation still executing criminal offenders. The Constitutional provision that is most often used to call the appropriateness of capital punishment in the United States into question is the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Opponents of capital punishment have often argued various reasons why the death penalty is a cruel punishment, but the Supreme Court of the United States has not agreed. A new approach to abolition advocacy is needed. Since the death penalty has not been determined cruel, I submit a new legal argument based on the unusual nature of capital punishment. Utilizing systems theory, I posit the death penalty is an unusual criminal punishment due to the extraordinary range of persons beyond merely the defendant who are negatively impacted by executions.