我国古代刑律中的自首

我国刑事诉讼中的自首,开端于二千多年前的秦律,当时称之为“自出”.据云梦秦简记载,“把其假以亡,得及自出,当为盗不当?自出,以亡论”.就是指携带官家物品逃亡,如果自首,不以盗窃罪处罚,而以逃亡罪论处.还有一个案例是,“隶臣妾系城旦春,去亡,已奔,未论而自出,当笞五十,备系日”.指被判处四年城旦刑的隶臣妾,在服刑期间逃亡后又自首,应当笞五十,补足残余刑期.这应是减轻后的惩罚.如果逃亡后是经官府或他人抓获,刑罚当会加重.     

对矿产资源犯罪刑事立法完善的思考

矿产资源犯罪屡禁不止,危害严重,应加大刑法打击力度,完善现有刑罚。放宽非法采矿罪和破坏性采矿罪的入罪条件,简化矿产资源破坏价值认定程序,加重刑罚,增设资格刑的适用。     

释唐律“出入得古今之平”

“出入得古今之平”是对唐律规定的刑罚制度和刑罚适用所作的精辟且符合实际的评价 ,即刑制平缓 ,轻重适中。就法定刑而言 ,采用的是一罪一刑的方法 ;死刑仅有绞、斩二等 ;对加刑作了严格限制 ;对数罪择其重者论 ;对老幼残疾有相应的减免刑的规定。体现了唐统治者“寓教于刑”和“仁义”治天下的立法指导思想。     

刑罚是什么?—一种报应论的解读

报应论虽然形态各异 ,理念有别 ,①但是 ,万变不离其宗 ,报应论之所以成其为报应论 ,就在于其主张刑罚是对犯罪的一种回报 ,犯罪是刑罚的先因 ,刑罚是犯罪的后果 ,刑与罪之间是一种前因与后果的引起与被引起的因果关系。基于对这种因果关系的认识 ,报应论对刑罚形成了不同于与之相对立的功利论的规诫。一、刑罚的界定在我们对报应论关于刑罚的规诫予以归纳与分析之前 ,不妨先回眸一下报应论者们对刑罚的界定。格老秀斯将刑罚界定为 ,“因为所为的一种恶而承受的一种恶之施加。”② 苯认为这一界定包含四层含义 :“首先 ,格老秀斯想将刑罚视…     

罪刑法定原则、罪刑相均衡原则与法条竞合之特别关系

“互斥论”存有弊端,应当坚持“竞合论”.除刑法条文明确规定或者刑法文本表明,特别法并非是具有特别立法目的的法,特别法与普通法系属“平权条款”,适用特别法或者普通法均不违反罪刑法定原则.“特别法优于普通法”就是“全部法优于一部法”,其内在根据是罪刑相均衡原则.特别法与普通法竞合,适用普通法并不意味着特别法所规定犯罪之行为类型遭到废弃,主张“罪量”条件高低交错时减轻构成的普通法不能补充适用的是“互斥论”的观点.加重构成的特别法配置刑罚偏轻,依据罪刑相均衡之全面评价原则应当适用处罚较重的普通法,其与想象竞合的“择一重罪”并不相同,混淆想象竞合与法条竞合的“大竞合论”滥用了全面评价原则.定罪层面,特别法是优先适用的法;量刑层面,被排除适用的轻的普通法的法定最低刑及其特定类型的附加刑可以通过“结合刑”的方式影响刑罚裁量.     

未成年人犯罪刑罚价值取向探索

如何有效防治未成年人犯罪历来是个难题,而确立刑罚价值取向则是解决这个问题的关键。近代以来的报应刑论与功利刑论是刑罚价值理论的两大基石,将其调和而成的综合刑论是当代主流,而刑罚的谦抑性决定了刑罚轻缓化发展的方向。但实践中,刑罚价值取向受各国国情所影响。未成年犯罪人的特殊性使得国际社会对其刑罚价值取向采取了有别于成年犯罪人的做法:大大弱化了刑罚的报应观念,以教育刑论为基本理念,多用轻缓的刑罚或非刑罚方法。从刑罚的适用、程序和执行全过程看,我国的法律规定和司法实践对未成年犯罪人的刑罚价值取向与国际相一致,实行教育、感化、挽救的方针,坚持教育为主、惩罚为辅的原则。不过,独立、完整、科学、成体系的未成年人犯罪刑罚制度还未真正建立起来,大大制约了未成年人犯罪审判的发展。     

论扰乱公共秩序罪的基本问题

扰乱公共秩序罪是刑法分则第六章妨害社会管理秩序罪第一节一类犯罪的总称。本类犯罪侵犯的客体为社会公共秩序；客观方面表现为破坏国家对社会的正常管理活动，扰乱社会秩序，情节严重的行为，大多由作为构成，少数也可由不作为构成，有的属行为犯，有的属结果犯，有的属情节犯，有的属聚众犯；主体既可为自然人，也可为单位；主观上为故意，少数也可由过失构成。本类罪总体上适用较轻的刑罚，且大多以“情节严重”为定罪量刑标准，对“聚众”犯罪，应区分首要分子与积极参加者，适用轻重不同的法定刑，对相当部分犯罪可以适用剥夺政治权利的资格刑。     

量刑失衡及其矫正

<正> 适用刑罚是一种极为严肃、后果极为严重的社会活动。因此,适用刑罚首先必须体现出刑罚规定的目的性,即要通过对所裁量之刑罚的执行,完成刑罚所负之一般预防和特殊预防的使命;其次,必须体现出刑罚的公正性,即所裁量之刑罚的严厉程度,要与犯罪的严重程度相互适应与平衡;并无畸轻畸重之嫌。以此为参照系,目前在司法实践中,罪与刑不相适应、失却平衡的事例屡有所见。或基于主观裁判导致失衡,或基于     

纯粹功利刑论之提倡

刑罚论在逻辑上先于犯罪论,刑罚正当性理论为反思犯罪论问题确立了基点。纯粹功利刑论主张完全以功利主义原则来说明刑罚的正当性,拒绝将报应主义作为刑罚正当性的伦理基础。纯粹功利刑论并不排除对公众的朴素报应情感的关注,但只是将它作为实现功利目标的手段来对待的。功利刑论完全可以对来自对立理论的诘难作出合理的回应,无需援引任何报应原则。功利刑论主张对刑罚的社会功效进行整体评价,因此,它并不与罪刑法定、罪刑均衡原则及人权保障相冲突。纯粹功利刑论的提倡有助于消解关于犯罪预防的误区,对犯罪论问题的思考具有深刻的启示意义,为刑法从“结果中心”转向“行为中心”提供了根据。     

试论我国刑法增设终身监禁之必要——由赖昌星案所想到的

中国现行的刑罚体系中没有设立终身监禁之刑罚,因而无期徒刑与死刑之间缺乏过渡刑,而其可以适用死刑的个罪过多。应该把非严重暴力性质的犯罪的个罪中不再设立死刑,而代之以终身监禁,以减少死刑的适用,保障人权和适应国际司法协作的需要。     

上下游犯罪“量刑倒挂”困境与“法益恢复”方案——从认罪认罚从宽制度的视角展开

无论是从法哲学视域的公正视角还是司法实践的立场,基于同一笔犯罪事实的前提,“下游犯罪量刑不高于上游犯罪”原则已被普遍承认。然而,由于上游犯罪来源的多样性与下游犯罪的相对单一性特点,司法裁判中上下游犯罪“量刑倒挂”现象时有发生。为了应对这一不合理现象,近年来司法机关在认罪认罚从宽制度的“背书”下,着力探索了一系列方法,主要包括:将自首、坦白情节“可以减轻处罚”的实质条件模糊化并人为主导“减轻处罚”结果,技术化地创设“下游犯罪量刑轻于上游犯罪的主犯但重于从犯”规则,对下游犯罪大量适用非监禁刑。然而,上述方案与认罪认罚从宽制度并无实质关联。事实上,在认罪认罚从宽制度背景下,下游犯罪行为人退赃退赔的“赎罪”抑或“法益恢复”行为可以作为量刑实质从宽的理论根据。具体而言,下游犯罪行为人在上游犯罪案发前的“法益恢复”情形,可以考虑对其“相对不起诉”,在上游犯罪案发后的“法益恢复”情形,可以考虑对其“定罪免刑”。     

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。     

身份犯及其相关概念辨析

身份犯是指刑法规定的以行为人所具有的特定身份作为犯罪构成要件或量刑情节的犯罪。身份犯不同于亲手犯和不作为犯,身份犯是以犯罪主体是否具有特定身份为标准对犯罪进行分类的结果,亲手犯是根据实行行为是否可以和主体相分离而对犯罪所作的一种分类,不作为犯则是以实行行为的表现形式为标准划分的一类犯罪,三者既有区别,又有联系。     

The impact of racial slurs and racism on the perceptions and punishment of violent crime

When a crime is committed by an individual of one race against an individual of another race, there is the possibility that the crime is a hate crime. Legislation often mandates harsher penalties for perpetrators convicted of crimes determined to be hate crimes, yet this determination is difficult to make. This study used vignettes of violent crimes to examine how the races of the perpetrators and victims, the severity of the assault, and the use of racial slurs by the perpetrators would affect perceptions of the crimes as "hate crimes," victim blaming, and sentencing recommendations. Results showed that each of these factors affected participants' perceptions and punishments of violent crime. Participants' levels of racism were an additional factor. These results contribute to the understanding of how crimes in which the perpetrator's and victim's races differ are perceived.     

老年人犯罪从宽处罚机制研究

老年人犯罪是指60岁以上的老年人所实施犯罪行为的总称。老年人犯罪呈现以下特点：犯罪率低，犯罪年龄集中，文化程度低，男性居多，犯罪地域相对集中，累犯、前科少，共同犯罪较多，犯罪客体比较集中，诉前羁押率低，判处刑罚较轻。老年人犯罪从宽处罚，是周全弱势群体刑法保护的需要，是适应老年人刑事责任能力的需要，也是契合刑法谦抑性、人道性以及刑罚经济性、刑罚目的的需要．并且，中国立法史上历来存在“矜老”传统，而国外相关立法也值得借鉴。建议在实体法上，规定封老年犯罪人原则上从宽处罚，限制死刑、无期徒刑的适用，限制有期徒刑的最高期限，明确不构成累犯，放宽缓刑、减刑、假释的适用条件；在程序法上，规定对老年犯罪人慎捕慎诉，规定讯问审判时亲属在场权，完善指定辩护权，对刑罚执行予以特别关照。     

张家山汉简《二年律令》所见刑罚原则

张家山汉简《二年律令》是西汉初年的法律辑录 ,这批简文对刑事责任年龄、故意与过失、数罪的处罚等都有较细密的规定。其它刑罚原则有诬告反坐原则、证言不实反坐原则、连坐原则、上诉不实加刑原则等。汉律在定罪量刑时 ,充分考虑皇权和尊长的地位 ,对于触犯皇权和尊长都要从重处罚。此外 ,对于触犯人伦、群盗犯罪以及官吏犯罪也予以重惩 ,而对于自首和犯罪后自动减轻犯罪后果等则采取从轻处罚的原则。汉初的刑罚原则与秦律所载刑罚原则基本相同 ,西汉武帝以后在具体的操作细节和适用标准方面有所改变。     

再论牵连犯

牵连犯是指行为人出于一个最终的犯罪目的实施了数个犯罪行为(目的行为、方法行为或结果行为 )而分别触犯不同罪名的犯罪形态。牵连犯是一种客观存在的犯罪形态,因此,对其宜存不宜废。判断牵连关系,应坚持主客观相统一原则,并由法官结合具体案情判定。对牵连犯的处罚,应坚持从一重重处断原则。     

CRIMINALS' AND NONCRIMINALS' PERCEPTIONS OF URBAN CRIME

This paper offers an exploration of criminals’ and non-criminals’ perceptions of crime in an urban milieu. Specifically. we examine perceptions of the incidence of crime within the city, of variations in police pratection. and of variations in the likely difficulty of committing crimes in different parts of the city. The analysis examines the distinctiveness of; and interrelationships among, these variables controlling for the racial status and criminal-non-criminal status of the respandents. Additionally. perceptions of the difficulty of committing crimes m different parts of the city are related to generalized perceptions of the city for our racial subgroups of criminals. The results provide evidence on the distinctiveness of criminals in such terms, on some factors influencing strategic criminal decision-making, and on ways m which criminal behavior shares common elements with other social behavior.     

A Review of Sex Disparities in the “Key Players” of the Capital Punishment Process: From Defendants to Jurors

Extralegal disparities between defendants sentenced to the death penalty and those who receive life without parole disturb even the most resolute advocates of capital punishment. Extensive bodies of research document extralegal factors influencing death penalty outcomes. Although studies largely focus on race and ethnicity, a growing body of research considers the impact of sex on the capital sentencing process. This paper reviews the extant research on the impact of the sex of the victim, defendant, attorney, juror, and judge on capital case outcomes. Women’s scarcity on death row and a previously documented “female victim effect” condemning male defendants who kill female victims, particularly for those committing crimes of sexual degradation, suggests that death row policies and their implementation chivalrously protect female defendants and victims. Conversely, a limited amount of research documents a “domestic discount,” or greater leniency for death-eligible crimes commonly victimizing women than for those victimizing acquaintances or strangers. Although opinion polls document greater support for the death penalty among men than women, juror sex inconsistently predicts sentencing outcomes in the literature. Minimal research on judge and attorney sex finds female judges more liberal in death penalty sentencing than male judges and inconclusive relationships between attorney sex and adjudication. Findings in the research on sex and death penalty outcomes support the existence of a “sex effect” and inform recommendations for future research to expand the body of literature.     

The concept of desert and its influence on simulated decision makers' sentencing decisions

The concept of desert (the principle that punishment should be made proportional to the severity of the crime committed) is introduced against its philosophical and legal background. Discussion focuses on the role of desert in contemporary sentencing reform proposals and the relationship between desert and other goals of legal punishment. Previous empirical research has addressed a between-offense conception of desert and suggests proportionality does control individuals' responses to crimes differing in severity. Our research focuses on the operation of desert within offenses (or the balance of harm done and punishment deserved for the individual offender) within the context of crimes of increasing severity. Six experimental simulations varied the relativity of victim/offender suffering prior to sentencing. Results show that for a minor crime punishment is an inverse monotonic function of offender suffering, but for crimes of moderate and high severity only excessive offender suffering successfully mitigated punishment. The source of offender suffering made no difference, supporting earlier work by Kalven and Zeisel; suffering exerted no effect on conviction decisions. Overall results are viewed as demonstrating the influence of both within-and between-offense conceptions of desert and the importance of the symbolic and moral blame components of legal punishment.Work on this research was supported by a Russell Sage Foundation Law and Social Science Residency Fellowship awarded to the author. This paper is based in part on a paper delivered at the American Psychology-Law Society meetings, Chicago (1975). The author would like to thank Mary Kristine Utne, V. Lee Hamilton, and an anonymous reviewer for their many helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.