论我国非刑罚处罚的适用范围

在刑事法领域 ,非刑罚处罚与刑罚处罚是相对的概念 ,指对免除刑罚处罚的犯罪人 ,给予刑罚以外的实体上的处罚 ,这种处罚方法称为非刑罚处罚方法。明确非刑罚处罚的适用范围能够使非刑罚理论更完整并能有效指导实践。一、适用主体非刑罚处罚的适用主体是人民法院。人民法院在审理刑事案件过程中 ,依据犯罪事实和法律规定 ,对犯罪情节轻微 ,不需要判处刑罚并免予刑事处罚的犯罪人予以非刑罚处罚。人民检察院是否也有适用非刑罚处罚的权力 ,是确定主体范围首先应澄清的问题。人民检察院实施《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》规则第 2 5 2条规定 :“…     

非刑罚处罚方法的现实化路径

在非刑罚处罚方法的运用上,应建构独立的经济犯罪非刑罚处罚体系,特别是在检察环节对经济犯罪适用相对不起诉并附加非刑罚处罚应具有可操作性。在我国刑法对不具有刑事责任能力的精神病犯罪人实施看管以及政府强制治疗制度的基础上,有必要完善对间歇性精神病犯罪人和限制刑事责任能力精神病犯罪人的非刑罚处罚机制。经济社会多元化发展的趋势要求针对一般犯罪的非刑罚处罚形成多层次、多元化的方法体系。     

中国刑法中未成年人犯罪处罚措施的完善——基于国际人权法视角的考察

<公民权利和政治权利国际公约>等一系列国际人权法针对未成年人犯罪处罚措施作出了特殊规定.中国目前有必要以这些规定为参照,完善刑法中未成年人犯罪的处罚措施.就刑罚措施而言,需要明确限制无期徒刑的适用,宣示监禁刑的慎重性适用;而对非刑罚处罚措施,则需要以专条、专节的形式,改造现有方法,增设新的种类,建立形式多样、轻重有序、逐级递进的非刑罚处罚方法体系,强化非刑罚处罚方法在未成年人犯罪中的适用.     

中国非刑罚化的内涵解读

本文是关于非刑罚化内涵的探讨,非刑罚化的内涵是研究非刑罚化问题的基础,正确认识非刑罚化的内涵是刑法发展的要求,也是非刑罚化理论应用于实践的前提。     

非刑罚化的界限研究

刑罚的流弊引发了西方国家的非刑罚化运动。对于西方国家的非刑罚化运动及其对我国的借鉴意义,国内学者认识不一。目前在我国,非犯罪化是广义的＂非刑罚化＂的内容之一,狭义的＂非刑罚化＂应当包括免予刑事处罚单纯宣告有罪、免予刑事处罚予以非刑罚处罚、对犯罪独立适用的保安处分等内容,对其中存在的问题,我们应当保持清醒的认识。     

非刑罚处罚适用于什么人？未成年人犯罪适用非刑罚处罚措施的问题研究

一、未成年人犯罪适用非刑罚处罚措施的概念按照刑事责任的理论来分析,对犯罪人采用非刑罚的处罚方法,实际上是免除了其应负的刑事责任。因而就法律性质的表象来说,非刑罚的处罚方法同刑罚有着本质的区别,但就两者所体现的社会价值来看,又有相同之处,它们都是社会针对犯罪行为所采取的处分措施。非刑罚的处罚方法是针对情节轻微免予刑事处分以及根据其犯罪行为     

和谐社会与刑法非刑罚化体系

社会主义和谐社会是我国刑法的价值追求,构建非刑罚化价值体系是实现和谐社会的需要。和谐社会视野下的非刑罚化体系建设,需要从以下三方面入手:一是对于犯罪情节轻微、不需要判处刑罚或免予刑罚处罚的犯罪人予以有罪宣告,作为其承担刑事责任的方式;二是对部分犯罪人适用刑罚以外的处罚方法;三是建立保安处分制度。     

相对不起诉非刑罚责任衔接问题探析

相对不起诉非刑罚责任衔接的着眼点是轻罪社会治理问题，启动和裁量主体是检察机关，本质上是对被不起诉人的教育惩戒。司法实践中，相对不起诉非刑罚处罚的种类、幅度裁量尚缺乏法律法规依据，给予被不起诉人何种非刑罚处罚的决定主体不明确，不起诉公开宣告对行为人和社会公众行为价值引导不够，检察机关对行政主管机关给予行政处罚的跟进监督和分析研究不足，这些问题影响了相对不起诉的价值功能。可从完善相对不起诉非刑罚责任衔接立法规定、优化适用程序、健全制度机制三个维度，推进相对不起诉非刑罚处罚的规范化适用。     

浅析环境犯罪非刑罚处罚的立法完善

面对着越来越严重的环境问题,各国都纷纷的采用刑罚手段来惩治环境犯罪。但实践中收到的实际效果甚微,为此各国相继采取非刑罚的措施,以更好地实现环境保护与可持续发展的长远目标。本文会从非刑罚处罚对惩治环境犯罪的必要性入手,分析当前立法中这种处罚存在的不足,进而提出完善环境犯罪非刑罚处罚的立法措施。     

企业环境犯罪的刑罚辅助措施

企业环境犯罪刑罚辅助措施符合刑罚恢复性司法理念的要求,有助于弥补刑罚处罚单一性之不足,从而更好地预防和控制企业环境犯罪。本文建议从贯彻事前预防原则、事后区别对待原则;重点实施相关重要制度;多样化及附加刑化等方面对我国企业环境犯罪刑罚辅助措施进行完善。     

对侵犯著作权罪立法的几点思考

实体法上,侵犯著作权罪的构成要件中“以营利为目的”不必要,以行为人侵犯著作权的违法所得数额作为定罪量刑的主要标准不利于对侵犯著作权犯罪的有效打击。法定刑的设定不够合理。程序法上侵犯著作权罪是否属于亲告罪类型的自诉案件不太明确,文章认为设定成刑法上的亲告罪还不如设定成为刑诉法第170条(三)所规定的可予自诉的案件。     

Gran Torino

Given the current constellation of fiscal, moral, and logistical problems facing its corrections industry, the USA is on the cusp of a widespread penal reform movement. For the past 200-plus years, each US penal reform that intended to diminish penal practices resulted in widening the reach and deepening the roots of the nation’s punishment system. The question asked here is: is the restorative justice movement in the USA headed the way of past benevolent penal reforms? A new type of social movement: the regressive social movement model is presented. Three past benevolent penal reforms – the penitentiary, the adult reformatory movement, and parole are dissected in order to formulate a regressive reform profile and tested against the restorative justice movement. Field research finds that a repeat performance of regressive reform is in progress. In each of the eight restorative justice movement, variables demonstrate characteristics evident in past benevolent penal campaigns, resulting in a redirection of the campaign’s course.     

恢复性司法“中国化”之制度抗衡问题研究

就被害人、犯罪人利益保护而言,无论是附带民事诉讼制度、还是刑事被害人补偿制度抑或是刑事和解制度、非刑罚处罚方法,它们都远不如恢复性司法那么周详;就提高诉讼效率而言,刑事简易程序功不可没,但已无拓展的空间,亟须恢复性司法的加盟。     

PENALITY AND THE PENAL STATE

The sociology of punishment has developed a rich understanding of the social and historical forces that have transformed American penality during the last 40 years. But whereas these social forces are not unique to the United States, their penal impact there has been disproportionately large, relative to comparable nations. To address this issue, I suggest that future research should attend more closely to the structure and operation of the penal state. I begin by distinguishing penality (the penal field) from the penal state (the governing institutions that direct and control the penal field). I then present a preliminary conceptualization of “the penal state” and discuss the relationship between the penal state and the American state more generally.     

The development of the penal bond with conditional defeasance

The development of the penal bond with endorsed conditional defeasance presents a problem because the earliest monetary penalties in English contracts took the form of straight-forward penalty clauses. It is hard to see how the convoluted penal bond developed from such penalty clauses. This article traces the development of the penal bond from debt recognizances defeasible by the performance of conditions stated in a separate document. The logic of the defeasible recognizance was carried over to other arrangements including the penal bond with endorsed conditional defeasance.     

Beyond Punishment: The Penal State's Interventionist,Covert, and Negligent Modalities of Control

This article investigates the involvement of the penal state in the lives of criminalized people as a controlling force that takes multiple forms. We offer the concept of modalities of penal control and identify three such modalities in addition to expressive punishment: interventionist penal control is accomplished in extralegal ways; covert penal control is hidden from public view; and negligent penal control is characterized by the absence of action by state actors. This article illustrates empirical cases of each modality, using data from three distinct projects based in Chicago, southern Wisconsin, and nationwide. The data include observations of post‐prison groups and homes, interviews with criminalized people and nongovernmental organizational (NGO) staff, statutes, and regulations. This expanded understanding of penal state involvement extends beyond the understanding that characterizes discussions of mass incarceration and highlights the need for comprehensive reform.     

The Rise of a More Punitive State: On the Attenuation of Norwegian Penal Exceptionalism in an Era of Welfare State Transformation

While sociologists of punishment have been interested in the notion of Nordic penal exceptionalism, rapid changes are taking place in the penal policies of one of the members of the Nordic zone. Norway’s penal state is growing increasingly punitive, and penal exceptionalism appears to be on the wane, evidenced by a growing incarceration rate, increasingly punitive sentiments in the population, moral panics over street crime, raised sentencing levels, the forcible detention and extradition of asylum seekers, punitive drug policies, and the creation of segregated correctional facilities for stigmatized foreign offenders. Penal transformation should be understood as the outcome of symbolic contestation between politicians eager to present themselves as “tough on crime,” increasing differentiation of the social structure that has led to the declining fortunes of rehabilitationism, and a nascent neoliberalization of the welfare state. As a consequence, Europe’s penal landscape may be growing more homogeneous.     

Punishment's Legal Templates: A Theory of Formal Penal Change

The well‐known gap between law on the books and law in action often casts doubt on the significance of changes to law on the books. For example, the rise and fall of penal technologies have long been considered significant indicators of penal change in socio‐historical analyses of punishment. Recent research, however, has challenged the significance of apparently large‐scale penal change of this kind. This article clarifies the significance of penal technologies' rise and fall by offering an alternative account of formal penal change, introducing the analytical concept of “legal templates,” structural models of legal activity (e.g., punishment) available for authorization and replication across multiple jurisdictions. Analyzing punishment's templates explains how new penal technologies can be important harbingers of change, even when they fail to revolutionize penal practice and are not caused by a widespread ideological shift. This article locates the significance of punishment's legal templates in their constitutive power—their ability, over the long term, to shape cognitive‐cultural expectations about what punishment is or should be. This power appears only when the template is widely adopted by a plurality of jurisdictions, thereby becoming institutionalized. Ultimately, these institutionalized templates define the scope of future punishment.     

American penology: Words, deeds, and consequences

A primary argument underlying this paper is that it is possible to capture a particular theory or conceptual rationale in the development of a penal program strategy. Further, it is possible to implement the program in a way that corresponds to both the program strategy and theory and then to evaluate the program to determine the adequacy of both the program strategy and the theory upon which it is based. The history of U.S. penal reform does not illustrate this potential, however. Rather, U.S. penal reforms have been implemented without evaluation and have resulted in a pattern of unintended consequences, most notably increased social control and an associated undermining of democratic rights and individual freedoms, without any corresponding decline in crime. These trends and outcomes are documented in order to draw penal program and evaluation policy implications for the U.S. and their ever expanding penal complex and the Czech Republic in their ongoing efforts to implement a penal system consistent with their newly emerging democratic society. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

缓刑执行的技术分析

缓刑是附条件不执行原判刑罚的一种刑罚制度，就其自身的制度设计而言已经比较完善。但其存在于刑罚制度的综合体系中，不可避免地要与其他刑罚制度发生关系，其中也出现了一些衔接不畅的情况。如缓刑考验期内如何适用减刑和自首、被宣告缓刑的犯罪分子同时剥夺政治权利的刑期计算问题等等。研究和解决这些问题有助于刑罚制度的整体完善。