浅谈刑事和解

本文拟从刑事和解起源及背景出发,兼比较各个近似概念,阐述刑事和解制度的概念及其对于正在构建和谐社会的中国的意义。     

刑事和解裁量权引论

在某种意义上,可以说刑事和解是刑事裁量权的产物.各个国家的刑事和解尝试都是在法律尚未规定的时候,在实践中慢慢发展起来的.所以它产生的权力基础在于刑事司法领域中的裁量权,如果没有一定的裁量权,刑事和解制度不可能在现有的法律框架下大张旗鼓地产生.由于刑事和解本身属于裁量性制度,尤其在中国的现阶段,是否运用刑事和解、达到什么程度才适用和解等各种情况都由办案机关或具体办案人员来把握,因此,其制度本身,更加贯穿着裁量权,所以涉及刑事和解的裁量权可以简称为"刑事和解裁量权".也可以说,刑事和解裁量权是刑事裁量权在刑事和解中的具体体现和延伸.     

刑事和解实践中的行动者——法社会学视野下的制度变迁与行动者逻辑

真正的制度创造者实际上是社会上的各个利益主体和行动者,历史就是在各个主体的行动中推进的。在各个主体行动的利益考量、相互博弈等过程中显示出制度运作的最为真实的生存逻辑。在刑事和解的制度化进程中,首先,作为行动者之一的司法机关不但在宏观上成为刑事和解在我国制度化的一个重要推动力量,而且在微观上,即在刑事和解的具体个案中,其以国家法律的权威和强制力量作为后盾,从程序上决定着刑事和解程序的启动、进行,以及和解后的处理结果等;其次,如果说,司法机关决定着刑事和解程序的启动、运作方式以及和解成功后的处理方式,那么当事人的博弈和实践便决定着案件的发展方向;最后,在这一系列的事件和宏观进程中,民众以及学者也以自身的方式参与其中,成为刑事和解制度化的重要推动因素和催化剂。     

论审查逮捕阶段刑事和解制度的实现路径

刑事和解制度作为当前构建社会主义和谐社会背景下检察机关贯彻落实宽严相济刑事司法政策的积极举措,在保护被害人权益,使犯罪嫌疑人改过自新、回归社会,化解社会矛盾等方面具有积极意义。理论上,在刑事诉讼的各个阶段都应有刑事和解的实现空间。在审查逮捕阶段引入刑事和解制度既具有理论依据又具有现实意义,但检察机关在审查逮捕阶段的刑事和解中不宜作为和解的主持者,而应以监督者和审查者的身份参与到刑事和解中。同时文章还对审查逮捕阶段适用刑事和解的具体程序予以论述。     

浅议刑事和解程序所处的诉讼阶段

近年来刑事和解被视为我国司法改革的热点之一,理论和实践都对这项制度的建立进行着有益的探索,然而意见不一、做法各异的局面却严重侵蚀着法律的严肃性。目前我们亟需建立统一的刑事和解制度。本文通过对刑事诉讼各个诉讼阶段的特点进行分析,同时对一些地方司法部门的实践进行研究和总结,尝试指出刑事和解所适合的诉讼阶段及相关制度的设置。     

刑事和解制度推行中的问题与对策

2012年新修改的刑事诉讼法明确规定了刑事和解制度,这意味着其由刑事政策上升为法律制度,地位大大提高.刑事和解制度能够得到广泛认同关键在于受害人地位的提高,刑事和解制度不仅使被害人在精神上得到了安慰,而且在经济上获得了补偿.实务操作中,刑事和解制度作为一项新的法律制度还不完善,实践中存在不少问题,偏离了和解制度设立的初衰,我们要正确理解刑事和解的实质,其与花钱买刑有本质的区别.刑事和解制度需要在实践中不断完善,刑事和解制度的完善可以更好地发挥其应有的作用.     

中国藏区刑事和解问题研究——以青海藏区为中心的调查分析

在中国藏区,刑事和解有着悠久的历史传统,是该地区重要的刑事冲突解决机制。近年来,在和谐社会语境下,中国藏区的刑事和解有所复兴,主要表现为诉讼外和解与诉讼内和解两种形式,其基本依据是盛行于当地的和解赔偿习惯法;实践中,和解的主持者主要是在当地具有威望的长老、宗教人士、村长、部落头人的后裔、司法人员等。就整体而言,中国藏区的刑事和解与国家刑事司法之间是冲突的,而且造成这种冲突的原因较为复杂。为了解决这一冲突,实现中国藏区刑事法治的良性发展,应以维护刑法规范的有效性和彻底解决刑事冲突为功能向度,建立包括刑事案件发现制度、诉讼外和解确认制度和诉讼内和解制度为基本内容的刑事和解制度。     

论我国刑事和解制度的完善

在我国新的刑事政策背景下,新刑诉法规定了刑事和解制度.刑事和解作为一种恢复性司法制度具有自愿性、合法性、修复性、目的性等特征.我国刑事和解制度是多种原因促成的,它的产生具有必然性,但我国目前的刑事和解制度还存在一些弊端,刑事和解在我国的发展还需要进一步完善.     

国家应对犯罪策略转变的历史选择——解读刑事和解的探索实践

在我国,以新刑法为标志的现代刑事法律制度初步建立与刑事和解制度的导入处于同步发展的状态。这是中国国情使然。就国家应对犯罪的策略或刑事法律具有的社会治理效能而言,适合中国国情的就是符合刑事法制一般作用规律和基本价值倾向的。刑事和解是宽严相济刑事政策实施的具体保障制度之一。刑事和解制度创新的过程实际就是刑事政策调整、宽严相济刑事政策产生的过程。从规范刑事法学、社会刑事法学与价值刑事法学理应存在融通、协调之处的视角,刑事和解契约观与刑事和解修复观可以水乳交融。我国司法机关积极探索的刑事和解制度,实为解读国家应对犯罪策略转变的一般规律和普遍问题的绝好样本。     

刑事和解:一个理性的选择

本文从刑事和解的现实发展情况入手,首先梳理了刑事和解制度的基本理论支持和刑事政策转向对其的影响。然后整理各种针对刑事和解弊端所提出的质疑。并针对这些质疑给出分析。随后从当事人、司法机关、社会三方分析刑事和解的收益所在。最后结合刑事和解与量刑规范化共同分析,阐述将刑事和解纳入量刑规范化之中的新发展。     

On restorative justice practiced in China

The victim-offender reconciliation (VOR), practiced by the basic public security, procuratorates and courts since the advent of 21^st century, is a new mode different from the mediation or conciliation in the procedure of civil litigation or of that accessory to the public prosecution in criminal proceeding. This mode connects the criminal justice with the mediation or private reconciliation by themselves. Thus, non-official settlement can influence the criminal justice and the decisions of authoritative agencies. It is beneficial to restore the victim’s interests, urge the offender to repent for his wrongdoings, compensate for the victim’s loss and restore the damaged social relationship. The VOR in China is the same in essence as the Western restorative justice, so it could be regarded as a Chinese mode of global restorative justice movement. Though the VOR mechanism works well, it still brings some matter in further consideration: (a) the legitimacy of VOR; (b) the conflict against the basic concept of crime; (c) the effect to the social reality.     

Restorative justice and probation decisions – an analysis of intentional assault cases in China

The restorative justice model focuses on amending offender-victim relations. Compared to Western countries, China's criminal justice policy has relied on both formal and informal mechanisms in dealing with criminal offending. Recently a victim-offender reconciliation (VOR) program has been codified in China to provide incentives for offenders and victims to resolve their disputes through court-guided mediation sessions. Using restorative justice as an interpretive framework and drawing upon 1000 minor intentional assault cases, this study examines the impact of core VOR concepts on probation decisions. Our analysis suggests that offender compensation and attitude were significantly related to the likelihood of receiving probation, and the defense attorney played an unexpected yet impactful role in shaping judges’ probation decisions. Theoretical and policy implications are discussed.     

Victim-offender- reconciliation: The Danger of Cooptation and a Useful Reconsideration of Law Theory

The conceptual orientation and implementation of Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich (TOA), the German version of Victim-Offender-Reconciliation Programs (VORP), in the criminal and juvenile justice system in Germany brings some dangers with it. It can hide the real nature and character of conflict mediation and prevent elements of restorative justice from giving up their shadowy existence. The practice of TOA for the most part is far from corresponding to the basic idea of conflict resolution and reconciliation as well as to established professional reconciliation standards. Conspicuous is the multiple search for niches of acceptance and an adaptation to inappropriate ideas out of the world of juvenile welfare and criminal law. TOA/VORP in its conception is not the ideal way to foster a restorative justice approach but, on a continuum of possible steps for the treatment of conflicts, it is useful. If victim-offender reconciliation has any essential meaning, it is not because of its modest attempts at practical realization but because it makes the essential tasks of law clear to us.     

论宽严相济政策指导下的刑事和解制度

刑事和解制度对构建社会主义和谐社会具有价值功能,与我国宽严相济刑事政策具有相融性。司法实践中,应将其统一于社会主义的法治理念、纳入现行法律的框架轨道、融于宽严相济的刑事政策之中进行探索和试行。刑事和解制度最终应转化为国内立法,以法律明文规定的形式加以规范。     

恢复性司法视野下赔偿与量刑关系的重构

"赔偿从轻"是普遍的司法实践,但其因仅仅关注经济赔偿、脱离刑事和解的大框架而被诟病为"花钱买刑"。以恢复性司法为视角,赔偿与量刑的关系需要重构。赔偿从轻原则应当尽量创造犯罪人与被害人面对面接触的机会、应当以犯罪人充分认识到自己行为的后果为前提、应当以修复犯罪人、被害人与社区之间破损的关系为内涵,司法机关同时应关注对被害人心理健康的修复。     

Where Do They Belong? Giving Victims a Place in the Criminal Justice Process

Historically, victims once had an active participatory role in the criminal justice process and were responsible for not only initiating but also for prosecuting offenders. In common law countries, victims were gradually sidelined and by the 20th century, their role was reduced to that of a witness to a crime against the state. The exclusion of victims from the criminal justice process is a major source of dissatisfaction for victims as many of them want to participate in the criminal justice process. This has fuelled initiatives with restorative justice that claim to more fully include victims than conventional criminal justice. This paper examines three different approaches found in the literature on how to let victims participate. One view is that victims should leave the criminal justice system and that criminal justice should be replaced by alternative, restorative justice schemes in which victims are granted full recognition and respect for their dignity. A second approach is to integrate restorative practices such as victim-offender mediation in the criminal justice process. The third approach is to integrate victim participation and respect (so-called restorative values) in the criminal justice system. These three approaches are discussed and compared with one another. The paper closes with recommendations for criminal law reform.     

理性诘问：刑事和解是否是“以钱买刑”

刑事和解是西方社会比较重要的一项刑事司法制度,但在中国司法实践中展开的刑事和解被许多人批判为＂以钱买刑＂。＂以钱买刑＂作为中国古已有之的概念与刑事和解有本质的区别。给人以＂以钱买刑＂表象的刑事和解,其实质与刑法的基本原则在本质上是统一的,其纠正了传统刑事司法的偏颇,实现了刑事司法的实然正义,是人类的一种理性选择。但为了避免刑事和解在实践中出现异化为＂以钱买刑＂的弊端,必须进行制度化和法律化的构建,从而使刑事和解的应有价值得以保证。     

New wine and old wineskins: Four challenges of restorative justice

Conclusion Dissatisfaction with the current paradigm of criminal justice is leading to new programs with different visions. Some, such as restitution, can be incorporated into existing structures. Others, such as victim-offender reconciliation, point to a possible new approach to criminal justice—restorative justice. In some ways, restorative justice is simply a new application of an ancient vision. It is new wine from old vines. But those of us who celebrate the harvest are advised to remember the parable of new wine and old wineskins. Before we begin to pour—before we insert restorative features into familiar responses to crime—we would do well to reflect on what the consequences may be.This article has considered four likely consequences: the challenge to abolish criminal law, the challenge to rank multiple goals, the challenge to determine harm rationally, and the challenge to structure community-government cooperation. Although each challenge is significant, I have argued that all can be effectively addressed. Indeed, they must be if criminal justice is to become—using Justice John Kelly's image—a means of healing the wounds of crime.B.A., Wheaton College 1971; J.D., DePaul University 1975; LL.M., Georgetown University 1993. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Karen Strong, David Carlson, Thomas Crawford, and Dr. Daniel Dreisbach.     

关于刑事和解的几点看法

刑事犯罪多发背景下,被害人利益难以通过传统刑事诉讼程序获得有效救济,甚至存在被害人在刑事诉讼过程中二次受害的情形,从而引发一系列不稳定社会因素,与建设和谐社会的要求背道而驰。刑事和解正是在被害人保护思想的发展与犯罪人复归思想的兴起基础上产生的以恢复性司法为基本理念以构建和谐社会为终极目标的新型刑事案件解决制度。     

刑事和解的价值构造及中国模式的构建

刑事和解的价值构造是其制度化的根据。以恢复正义为核心 ,刑事和解的价值构造包括公正价值与效率价值。通过新西兰、英国、德国、法国等西方国家刑事和解制度的考察 ,为我国刑事和解制度的构建提供了一个重要的参照。在现行法范围内 ,刑事和解的近期方案的设计可以以刑事自诉与交通肇事案件的调解制度为背景。中期方案的设计可在对微罪不起诉制度完善的基础上全面考虑刑事和解的对象与范围、适用条件、提案与受理、过程调控、法律处置诸方面。刑事契约一体化则构成刑事和解制度构建的远期方案