宽严相济视野下相对不起诉制度的反思与改造

宽严相济刑事政策与不起诉自由裁量权的理论基础一起诉便宜主义,在价值追求上契合,均体现了刑罚谦抑及经济等理念。我国不起诉自由裁量权的产生主要是出于政治因素,在制度设计上未自动运用起诉便宜原则,在现代刑罚理论(刑罚谦抑、刑罚经济等)支撑上先天不足。起诉便宜主义的适用范围趋于狭窄,从而导致相对不起诉制度本身应体现宽严相济要求的刑罚理念无法实现。贯彻宽严相济刑事政策,必须以科学的态度、理性的思维,使起诉便宜主义的先进性与合理性,在我国相对不起诉制度得到最大限度体现。     

刑罚个别化问题再研究

刑罚个别化是一种与保安处分相区别,以刑罚一般化为前提,以犯罪人的人身危险性为核心的刑罚理念,其理论根基在于“报应与刑罚个别化相统一”的刑罚目的说,我国法律应在统一说的基础上对其实事求是的进行评价。     

刑罚轻缓化的正当根据及其实现

刑罚的轻缓化标志着人类社会的文明进步、经济的发展和人的价值的实现,而在我国,囿于某些传统和现实原因,还存在着泛刑化、重刑主义、刑罚万能的思想,这已不能适应现代文明社会发展的要求,违背了基本的刑罚价值理念。在世界范围内非犯罪化、非刑罚化的趋同刑事政策背景下,刑罚轻缓化的提倡理应成为我国刑法理论和司法实践中予以关注的重要问题。笔者在此文中对刑罚轻缓化产生和推行的正当化根据进行阐释,探讨当前贯彻实现的路径,以达确立科学刑罚观念,推进我国刑罚适用的宽和与轻缓之目的。     

刑罚价值理论比较研究

刑罚价值观念是指导刑事法治建设的灵魂。在对中外刑罚价值理论进行考察的基础上 ,我们试图提出一种有利于我国刑事法治建设健康发展的刑罚价值理念。我们认为 :刑罚的价值应仅指正价值 ,不包括所谓的负价值。当代中国刑罚价值的内涵应是一个双层的系统结构 :第一层次为手段性价值 ,具体包括 (犯罪 )报应价值和 (犯罪 )预防价值 ;第二层次为目的性价值 ,具体包括 (维护 )秩序价值、(保障 )自由价值和 (实现 )正义价值 ;目的性价值制约手段性价值。     

间接一般预防是刑罚的根本目的

刑罚的目的是刑罚论的核心问题.在评析传统理论的基础上,提出新的刑罚目的论--"统一说",即"坚持一个中心兼顾两个基本点".刑罚的目的应坚持以间接一般预防为中心,兼顾报应与特殊预防的要求,在间接一般预防的基础上实现报应与特殊预防的有机统一."统一说"为我国刑事政策的调整提供了理论依据.进一步论证了我国刑事政策调整的战略步骤.     

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。     

刑法中的人道问题

近代以来,随着人道主义呼声的高涨,犯罪人的处遇措施应该得到改良、死刑应当废止的主张日渐扩大了影响面。但是人道能否限制刑罚？从国内的主流观点——人道是刑罚的价值要素去推论,人道可以对刑罚构成一种根据性的限制,与人道不符,刑罚就应该废止。但是通过价值哲学、刑罚历史、刑罚根基的考察,人道不是刑罚的价值要素。因此,人道对刑罚的限制不是根据性的,而是条件性的,只有当人道理念较比刑罚理念占优势时,人道才限制刑罚。至此,中国当前的刑事政策应是适度改良监狱设施,坚持保留死刑立场上的严格限制死刑。     

刑罚目的的人性反思

传统刑罚理论认为刑罚目的在于报应或预防,但是刑罚是人类理性的产物,是人基于人性设置的规则,因此从本质上看,刑罚目的应当是保障基本人权,以适应人性的基本要求。刑罚目的的实现既需要刑罚设置适度,在刑罚适用与执行中注重人的主体性地位,也需要提升法官的职业素养,保障其在实施裁判行为时尊重人的尊严与价值,还需要引导公众逐步更新刑罚价值理念,培育人们对刑罚改革理性认同的社会基础。     

扩张非监禁刑视野下的假释政策宽缓化初探

促进刑罚政策由重刑化向轻刑化转变,推动假释政策由严格化向宽缓化让渡,这是我国全面深化司法体制工作机制改革面临的一个刑罚理论和刑罚实践问题.其中,扩张非监禁刑与假释政策宽缓化具有天然的联系,直接关系到假释目的调整和假释政策优化,其理论基础是要重塑综合刑理念,其实现路径是要对假释政策宽缓化进行制度设置方面的法律重构.     

刑事政策与刑罚结构分析

刑事政策虽然概念各不相同 ,但防卫犯罪始终是刑事政策的核心目标。刑事政策的研究是“历时性”的 ,因为它要探讨刑事政策在不同时期的发展变化。刑事政策对刑罚结构的调整有着重要的意义 ,刑事政策的变化直接影响着刑罚结构的变化 ,不同时期的刑事政策会有不同的刑罚结构。实现刑罚疏缓是历史发展的必然趋势。     

我国民法中惩罚性赔偿制度新探

惩罚性赔偿的思想不仅仅只存在于普通法系之中,它是一种世界性意义的赔偿规则(罚则)。一般民事责任与惩罚性赔偿责任的社会功能相差甚远,且适用范围不一。我国历来民事立法中就有惩罚性赔偿的法律文化传统,当前在我国民事立法中的几个惩罚性赔偿条文不仅不能为当前市场诚信程度不高的信用环境起到充分的弥补作用,而且它们本身设计上也不尽合理。我们应当秉持开放的眼光,对惩罚性赔偿制度进行结构上的重构,这也是我国法学理论和司法实践亟待解决的问题。     

Science cannot fix this: the limitations of evidence-based practice

The use of evidence-based practice as a guide for correctional investment is widely lauded as a positive shift away from punitive approaches to criminal justice. The value-neutral language of science, however, supplants a more fundamental and necessary dialog about core principles of our justice system. We raise concern that the discourse of evidence-based practice serves to avoid accountability for the dominant correctional regime which remains overwhelmingly invested in the imposition of punishment. Furthermore, evidence-based practice privileges academic expertise and de-legitimizes the knowledge base within affected communities stifling grassroots innovation and creativity.     

Maneuvering with Crime. An Empirical Reconstruction of “Populist” Stances on Youth Crime in German Parliamentary Debates

Recent years have seen a wide discussion of populism in penal policy, which is internationally regarded as a strong drive for establishing punitive tendencies. Generally, “penal populism” is characterized by an extensive consensus across the most influential political parties, a punitive orientation, and the dismissal of scientific or professional expertise. Recent penal policy therefore appears to be a relatively unified practice strongly oriented toward punitive measures that primarily address the public and its perceived need for protection. Because analyses of Anglophone countries are predominant in this discussion, we contrast them with a reconstruction of debates on youth crime in German parliaments from 1970 to 2012. They exhibit a wide variety of populist articulations. Although they imply a strong punitive bias, they also encompass a very heterogeneous rhetoric of penal policy. In conclusion, we argue that penal populism can (and should) be described as a tactical practice, i.e., as political maneuvering employed to negotiate the prospects of punitive and other styles of politics.     

Should We Aim for a Unified and Coherent Theory of Punishment?

Thom Brooks criticizes utilitarian and retributive theories of punishment but argues that utilitarian and retributive goals can be incorporated into a coherent and unified theory of punitive restoration, according to which punishment is a means of reintegrating criminals into society and restoring rights. I point to some difficulties with Brooks’ criticisms of retributive and utilitarian theories, and argue that his theory of punitive restoration is not unified or coherent. I argue further that a theory attempting to capture the complex set of rules and behaviors that constitute the practice of legal punishment cannot persuasively be unified and coherent: legitimate features of the practice advance goals and promote values that in some cases conflict.     

惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼研究

通过个别诉讼行使惩罚性赔偿请求权,难以对经营者形成足够的威慑力,消费者协会、检察机关提起惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼的必要性客观存在。即使将消费者协会提起公益诉讼的"公益性职责"与检察机关提起公益诉讼的"职权"勉强解释为立法者赋予消费者协会、检察机关以形式性惩罚性赔偿请求权,以该请求权为基础的惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼也只是受害消费者享有的惩罚性赔偿请求权的集中行使方式。除非立法机关为消费者协会、检察机关另行创设实质性惩罚性赔偿请求权,惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼注定与特定受害消费者存在密切联系,无法从根本上破解惩罚性赔偿金的计算及其发放难题。因而,惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼对行政处罚与刑事罚金仅构成补充,在完善惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼制度的同时,应当强化惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼与其他消费者权益保护手段之间的协作机制。     

论税法的惩罚性规则

传统税法理论认为,经济性和规制性是税法的本质特征,惩罚性就其本身而言并非税收的主旨。但作为现代税法理论发展过程中逐渐显现出来的新要素,税法的惩罚性越来越受到社会各界的重视。本文旨在对税法惩罚性规则之内涵和产生机理进行分析,以期从税收和税法理论的高度探讨新时代的税法问题。     

Toward the development of punishment equivalencies: Male and female inmates rate the severity of alternative sanctions compared to prison

According to a survey of 415 male and female inmates serving brief prison terms for nonviolent offenses, inmates perceive several alternative sanctions as significantly more punitive than imprisonment. Women rate alternatives as less punitive than do men, and are more amenable to participating in them. We find that prison and probation do not necessarily define the high and low extremes along a continuum of sanction severity, and we show for the first time how female inmates rank the punitiveness of criminal sanctions. Findings bear on the eventual development of meaningful punishment equivalencies and a valid continuum of criminal sanctions while raising doubts about the value of brief prison terms as a specific deterrent to crime. Our results also support consideration of gender differences in punishment and deterrence. We critique the problems associated with research on offenders' perceptions of the severity of sanctions, and discuss implications for deterrence theory and corrections policy.     

PUNITIVE DAMAGES,CHINESE TORT LAW,AND THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE

In a country such as China, with abundant consumer products and the inevitability of product defects, claims for punitive damages are sure to arise under Article 47 of the new Chinese Tort Law. Article 47 provides that “(w)hereany producer or seller knowingly produces or sells defective products, causing death or serious damage to the health of others, the injured party may request appropriate punitive damages.” As Chinese jurists and scholars interpret Article 47, they may wish to consider whether lessons can be drawn from the American experience. During the past two decades, few areas of American law have changed more radically than the law on punitive damages. While there were once few restraints on the ability of a judge or jury to impose punitive damages in a case involving egregious conduct, today there are a host of limitations embodied in American state and federal law. In many American states, statutes or judicial decisions restrict the ability of a court to award punitive damages by narrowly defining the types of conduct that will justify a punitive award, raising the standard of proof, capping the amount of punitive damages, requiring a portion of a punitive award to be forfeited to the state, or limiting vicarious liability for punitive damages. In addition, under federal constitutional law, the principle of due process limits the imposition of punitive damages by scrutinizing the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages and prohibiting an award to be based on harm to persons other than the plaintiff. An examination of these developments from a comparative law perspective may prove useful to the implementation of Article 47.     

论惩罚性赔偿的性质

惩罚性赔偿是一种超额赔偿.惩罚性赔偿是否具有惩罚性,理论界存在争议.惩罚性赔偿的定性影响到法律程序的选择和惩罚性赔偿的适用.基于保护受害人人格尊严而进行的赔偿(或者称为精神赔偿)和促使行为人将行为成本全部内化的威慑性赔偿,在性质上仍然归于民事处罚的范畴.对于基于报应正义而进行的惩罚性赔偿才是真正的惩罚性赔偿.刑法适用范围很小,只有当行为人给社会造成严重的危害,且其有非常大的道德可责性时,才能用刑罚威慑.在传统二元结构框架下,有大量的违法行为逃避法律的制裁,三元结构中的惩罚性民事责任可以弥补这种缺陷,强化法律的社会控制力.然而,惩罚性民事责任的扩张,会严重地威胁到个人的权利.因此惩罚性民事责任应当受到严格的监督和控制.     

LYNCHINGS,RACIAL THREAT,AND WHITES’ PUNITIVE VIEWS TOWARD BLACKS

Disparities in historical and contemporary punishment of Blacks have been well documented. Racial threat has been proffered as a theoretical explanation for this phenomenon. In an effort to understand the factors that influence punishment and racial divides in America, we draw on racial threat theory and prior scholarship to test three hypotheses. First, Black punitive sentiment among Whites will be greater among those who reside in areas where lynching was more common. Second, heightened Black punitive sentiment among Whites in areas with more pronounced legacies of lynching will be partially mediated by Whites’ perceptions of Blacks’ criminality and of Black‐on‐White violence in these areas. Third, the impact of lynching on Black punitive sentiment will be amplified by Whites’ perceptions of Blacks as criminals and as threatening more generally. We find partial support for these hypotheses. The results indicate that lynchings are associated with punitive sentiment toward Black offenders, and these relationships are partially mediated by perceptions of Blacks as criminals and as threats to Whites. In addition, the effects of lynchings on Black punitiveness are amplified among White respondents who view Blacks as a threat to Whites. These results highlight the salience of historical context for understanding contemporary views about punishment.