我国无期徒刑制度改革探析

无期徒刑因不需要剥夺犯罪人生命即可永久剥夺其犯罪能力的特点而比死刑有着公认的优势。但在实际执行中。由于减刑、假释标准宽泛而使判处无期徒刑的犯罪人实施终身监禁的可能性几乎不存在，大大削弱了刑罚的严肃性及权威性，并使人们对无期徒刑丧失了应有的信赖感与认同感。对此，我们可以根据犯罪人案件性质、犯罪后果、判决确定之日的年龄、有无劳动能力、悔改表现等因素来分别适用不同的减刑、假释标准；提高被判处死刑缓期执行犯罪分子减为无期徒刑的条件；增加有期徒刑中数罪并罚的最高刑期，限制无期徒刑的适用。     

“终身监禁”刑事立法的刑罚精准性研究

对本可以判处死刑立即执行的贪污受贿犯罪分子实际判处死刑缓期两年执行的,同时决定死缓期满减为无期徒刑后的终身监禁,既不是执行"死刑"之"重",又不是减为可进一步通过减刑、假释使实际服刑期变得相对比较短的一般"无期徒刑"之"轻",既实现了罪责刑均衡,又实现了震慑其他潜在的贪污受贿犯罪分子的一般预防目的,还能够遏制司法腐败实现司法公正,对贪污受贿犯罪行为进行精准的打击。终身监禁单独设在贪污受贿罪里,正是考虑到贪污受贿罪的特点和国家的刑事政策而作出的,不仅具有很强的针对性,而且在刑罚轻重的"度"上把握到位,体现出刑罚制定和适用的精准性。从刑罚精准性的视角分析,终身监禁不违背罪刑法定原则、罪责刑相适应原则和刑罚效益原则,具备刑罚正当化根据。     

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。     

Life imprisonment: recent issues in national and international law

This article notes that, because understandings of what life imprisonment means are often ambiguous, the life sentence is sometimes perceived to be relatively uncontroversial. Life imprisonment without the prospect of parole for children under the age of 18 years is the most extreme form of this sentence that can be imposed. However, in the United States of America even such sentences have only recently become the subject of public debate. In contrast, in a small but growing number of jurisdictions all life sentences are regarded as constitutionally suspect and contrary to human rights, whilst in the majority of jurisdictions the imposition of life imprisonment is strictly limited. The article traces recent developments in the imposition and implementation of life imprisonment that have evoked some controversy. It pays particular attention to attempts that have been made in practice to ensure that life imprisonment produces punishment that is proportionate to the crime. It points out, however, that a renewed focus on combating dangerous offenders through indeterminate preventive sentences has blunted even this modest safeguard. It warns that this tendency increases the risk of life imprisonment being an unfairly harsh penalty.     

On penal metrics

This paper presents the results of a public survey on the perceived severity of different kinds and levels of penalties gathered using magnitude estimation techniques. Three topics are dealt with. Individual scales of sentence severity are shown to be internally consistent. Then the structural properties of the severity scales of fine, imprisonment, community work, and probation are analyzed. Finally, what a given penalty is worth in relation to other types of punishment from the public's point of view is established and compared to existing exchange rates prescribed in legal statutues or practiced by criminal courts.     

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。     

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。作为替代死刑的方法,设置无期徒刑先予关押期是上乘选择。考察无期徒刑在有期徒刑与死刑中的衔接地位,借鉴国外实际执行无期徒刑的经验,确定10年的先予关押期较为适宜。     

论死刑案件的量刑

死刑是一种最严厉的刑罚方法,死刑制度是一项极其重要的刑事司法制度。把握好死刑案件的量刑,对于实现罪责刑均衡进而实现刑事法治至关重要。死刑案件的量刑应秉持责任主义观念,以责任刑制约预防刑,综合考虑量刑的法律效果、政治效果和社会效果,追求个案量刑的综合平衡,并辅之以隔离式相对独立的量刑程序,改善当前死刑案件的审理现状和量刑情况,严格控制和审慎适用死刑,以实现司法的公平公正。     

认罪认罚案件量刑建议“分类精准”模式之提倡

量刑建议权是公诉权的应有之义,对于认罪认罚案件而言,检察机关提出精准量刑建议是量刑协商的根本要求,不仅不会侵犯审判权而且有利于审判权更加合理地行使,为实现审判中心主义创造条件,具有正当性基础。精准量刑建议包括确定量刑建议和"最小化幅度"量刑建议,按照认罪认罚案件的不同类型,遵循比例原则和诉讼经济原则之间的制约与被制约关系,并根据量刑建议精准化程度与程序简化力度之间成正比、与案件重大程度成反比的关系,构建出"分类精准"模式,分为速裁程序及有期徒刑三年以下简易程序案件的确定量刑建议、有期徒刑三年以上五年以下简易程序案件的确定量刑建议为主"最小化幅度"量刑建议为辅等五种类型。检察机关分类测算精准量刑建议时,在量刑基准上应坚持责任优先主义,根据行为的不法与罪责确定责任刑,并采取"点的理论"确定起点刑和基准刑,把认罪认罚作为独立的预防刑情节予以考量。通过建立与"分类精准"相适应的量刑指南、量刑协商、量刑建议说理、量刑调整等机制,提高量刑建议精准化水准。     

我国反腐败刑事立法之犯罪化与轻刑化问题研究

在国际刑事法律公约的订立和各国刑事立法过程中，犯罪化和非犯罪化一直是刑事政策和刑事立法的基本问题。腐败行为犯罪化的意义还在于，随着国际和国内反腐败斗争的不断深入，对公职人员的廉洁性、廉政性的要求越来越高，不廉洁和不廉政行为范围更加扩大，那些原来属于职业道德规范规制的对象，随着人们对这些腐败行为的犯罪化的立法要求和呼声的高涨，这些行为便有可能上升为刑事法律规制的对象。而轻刑化是指对于犯罪的处罚倾向于用较轻的刑罚取代较重刑罚处罚的刑：事政策措施，它表现为用较轻的刑种（如监禁或有期徒刑）取代较重的刑种（如死刑或无期徒刑），或者在同一刑种中用较轻的处罚（如3年以下轻的刑期）取代较重的处罚（如10年以上重的刑期），甚至包括本应用剥夺自由的刑罚取而代之用剥夺财产刑（如没收财产或罚金）和资格刑（如剥夺政治权利）的刑罚措施惩治腐败犯罪。在国际上，轻刑化作为国际刑事立法和司法的趋势，正日益引起各国的重视。从表面上看，犯罪化和轻刑化是两种的对立的刑事政策，但实际上，这两者是可以兼容并蓄的。因此，对腐败犯罪行为的犯罪化与对该行为在处罚上的轻刑化并不矛盾，两者在理论与实践上都可以达到高度的统一。     

Certainty, Severity, and Skyjacking

A central issue in the controversy surrounding the death penalty is the question of deterrence. Specifically, does the additional severity of capital punishment over life imprisonment serve to deter potential criminals? I attempt to deal with this question by separating the effects of severity of punishment from those of certainty of punishment by examining various woys in which these factors have been manipulated in the attempt to curb the incidence of skyjacking. I conclude that increasing the certainty of punishment results in a decrease in crime, whereas increasing the severity does not, in effect arguing against the necessity of the death penulty.     

Prisons,Proportionality and Recent Penal History

A leading aim of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was to install the principle of proportionality as the primary rationale for sentencing and to bring about a reduction in the use of imprisonment.  In the decade that followed the prison population in England and Wales rose steeply.  This article examines the reasons for the rising use of prison, in order to assess whether proportionality (or ‘just deserts’) was tried and failed.  It argues that in practice the proportionality principle was overwhelmed by other influences, and that deterrence and incapacitation were the main drivers of the increasing use of imprisonment.  The article goes on to argue that proportionality theories have within them the resources to produce penal moderation, notably the ‘drowning out’ argument, the human rights argument, and decrementalism.  The article concludes by rejecting the claim that proportionality theories are likely in practice to result in escalating punishment.     

Sentencing Juvenile Offenders to Life in Prison: The Political Sociology of Juvenile Punishment

Sentencing juvenile offenders to life in prison is the most severe criminal penalty available, yet we know little about the factors that produce jurisdictional differences in the use of such sanctions. Political explanations emphasize conservative values and the strength of more conservative political parties. Threat accounts suggest that this sentence will be more likely in jurisdictions with larger minority populations. After controlling for many explanations using count models, the results show that larger numbers of juvenile life sentences are handed out in more politically conservative states with a stronger Republican Party. Findings also show that racial politics is a factor in juvenile life sentences. Those jurisdictions that have the most blacks and have judicial elections sentence the most juveniles to life terms. By highlighting the explanatory power of public ideologies, these findings support political explanations for the harshest criminal punishment directed towards juveniles.     

Countering Punitiveness: Understanding Stability in Canada's Imprisonment Rate

Canada's imprisonment rate has not changed appreciably since 1960. This stability contrasts with the increased imprisonment rates experienced by Canada's most obvious comparators—the United States and England and Wales. We examine this divergence and propose several interrelated explanations for Canada's anomalous pattern. While Canada is shown not to be immune to pressure for harsher practices and policies, it has been able to counter or balance these trends with other more moderating forces. In particular, we suggest that Canadians have largely been able to escape several of the wider forces or "risk factors" at the root of higher incarceration in other countries. Further, we suggest that certain protective factors of a historical, cultural, and structural nature can also be identified that have limited the extent to which Canada has adopted the same punitive policies documented in the United States and England and Wales.     

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。     

死刑控制背景下的徒刑改革

在控制死刑的背景下，徒刑制度必须合理承接遏制犯罪的社会功能。与域外徒刑制度相比，中国徒刑制度的缺陷是刑期遇低，执行期限遇短，减刑遇陡，因而需要给予宽严相济的改革。     

论罪刑均衡的司法模式

罪刑均衡原则作为刑法的一个重要基本原则,是支撑刑法学发展的一个重要指标。在具体的司法实践中,错综复杂的案情以及层出不穷的社会问题,为实现刑法的公平正义以及追求最为均衡的刑罚裁量,带来了不小困难。现代文明社会要求严格恪守罪刑法定原则,罪刑均衡更成为一个司法层面的问题。然而,司法的过程是复杂的,在司法的过程中,司法界精英们发挥了重要的引导和规范功能。通过对刑罚裁量过程中各种辩证关系的分析和论证,努力寻求一种适合我国国情的罪刑均衡的司法模式。因此,在刑罚裁量的过程中,既要实现公平与效率的平衡,又要从法益侵害及行为人特质二元的衡量标准出发,实现应罚性与需罚性的平衡。最后,以刑罚的效果和民众的接受度作为刑罚适当的重要衡量标准,将刑罚裁量的量刑法理学模式与量刑社会学模式有机结合起来,并建议引入量刑听证制度,从司法的层面积极实现罪刑的均衡。     

轻罪重判国家赔偿责任的证立及其类型化

刑事审判实践中,对于轻罪重判是否赔偿,处理结果不一,原因在于对《国家赔偿法》第17条第(三)项以及最高人民法院、最高人民检察院《关于办理刑事赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第6条的不同理解。轻罪重判是对权利的侵害,在加强人权司法保障、强化权力运行制约监督的时代背景下,应该对《国家赔偿法》立法原意予以检讨,对轻罪重判的被告人予以赔偿。制度操作上,可以将轻罪重判的赔偿分为管制的赔偿、有期徒刑改判较短期限的赔偿、重判死刑且已执行的赔偿以及轻罪重判附加刑的赔偿,在此类型化区分的基础上对赔偿的项目、赔偿的方式以及计算标准进行设计。     

社会风险语境下的经济犯罪治理

经济犯罪是市场经济下的一种特殊社会现象，是社会风险在经济领域中的集中体现。公众视野中的经济犯罪不仅限于传统意义上经济领域的刑事犯罪，体现出了市场经济以及风险社会的典型特征。建立经济犯罪治理的原则，将经济犯罪划分为“已罪犯”、“违法犯”和“潜在犯”进行分类治理，是维护国家经济安全、确保社会主义市场经济健康发展的有效对策。     

犯罪人与普通人的平等——非监禁刑的价值定位与路径选择

现代刑罚理论普遍采纳行刑个别化、社会化原则使得自由刑的执行更有利于犯罪人的再社会化，而目前我国对非监禁刑的价值认识模糊、研究滞后，导致社会接受度不高，司法实践对其适用也持保守态度。透视我国非监禁刑司法适用问题，分析非监禁刑的理念及价值定位，在构建公平正义社会过程中从价值理念和制度上完善、创新非监禁刑制度及法律适用，追求最大程度上的犯罪人与普通人的平等，才能彰显刑罚惩治与教育改造的双重功能。