共查询到18条相似文献,搜索用时 187 毫秒
1.
2.
论刑法解释的基本原则 总被引:7,自引:0,他引:7
对刑法解释基本原则的研究,在方法论和存在论上必然遭遇到语言解释学上不可避免的部分和整体之间的循环问题。确立刑法解释的基本原则受几个关系的影响:哲学解释学、一般法律解释和刑法解释学的关系;刑法的基本原则和刑法解释的基本原则之间的关系;刑法的基本思想和刑法解释的基本原则之间的关系。“以政策为指导原则”、“整体性原则”、“明确具体原则”不是刑法解释的基本原则。我国刑法解释的基本原则有三个:合法性原则,它是刑法解释的形式规制;合理性原则,它是刑法解释的实质规制;合目的性原则,它是刑法解释原则的冲突之整合规则。 相似文献
3.
刑法第四条就适用刑法人人平等作了明确的规定,但关于平等在刑法中处于什么位置一直备受争议。关于平等在刑法中的地位,主要涉及三个问题,即:平等是法律原则还是法律权利;平等是否能为刑法的基本原则;刑法平等原则与罪刑法定原则、罪责刑相适应原则之间是什么关系。 相似文献
4.
5.
6.
刑法第三条规定:"法律明文规定为犯罪行为的,依照法律定罪处罚;法律没有明文规定为犯罪行为的,不得定罪处罚。"这是罪刑法定原则在我国刑法中的体现。"法律明文规定为犯罪行为 相似文献
7.
修订后的刑法有一个引人注目的修改,就是在刑法中明确规定了罪刑法定原则.这个原则的基本含义是,法无明文规定不为罪,法无明文规定不处罚.刑法第三条规定:“法律明文规定为犯罪行为的,依照法律定罪处刑;法律没有明文规定为犯罪行为的,不得定罪判刑.”具体体现在刑法中,主要就是明文规定罪刑法定原则、规定原则上不溯及既往的从旧兼从轻原则、取消类推.严格刑罚的适用和执行制度、采用相对确定法定刑,分则对具体的罪名与法定刑都作以明确的规定等. 相似文献
8.
9.
我国刑法中的属人原则 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
世界各国对刑法中属人原则的运用都进行了一定的限制 ,可以分为无条件适用本国刑法和有条件适用本国刑法两种情况。我国《刑法》第 7条应适用于一切具有中国国籍的公民 ;在各特别行政区犯罪不应视为在我国领域外犯罪 ;我国非内地居民在我国领域外犯罪应根据“三重犯罪原则”适用全国性刑法。 相似文献
10.
一、我国刑法基本原则的定义 关于我国刑法基本原则的定义,目前刑法理论界有不同的见解。有的将我国刑法的基本原则界定为:“在制定和适用刑法过程中,必须严格遵守的准则。它是刑法所固有的、带有全局性、根本性意义的原则。”也有的认为,“我国刑法的基本原则,就是确定刑法关于犯罪与刑罚等一系列基本问题时所遵循的原则。”还有的表述为:“刑法的基本原则就是协调刑法体系内部犯罪和刑罚相互关系所依据的原则。种种表述,见仁见智。 相似文献
11.
Darryl Brown 《Criminal Law and Philosophy》2009,3(3):271-287
After briefly sketching an historical account of criminal law that emphasizes its longstanding reach into social, commercial
and personal life outside the core areas of criminal offenses, this paper explores why criminal law theory has never succeeded
in limiting the content of criminal codes to offenses that fit the criteria of dominant theories, particularly versions of
the harm principle. Early American writers on criminal law endorsed no such limiting principles to criminal law, and early
American criminal law consequently was substantively broad. But even with the rise of theories in the mid-nineteenth century
that sought to limit criminal law’s reach, codified offenses continued to widely and deeply regulate social life and exceed
the limits of those normative arguments. This essay suggests that this practical failure of criminal law theory occurred because
it was never adopted by an institutional actor that could limit offense definitions in accord with normative commitments.
Legislatures are institutionally unsuited to having their policy actions limited by principled arguments, and courts passed
on the opportunity to incorporate a limiting principle for criminal law once they began, in the Lochner era, actively regulating
legislative decisions through Constitutional law. The one avenue through which criminal law theory has had some success in
affecting criminal codes is through the influence of specialized bodies that influence legislation, especially the American
Law Institute advocacy of the Model Penal Code. But the institutional structure of American criminal law policymaking permits
an unusually small role for such specialized bodies, and without such an institutional mechanism, criminal law theory is likely
to continue to have little effect on actual criminal codes. 相似文献
12.
Magnus Ulväng 《Criminal Law and Philosophy》2014,8(2):469-484
The presumption of innocence (POI) requires all judges, juries, and other officials in a trial, to presume and treat any accused of criminal wrongdoing as innocent, until he or she is proven guilty. Although a POI lacks an authoritative definition, this overarching principle of procedural fairness is so robust and vital for the exercise of legal power in matters of criminal law that one rarely finds anyone questioning its standing. In this article I examine the rationale behind the POI from a different perspective. The basic assumption is that this procedural standard captures the tenor of a broader principle which seeks to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings as well as in criminal law doctrine. I argue that honouring a principle of fairness is not exclusively a matter of criminal procedural law but also something that is deeply rooted in other areas of criminal law doctrine. Hence: not maintaining a principle of fairness in criminal law doctrine could lead to the POI being compromised or even undermined. In the article, I draw attention to three areas in which I believe that criminal law policies threaten a principle of fairness: criminalising remote harm, doctrine of ignorance of law and inversed presumptions of guilt. My conclusion is that some solutions to so called doctrinal problems in criminal law, are questionable and their practical consequences (on a general level) are, at least partially, equal to treating an individual (in a trial) as guilty for something for which he or she ought not to be accountable. Hence: gaining the support of a POI could thus work as principle for keeping the use of criminal law moderate and in accordance with a principle of fairness. 相似文献
13.
刑法学应当立基于刑法的具体概念而不是抽象概念。刑法概念具体化的法条依据是《刑法》第1条。学界不把该条作为刑法的概念问题而是作为刑法概念之后的刑法根据来理解是值得商榷的。刑法概念具体化的理论进路在于找到刑法内容的两个来源,明确宪法作为两个来源及其关系之根据的意义,并全面理解刑法的两大功用。《刑法》第1条的理论地位是刑法学的基石概念,其规范地位则是刑法根本原则,可名之曰"刑法正义原则"。根本原则统摄两大基本原则:第2条的法益保护原则和第3至5条的罪刑法定原则。刑法根本原则的司法实践要讲司法逻辑,控辩审对《刑法》第1条的落实各有其功能。 相似文献
14.
刑事既判力在我国刑法中的重构 总被引:3,自引:0,他引:3
刑事既判力采取相关主义原则 ,既与刑法溯及力的从旧兼从轻原则相一致 ,蕴含了有利于行为人的思想 ,也与刑法所追求的三大价值目标 ,即公正、谦抑、人道并行不悖。是对罪刑法定原则精神在时间效力上的彻底贯彻。而采取分离主义原则 ,不仅不能彻底贯彻有利于行为人的思想 ,而且与刑法的三大价值目标相背离。建议我国刑事立法应采取相关主义原则 ,对我国刑法第 1 2条第 2款作出重构。 相似文献
15.
犯意转移原则用以解决D意图杀死V1而实际杀死了v2等类似情形之责任认定问题。该原则起源于16世纪的英国普通法,对英美刑法司法及立法产生了广泛、深远的影响,但亦面临着实践窘境及学者的猛烈批判。作为事实错误不免责之理论,犯意转移原则是建立在抽象故意观基础上的刑罚政策选择。在打击错误的场合,犯意转移原则对于D的责任认定并不妥适,因为它忽视了刑事责任的认定在主观与客观、事实与规范、自由与强制之间的博弈。 相似文献
16.
空白罪状作为基本罪状的下属概念,在1997年刑法中被大量加以采用。空白罪状在刑法分则中的存在,应从民主法治原则、法律专属性原则、法律明确性原则等角度加以追问。空白罪状的存在一定程度上都有违上述三原则之嫌疑,因此,立法者应当采取相应的措施来提高空白罪状的“合法性”。 相似文献
17.
面向21世纪的刑事司法理念 总被引:6,自引:0,他引:6
刑法理念是刑事司法理念不可或缺的内容。面向2 1世纪的刑事司法理念首先要求对刑法理念进行探讨,这种探讨应立足于形式合理性与实质合理性这一对范畴,并以此对罪刑法定原则的基本精神做深入的挖掘。罪刑法定是以形式合理性为其价值取向的,因而应当建立形式合理性的刑法观念。如果不想使罪刑法定原则成为一个口号或标语,就必须注重它在司法实践中的贯彻和落实,这就是罪刑法定原则的司法化问题。罪行法定原则的司法化涉及司法体制、司法理念和司法人员的素质等问题,特别是应建立这样的司法理念:罪刑法定原则下形式合理性优于实质合理性。 相似文献