热门搜索: 论文 发表 社科期刊 北大核心 南大核心 cssci 科技期刊 教育

当前位置:主页 > 法律论文 > 刑法论文 >

论我国特赦制度在死刑案件中的运用

发布时间:2019-01-10 14:20  文章来源:笔耕文化传播
【摘要】:我国的死刑问题是刑法学界及社会公众长期关注的热点问题,而赦免问题则是刑罚理论中乏人问津的研究课题。实际上,赦免作为刑罚消灭制度的一种,,完全可以在量刑之后实际执行之前阻止死刑判决的执行,也就是说限制死刑这一刑事政策与特赦制度这一刑罚制度的交汇必然只能是在死刑案件中运用特赦制度。 我国自建国以来宪法、刑法和刑诉法均一直保留有特赦制度的立法例,并且有过特赦制度的成功实践。但是自1975年最后一次特赦战犯至今三十余年间,我国再也没有运用过特赦制度。因此而形成了赦免制度在整个刑事处分体系中被逐渐边缘化的现状。特赦制度的虚置既是对立法资源的一种浪费,也使得我国的刑事政策体系和刑事法治领域缺乏必要的柔性。赦免制度被虚置的主要原因是实践中存在制度上和观念上的障碍。法律对特赦制度的规定不系统,尤其是对特赦的效力规定不明确,使得特赦制度的法律地位日益边缘化,更使得在运用特赦制度之时,无法具有强大说服力和法律效力更改既定判决。之所以要使位于法律体系边缘的特赦制度在死刑案件中发挥重要作用,是因为该制度具有消灭刑罚权的效果,将特赦制度运用于死刑案件中会对避免死刑案件中的错杀产生一定的作用。同时赦免是法律制度效力的例外,是在理性的司法判断之外加入感性的道德情感。出于社会管理和国家政策的需要,对死刑案件进行特赦,是缓和我国一向严厉的刑事政策的需要。 至于在死刑案件中运用特赦的具体构想,首先应当将其明确为一个司法程序,由“两高”提出特定的死刑案件赦免申请为宜,同时中央军事委员会的特赦请求权决不可排除。在死刑案件中引入特赦制度必然要厘清特赦制度与其他刑罚制度的区隔与衔接问题,应该考虑死刑执行程序与特赦制度的衔接问题,并且赦免性减刑应当与普通减刑和特赦区别开。在实体法层面,由法律将死刑案件的特赦事由加以确认,明确可赦免罪名实际上是明确可以特赦的犯罪种类。在程序法层面,应当明确申请的主体,减少有权申请的主体数量以集中申请权,同时应当开启自下而上的赦免启动模式。就死刑赦免的决定主体而言,仍应以全国人大常委会为宜,但是具体操作需要作出调整。
[Abstract]:The question of death penalty in our country is a hot issue of criminal law and the public for a long time, while the issue of pardon is a research topic that has not been asked by anyone in the theory of penalty. In fact, as a system of penalty elimination, pardons can completely prevent the execution of death sentences before they are actually carried out after sentencing. That is to say, the confluence of the criminal policy of restricting the death penalty and the system of amnesty is bound to be the application of the system of amnesty in death penalty cases. Since the founding of the people's Republic of China, the Constitution, Criminal Law and Criminal procedure Law have kept the legislation of amnesty system, and have experienced the successful practice of amnesty system. However, since 1975, the last amnesty for war criminals has not been applied in China for more than 30 years. As a result, the amnesty system is gradually marginalized in the whole criminal punishment system. The hypocrisy of amnesty system is not only a waste of legislative resources, but also a lack of necessary flexibility in the criminal policy system and criminal rule of law in our country. The main reason for the hypocrisy of pardon system is that there are institutional and conceptual obstacles in practice. The provisions of the law on the amnesty system are not systematic, especially on the validity of the amnesty system, which makes the legal status of the amnesty system increasingly marginalized, and makes the application of the amnesty system even more important. Unable to have strong persuasive and legal effect to change the established judgment. The reason why the amnesty system, which is on the edge of the legal system, plays an important role in death penalty cases is that it has the effect of eliminating the power of punishment. The application of amnesty system in death penalty cases will play a certain role in avoiding the wrong killing in death penalty cases. At the same time, pardon is the exception of the legal system, and the emotional moral emotion is added to the rational judicial judgment. For the needs of social management and national policy, amnesty of death penalty cases is the need to ease our country's strict criminal policy. As for the concrete conception of the application of amnesty in death penalty cases, first of all, it should be clearly defined as a judicial procedure, and it is appropriate for "two High levels" to put forward a specific application for pardon in death penalty cases, and at the same time, the request for amnesty of the Central military Commission must not be ruled out. To introduce the amnesty system in death penalty cases, we must clarify the distinction and convergence between the amnesty system and other penalty systems, and we should consider the connection between the execution procedure of the death penalty and the amnesty system. And pardonable commutation should be distinguished from ordinary commutation and amnesty. In the aspect of substantive law, the law confirms the reason of pardon in death penalty cases, and it is clear that the crime of pardon is the kind of crime that can be granted amnesty. In procedural law, the subject of application should be clearly defined and the number of subjects entitled to apply should be reduced in order to centralize the right to apply. At the same time, the mode of starting amnesty from bottom to top should be opened. The NPC standing Committee should still be regarded as the subject of the decision on the pardon of death penalty, but the concrete operation needs to be adjusted.
【学位授予单位】:湘潭大学
【学位级别】:硕士
【学位授予年份】:2014
【分类号】:D924.1

【参考文献】

相关期刊论文 前10条

1 赖早兴;;我国死刑赦免制度之完善——基于美国行政赦免制度的思考[J];湖南社会科学;2008年03期

2 黄芳;论死刑适用的国际标准与国内法的协调[J];法学评论;2003年06期

3 刘蕾;;我国增设死刑特赦程序之构想[J];湖北警官学院学报;2006年05期

4 裴昱;;我国赦免制度的缺陷及立法完善[J];河南司法警官职业学院学报;2008年02期

5 竹怀军;论我国死刑赦免制度的构建[J];湖南师范大学社会科学学报;2004年05期

6 刘志伟,左坚卫;完善我国缓刑考察制度的若干建议[J];江海学刊;2003年03期

7 朱文友;他创造了中国监狱减刑史上的最高纪录[J];人民公安;2001年07期

8 沈玉忠;;中国现实语境下赦免制度的适用分析[J];汕头大学学报(人文社会科学版);2010年03期

9 钊作俊;死刑废止:历史与超越[J];河南省政法管理干部学院学报;2005年02期

10 刘健,赖早兴;我国赦免制度的激活与完善——基于限制死刑的思考[J];现代法学;2004年04期



本文编号:2406413


论文下载
论文发表
教材专著
专利申请


    下载步骤:1.微信扫码,备注编号 2406413. 2.自助下载


    本文链接:http://www.bigengculture.com/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2406413.html