（民商法学专业论文）死刑适用之实质条件研究.pdf

1 内容摘要 人的生命应当得到尊重。立足于尊重人的生命的价值立场，我们无法从功利或者报 应的视角找到国家杀死其成员的正当理由。在此意义上，死刑应当被废除。然而，当我 们面对中国的死刑问题， 民众心中普遍存在的根深蒂固的报应观念和国家企冀通过死刑 这一重刑遏制严重犯罪的政治惯性，使我们不得不接受死刑短期内无法被废除的事实。 可是，中国的死刑适用数量已然太多，这不仅使中国在国际人权对话中备受诘难，也难 容于当前我国以人为本、构建和谐社会的时代背景。于是，必须限制死刑的适用自然成 为官方及学界所达成的共识。 如何限制死刑的适用，需要找寻合理的实现路径。死刑的立法控制由于受到立法决 策者的重刑思维、民众的强烈报应观念以及立法本身特点的制约，并不能承担太多的期 待。相对而言，死刑的司法控制是限制死刑适用的现实合理路径。如果将其落实到位， 将会极大地改变我国死刑被大量适用的现状。更为重要的是，死刑司法控制的成果也可 以在事实层面上支撑死刑立法控制的进程，推动死刑立法控制的前进步伐。因此，在目 前我国死刑被大量适用而且亟待改变的背景下，较之于死刑的立法控制，死刑的司法控 制应是现实的不二选择和努力方向。 本文正是在以上现实及学术背景下展开死刑适用实质条件的研究。 本文正文部分共 分四章。 第一章：死刑适用之实质条件概述。对死刑适用之实质条件的研究，需要首先明确 其内容。根据刑法第 48 条第 1 款的规定，对死刑适用实质条件的理解，需要考虑死刑 执行方式的区分。 换言之， 死刑适用实质条件的内容首先取决于对其中死刑含义的理解。 无论从死刑所具有的剥夺犯罪人生命的实质属性及死刑的一般含义上理解， 还是基于限 制死刑适用这一目的来解读，死刑均应指死刑立即执行。由此观之，死刑适用之实质条 件的内容应包括“罪行极其严重”和“必须立即执行”两个条件。其中，前者是死刑适 用的首要实质条件，后者是死刑适用的关键实质条件。之所以将“必须立即执行”单列 作为死刑适用的关键实质条件，主要是因为，将“罪行极其严重”作为死刑适用的唯一 实质条件，实际上可能导致死缓制度的虚置化，不利于限制死刑的适用；只有认为死刑 2 适用条件是指“罪行极其严重”和“必须立即执行” ，才有可能在事实上真正限制死刑 的适用。 研究死刑适用之实质条件是限制死刑适用的迫切需要。由于现有立法规定的“罪行 极其严重”和“必须立即执行”的含义较为抽象、模糊，晚近几年的轰动性个案显示， 司法实践中法官对于死刑适用条件的把握存在严重问题： 对死刑适用实质条件的理解呈 现出混乱的局面，这必然导致死刑适用的实质不平等，客观上扩大了死刑的适用范围。 另一方面，对于死刑司法控制的具体落实而言，无论在事实层面还是价值维度，死刑的 实体司法控制从严把握死刑适用之实质条件都是其中关键。有鉴于此，应当重视对 死刑适用实质条件的研究。就具体的研究方法而言，弥补现有立法规定与罪刑法定原则 所要求的明确性之间的裂缝，需要对死刑适用之实质条件进行严格的限制解释，这也就 意味着需要重视刑法规范学的技术分析手段。在此过程中，应当注意对具体解释方法的 综合运用。 第二章：罪行极其严重的含义及其判断。作为死刑适用的首要实质条件， “罪行极 其严重”是死刑适用的第一道关口，其重要性不言而喻。对“罪行极其严重”含义的探 讨，需要首先检视学界的已有观点和实务的现有做法，才能明确问题的关键点，进而避 免重复研究和脱离实际。自 97 刑法施行以来，学界对“罪行极其严重”含义的探讨便 从未停歇。众说纷纭的观点，为我们认识“罪行极其严重”的真面目提供了不同的视角， 但观点聚讼的背后却是相关共识尚未达成的事实。当我们将视角转向司法实践，同样遗 憾地发现， 无论是现有涉及死刑适用的司法解释中， 还是法官的作品死刑判决书中， 对于“罪行极其严重”含义的理解充斥着混乱。这主要源自于对于其中“罪行”的含义 及规范属性的认识不清。 对于明确“罪行极其严重”含义的方法而言，规范学的技术分析至关重要。对“罪 行极其严重”的限制解释，应当首先正确理解其中“罪行”的含义及规范属性。事实上， 无论是根据学理的解释还是法条的规定， “罪行极其严重”中“罪行”均应指已然之犯 罪行为，其规范属性在于客观危害性和主观非难性；而且，无论是基于文理解释的立场 还是体系解释的视角， “罪行”的规范属性均不应包含行为人的人身危险性。在此基础 上， “罪行极其严重”的含义便一目了然，即行为的客观危害性和行为时行为人的主观 非难性均达到最高程度。 与明确“罪行极其严重”的含义相比，对“罪行极其严重”的判断是一个更为重要 3 的问题。对“罪行极其严重” ，应当采取阶层判断的方法逐步进行。 “罪行极其严重”在 罪行的客观危害性程度上表现为：犯罪性质是对生命的侵犯，犯罪结果为被害人死亡的 实害结果； “罪行极其严重”在对行为人行为时的主观非难性程度上表现为：罪过形式 为直接故意，犯罪动机为极其卑劣，犯罪手段为特别残忍，责任能力并不存在减弱。特 别是，当犯罪对象为幼老妇弱等弱势群体时，更不能否认上述结论的成立。 第三章：必须立即执行的含义及其判断。作为死刑适用的关键实质条件， “必须立 即执行”决定着死刑能否最终被适用，因而是一个更为重要的理论和实践问题。需要强 调的是，对于“罪行极其严重的犯罪分子” ，并不能当然地认为“以适用死刑为原则， 以适用死缓为例外” ，或者相反。究其原因， “罪行极其严重”仅是死刑和死缓适用的首 要实质条件，至于接下来需要选择哪一种执行方式，必须进行而不是选择性进行“是否 必须立即执行”的判断，如果得到肯定的结论，就应当适用死刑，如果得出否定的答案， 就只能适用死缓。于此而言，根本就不存在“原则与例外”之说。作为死刑适用的关键 实质条件， “必须立即执行”不但限制死刑的适用范围，而且为死刑的适用提供实质根 据。因此，需要对“必须立即执行”进行积极的独立判断。 明确“必须立即执行”的含义之前，需要检讨学界的主要观点。由于实务对此理解 不具有系统性，所以不再将其单列述评。学界的五种代表性观点，除了功利说之外，或 立足于“罪行极其严重”的程度，或基于被害人的宽恕、或采用列举的方法，虽具有一 定的合理成分，但均存在一定的不足。在最终结论上，不仅不利于限制死刑的适用，反 而有扩大死刑适用的危险。需要注意的是，对“必须立即执行”的限制解释，不能从“罪 行极其严重”的程度上来理解，主要原因在于， “罪行极其严重”是死刑适用的首要实 质条件，既是区分死刑与无期徒刑的界限，又是决定是否“必须立即执行”的前提。 从刑罚的正当化根据出发， “罪行极其严重”符合报应刑的要求， “必须立即执行” 契合目的刑的主张。基于限制死刑适用的立场， “死刑只适用于罪行极其严重的犯罪分 子” ，体现了报应的正义性，只有对于其中必须立即执行的才能最终适用死刑，则体现 了预防的正当性。因此，对于“必须立即执行”含义的理解，需要审视死刑适用在预防 犯罪目的的必要性。基于限制死刑适用的立场，从预防犯罪的必要性上理解“必须立即 执行” ，便意味着只有对于那些“罪行极其严重的犯罪分子”中再犯危险性程度最高的， 才能“必须立即执行” 。换言之， “必须立即执行”的规范含义是指，如果不“必须立即 执行” ，那么该“罪行极其严重的犯罪分子”可能会再次实施危害社会的严重犯罪行为。 4 显然， “必须立即执行”的实质根据在于犯罪人所具有的再犯危险性达到了最高程度。 如此理解“必须立即执行” ，符合现行刑法规定的精神：基于犯罪人再犯危险性程度的 不同，应当选择以及变更刑罚的执行方式。 再犯危险性的实体实际上是犯罪人反社会人格动态发展的一个阶段性呈现， 反映了 犯罪人与法规范对立的人格态度。必须承认，对于再犯危险性的预测或者判断毫无疑问 是个极大的难题。 然而， 我们不能因为难以对再犯危险性进行预测或判断， 就甘愿作 “将 头埋进沙中的鸵鸟” ，如果放弃对“必须立即执行”作再犯危险性的规范学判断，而依 靠伦理学的宽恕理论或者司法官的司法智慧及政策把握水平， 事实上是将犯罪人的生死 寄托于“只可意会不可言传”的感性判断，情况无疑会变得更糟糕。再犯危险性虽指向 未然之罪，但它的判断依据所深藏于现存的现实之中，再犯罪的危险性，不是抽象的或 臆测的存在，而是存在于犯罪及罪前、罪后犯罪人的表现和态度等现实之中，应当从现 实中确定它的存在及大小。影响再犯危险性程度的基本因素包括罪前情节、罪中情节和 罪后情节。不过，罪前情节的影响力最小，罪中情节所起的作用是推定犯罪人的再犯危 险性达到最高程度，最终其决定作用的是罪后情节。如果自首、立功等法定情节和民事 赔偿、被害方谅解能够表明犯罪人真诚悔罪，则能够进一步表明其再犯危险性程度降低 了，就不宜得出应当对该犯罪人“必须立即执行”的结论。反之，如果上述情节不能证 明犯罪人的再犯危险性降低，就应当对其“必须立即执行” 。 第四章：立法完善及民意与死刑适用之关系。不可否认，刑法第 48 条第 1 款关于 死刑适用实质条件的规定存在缺陷，通过对法规范的限制解释以明确其适用，是无奈之 举。因此，本文针对刑法第 48 条的规定，提出以下完善建议：1、明文规定：死刑的适 用，应当特别慎重；2、明文规定：死刑只适用于罪行极其严重的犯罪分子。对于其中 必须立即执行的，应当判处死刑立即执行；对于其中不是必须立即执行的，应当判处死 刑的同时宣告缓期二年执行；3、明文规定：罪行极其严重是指客观危害性和主观非难 性两方面均达到最高程度； 必须立即执行是指犯罪人再犯危险性较大， 如果不立即执行， 则有再度实施极其严重罪行的现实可能性。 司法实践中，民意对死刑适用的影响确实存在，药家鑫案和李昌奎案的死刑适用过 程便是明证，尽管两案的裁判文书中并未直接表明。这也许和“注重法律效果和社会效 果的统一”的法律适用观念有关。由于民意是个综合体，内容具有不确定性和易变性， 也极易被误导，所以在死刑的裁量中，不应当考虑民意这一案外因素。这也是基于司法 5 相对独立性的当然结论。不过，在准确把握民意内容的前提下，司法应当尊重民意，但 仅限于尊重表达的自由。在现代社会，国家是人民的国家，人民应当参与国家权力的运 作以及对国家权力运作的监督。在当下中国，社会舆论民意影响死刑适用的场合应当在 事关死刑的立法活动中，而非具体的司法活动中，当然对于具体司法活动的事后监督必 不可少。在条件成熟时，可以设立陪审团制度，由经过合理程序选出的陪审员参与死刑 案件的具体审理，以彰显民意。 需要注意的是，司法实践中沟通司法权和民意的桥梁在于加强裁判说理。加强死刑 裁判文书的裁判说理，既是法治的内在要求，也是法治的外在支撑。于前者而言，法治 的基础在于人人平等，如此前提下，剥夺被告人生命的判决就不能仅凭法律本身的强制 力，而在于如何使人相信法律强制力的适用并非蛮横无理。因此，基于法治的要求，死 刑裁判文书必须说理充分，保证内在的自洽性。于后者而言，法治的运行需要法官的公 正作为来保障。通过清晰的宣示其所做裁决的法律理念，法官加深了公众对其裁决并非 武断做出的理解，这也反过来增强了公众对司法机构作为法治卫士的信任。 关键词：关键词： 死刑死刑 ；限制适用；限制适用 ；罪行极其严重；罪行极其严重 ；必须立即执行；必须立即执行 ； 立法完善立法完善 ；民；民 意意 ；裁判说理；裁判说理 1 abstract persons life should be respected.based on respect for the values of human life, we cannot find justification for the state to kill its members from a utilitarian perspective or retribution.in this sense, the death penalty should be abolished.however, when we face death penalty problem in china, common people in the heart of the retribution idea ingrained and state enterprises by the death penalty penalty hebei to curb the serious crime and political inertia, so we have to accept the death penalty can not be abolished in the short term.however, the number of chinas death penalty is too much, it not only makes china under fire in the international dialogue on human rights, but also difficult for the current building of a harmonious society in china, the background of the people-oriented.therefore, we must limit the application of the death penalty has naturally become the official and the consensus of scholars agree. how to apply the restriction of death penalty, need to find ways of realizing the rational.the death penalty legislation control constrained by legislators heavy thinking, strong public concept of retribution and legislative characteristics, and can not bear too many expectations.relatively speaking, the judicial control of death penalty is the realistic path of limiting the application of death penalty.if it is put in place, will greatly change the status quo of chinas death penalty is widely applicable.more importantly, the judicial control of death penalty the results could also support the death penalty legislation control process in fact, promote the death penalty legislation to control the pace of.therefore, in the present chinas death penalty is widely applicable and should be changed in the context of control than the death penalty, legislation, the judicial control of death penalty should be the only choice and effort direction of reality. this paper is research in the above practical and academic background of the real conditions of application of death penalty.there are four chapters in this thesis. the first chapter:outline of the substantive conditions of death penalty in the.study on the essential condition on the death penalty in the need to first define its content.according to the provisions of article first of criminal law forty-eighth, on the death penalty application understanding, need to consider the way of death penalty distinction.in other words, the death penalty application content firstly depends on the understanding of the meaning of the death 2 penalty.to understand whether from the general meaning of real property and death death has deprived the criminal life, or limit the application of the death penalty based on this purpose to interpret, the death penalty shall refer to the immediate execution of death penalty.from this point of view, substantial conditions of death penalty in the content should include the extremely serious crime and must be executed immediately two conditions.among them, the former is the primary essential conditions of death penalty, the latter is the key substantive conditions of the application of death penalty.the reason why must be executed immediately, as the key substantive conditions of the application of death penalty, mainly because of, will be extremely serious crime as the only real conditions of application of the death penalty, may actually lead to a reprieve of virtual home, is not conducive to the limitation of death penalty application; only that the applicable conditions of the death penalty is referred to as extremely serious crime and must be executed immediately, can be applicable to real restrictions on the death penalty in fact. study on the application of the death penalty for the substantive conditions are in urgent need of limiting the application of death penalty.because the existing legislation extremely serious crime and must be executed immediately the meaning is more abstract and vague, the case of sensational in recent years show, there are serious problems in the judicial practice to judge conditions hold: the death penalty on the death penalty application understanding showing a chaotic situation, this will inevitably lead to the essence of the death penalty application of inequality, the objective to expand the scope of application of the death penalty.on the other hand, for the implementation of justice control of death penalty, whether in fact and value dimensions, entity control judicial death - strictly grasp the substantive conditions applicable death penalty is one of the key.in view of this, should attach great importance to the research of the application of death penalty substantive condition.in terms of the specific research method, make up the cracks between clarity of the existing legislation and legal principle of crime and punishment to the required, explain restrictions need substantial conditions on the death penalty, which means analysis methods need to pay attention to the norms of criminal law science technology.in this process, attention shall be paid to the comprehensive application of the specific method of interpretation. the second chapter: the meaning and the judgment of the most serious crimes.as the first substantive conditions of application of the death penalty, extremely serious crime is the first pass of the death penalty, its importance is self-evident.discussion on to extremely 3 serious crime meaning, need to first examine the existing practice of academic point of view and practice, the key point to define the problem, and to avoid duplication of research and reality.since the 97 purposes of criminal law, the academic discussion on extremely serious crime meaning has never ceased.public opinions are divergent. point of view, to provide a different perspective for us to understand the most serious crimes true colors, but it is behind the consensus view which has not yet reached the fact.when we will turn to the judicial practice, also regret that, whether the existing judicial interpretation of the death penalty, or the judge works - the death penalty for the book, the most serious crimes understanding of the meaning of chaos.this is mainly derived from the understanding of meaning and normative property crimes unclear. the methods for explicitly extremely serious crime meaning, analysis is crucial for technical specification of science.extremely serious crimes to the limited interpretation, should first understand the meaning of crimes and specification attributes.in fact, whether it is based on the theory of interpretation of law regulation, extremely serious crime in crimes should refer to the crime has its standard, attribute is objective harm and subjective criticism; and, whether it is literal interpretation based on the position or the system interpretation perspective, normative attribute crimes shall not include personal danger of.on this basis, the most serious crimes meaning they stick out a mile, subjective criticism of human behavior are the highest degree of objective harm that is the behavior and behavior. compared with the extremely serious and crimes clear meaning, extremely serious crime to the judgment is a more important question.extremely serious to crimes, shall adopt methods class judgment step by step.the degree of objective harm extremely serious crime in the crime of the performance is: the nature of the crime is the life of the invasion, the consequences of the crime and the victims death; extremely serious crime in the level of subjective criticism of the actors performance is: forms of crime is directly intentionally, the motive for the crime was extremely despicable, criminal means is especially cruel, responsibility is not weakened.especially, when the crime object as the young woman is weak, vulnerable groups, the establishment of more cant deny the conclusion. the third chapter:meaning and judgment must be executed immediately.as the key substantive conditions of application of the death penalty, must be executed immediately determines the death penalty will eventually be applied, so it is a more important theoretical and practical problem.it is emphasized, the criminals to extremely serious crime, and can 4 not think to apply the death penalty for the principle, applicable to the sentence as exception, or on the contrary.investigate its reason, extremely serious crime is only the first substantive conditions of death penalty and death, the next need to choose what kind of way, must not selective whether to carry out immediately judgment, if confirmed the conclusion, it should be when the application of the death penalty, if the negative answer, just only the application of suspended death sentence.in this case, simply does not exist principle and exception.as the key substantive conditions of application of the death penalty, must be executed immediately not only limit the scope of application of the death penalty, but also for the application of the death penalty to provide substantial basis.therefore, the need for must be executed immediately independent judgment positive. the clear before must be executed immediately meaning, main view of the need to review the academic.because the practice of this understanding is not systematic, so no longer will the single review.five representative viewpoints in academic circles, in addition to utilitarian theory, or based on the most serious crimes, or based on the victims pardon, or use the enumeration method, although it has some reasonable elements, but there are some problems.in the final conclusion, not conducive to the limitation of death penalty application, but expand risk death penalty.note that the immediate execution of must, interpretation of the restrictions, not from the extremely serious crime of understanding, the main reason is that, extremely serious crime is the first substantive conditions of the application of death penalty, both lines between the death penalty and life imprisonment, it is decided whether the premise must be executed immediately. the. from the justification of penalty according to the paper, extremely serious crime in accordance with the requirements of retribution, must be executed immediately fit purpose punishment proposition.limit the application of the death penalty based on the position of , the death penalty criminals to the most serious crimes, embodies the justice of retribution, only for one must be performed immediately before the final application of the death penalty, it embodies the legitimacy of prevention.therefore, the understanding of the meaning of immediate execution for must, need to look at the application of the death penalty in the prevention of crime objective necessity.limit the application of the death penalty based on the position of understanding , must be executed immediately from the necessity of crime prevention, it means that the highest degree of sexual recidivism only for those criminals who have committed extremely serious crimes in danger, must be executed immediately 5 to.in other words, normative implications must be executed immediately refers to, if not must be executed immediately, criminals then the extremely serious crime may once again the implementation of serious criminal acts endangering society.obviously, must be executed immediately the essence lies in recidivism risk according to the crime person has reached the highest level.so to understand must be executed immediately, according to the current criminal law spirit: the degree of criminal recidivism risk based on the different, should choose and change the penalty execution. recidivism risk entity is actually a stage of criminal antisocial personality dynamic development, reflects the criminal and law opposite personality attitude.must admit, for recidivism risk prediction and judgment is undoubtedly a great challenge.however, we can not because it is difficult to predict or judgment of recidivism risk, is willing to make the ostrich head buried in the sand, if give up on must be executed immediately for recidivism risk standard judgment, judicial wisdom and policy on ethics forgiveness theory or judicial assurance level, in fact is the perceptual judgments of criminal life depends on the love can only be sensed, no doubt will become worse.recidivism is pointing to the unaccomplished crime, but the judgement on the basis of it the deep in the existing reality, dangerous crime, not abstract or hypothetical, but exists in the crime and the crime of the crime before, after the offenders performance and attitude to reality, shall determine the existence and size from it in reality.the basic factors affecting recidivism risk degree includes the crime of plot, plot and plot of crime after the crime.however, before the crime plot influence, role of the crime plot is the presumption of crime recidivism risk people reach the highest degree, the final dec