法定刑配置原则研究

保密级别：内部，学位级别：法学，论文提交日期：2002年4月15日论文答辩日期：2002年5月23日—6月1日论文题目：（中）法定刑配置原则研究（英）Rseach on Disposal Principle for Prescribed Penalty作者：任辉北华大学师范人文学院政法系指导教师：李杰教授，吉林大学法学院博士生导师分类标识：DF6中文主题标识：法定刑配置法定刑配置原则均衡性英文主题标识：Disposal of Prescribed Penalty Research on disposal Principle for Prescribed Penalty Disposal of prescribed penalty论文摘要法定刑配置是一项专门的国家立法活动，目的是建构犯罪与刑罚在质和量上的应然对应关系。

因此，法定刑诸问题的研究，在刑事立法理论中占有重要位置。

以往，我们许多学者给予较多关注。

但是，仍有进一步细化研究的必要。

基于此，在导师的指导和帮助下，我选择了法定刑配置原则研究作为自己的论文题目，其目的在于在总结前人研究的成果的基础上，以最先进的刑罚哲学理论为指导，进一步提高法定刑配置原则理论的研究水平，发现并合理解决我国新刑法典关于法定刑配置的立法均衡性问题上存在的弊端，为完善我国法定刑配置原则理论提供参考与立法建议，并为司法适用提供理论借鉴。

本文立足于对我国新刑法典的法定刑配置问题的分析基础上，从立法层面角度，宏观与微观、平面与立体相结合，采用比较的方法，对法定刑配置根据、原则进行定量和定性分析和研究，就具体的刑种、刑度配置进行探讨，希望可以达到立法中法定刑配置的均衡，实现犯罪与刑罚关系的精确化和均衡化。

本文共分五章，对法定刑配置原则的各方面问题进行了研究。

第一章，对法定刑配置原则进行前提性的阐释。

比较分析了法定刑、法定刑配置的概念，法定刑配置是立法中一种制刑活动，属于刑事立法活动范畴。

是“立法者在刑法分则性规定中设置具体犯罪以后，再为这些犯罪设计对应惩处标准（法定刑种、刑度）的立法活动”；明确法定刑配置的前提—犯罪的设定。

法定刑配置是在对设定的犯罪恶害性程度评价的基础上，根据刑罚的目标、功能来指导具体类罪、种罪的法定刑配置，即按罪配刑和按需配刑；法定刑配置根据，体现公正思想的按罪配刑与体现功利思想的按需配刑统一配刑论，无论是以报应思想为核心的体现公正价值观念的按罪配刑论，还是强调刑罚的功利价值思想为核心的按需配刑论，单独都不能对刑罚配置正当性作出合理的解释。

只有体现公正思想的按罪配刑与体现功利思想的按需配刑统一配刑论才是法定刑配置正当化根据。

在法定刑配置上必须兼顾公正与功利价值思想，做到根据犯罪恶害性程度（客观危害，人身危险性）评价基础上达到刑罚与犯罪等价性，同时根据预防犯罪需要作到刑罚配置适度性，按罪配刑为主，按需配刑为辅；法定刑配置原则与刑法基本原则的关系，对于我国刑法基本原则作为对整个刑事立法和刑事司法具有指导意义作用准则，当然也应成为立法上法定刑配置过程中总的配置原则，但应当指出，针对法定刑配置过程而发挥作用的法定刑配置原则在内容上具有的差异性、特殊性，决定法定刑配置原则针对性更强。

同时法定刑配置原则也不能完全脱离刑法基本原则而孑然独立。

第二章，法定刑配置应遵循的基本原则，本章从立法价值论和立法方法论两方面对法定刑配置原则进行了研究。

在立法价值论应坚持罪刑法定原则，反对配置不确定的法定刑；坚持罪责刑相适应原则要作到法定刑配置均衡、合理、科学，必须做到立法上罪责刑相适应。

法定刑配置是建立在立法上对犯罪恶害性严重程度（客观危害，主观恶性）评价基础上实现的，因此，对立法上影响犯罪恶害性严重程度因素的评价，即对立法上影响犯罪客观危害，主观恶性因素评价深入研究，是法定刑配置前提和基础；法制统一原则，立法上法律人人平等，是法定刑配置的应有要求；系统性原则，宏观上实现法定刑配置上的刑罚方法组合科学，比例适当，以达到刑罚体系科学，刑罚结构合理，最大实现刑罚因素的功能互补和功能替代。

立法方法论上，即从立法技术上，立法督促具体操作上坚持明确性原则，明确性原则是价值论上罪刑法定原则的实质性内容。

立法者在法定刑配置上应作到法定刑的确定性和法定刑的明晰化。

反对配置内容不确定的法定刑，反对配置幅度过大法定刑；均衡性原则，在微观上，个罪上根据犯罪的恶害性程度相适应，具有等价性，根据预防的需要，具有适度性；同时，宏观上，把握类罪与类罪之间，种罪与种罪之间，类型化犯罪之间的法定刑配置的均衡化；协调性原则，协调性原则是指组成刑罚结构各种刑罚要素，要根据实现刑事控制目标的需要进行合理配置，使之轻重有序、比例适当，关系协调；同一性原则，同一性原则是指立法者在法定刑配置上，保持配刑标准和配刑根据的同一性，类型化犯罪的法定刑配置上配刑原则的同一性，法定刑刑格划分根据同一性；可成比例性原则，即法定刑配置应当具有可成比例的特质，即个罪与个罪的法定刑具有可比较性。

即犯罪恶害大的配重刑。

犯罪恶害小的配轻刑。

防止恶害大的犯罪与恶害小的犯罪法定刑配置上轻重颠倒，或相同，对于犯罪者来说，不具有可比性。

第三章，法定刑刑种的配置，对各种刑种配置原则进行逐一阐述，以达到法定刑刑种配置的等价性与适度性相统一，实现罪种的配置均衡。

死刑，作为以剥夺人的生命权为内容的刑罚，与其他刑罚方法相比，死刑是最后适用的非常刑罚方法。

死刑应是分配于最严重的犯罪的特殊刑罚方法。

确定什么样犯罪是应配置死刑的最低标准应是分配对象之间在所剥夺权益的价值对等性，即是说只有至少是以剥夺生命为内容犯罪才属最严重犯罪，所侵害权益的价值低于人生命的犯罪无论其害恶性多重，也无论预防需要多大，均因其所侵害权益低于人的生命价值不具有应配死刑质的规定性而不配置死刑；自由刑是指限制或剥夺人身自由为内容的刑罚方法。

其一直在现代刑罚体系中占有中心地位。

自由刑由于其自身特点，具有矫正性（剥夺一定时间自由为内容，通过各种积极手段进行改造），伸缩性，较大适用性，可分性特点，能配置于各种犯罪；财产刑是以剥夺犯罪者财产利益为内容的刑罚。

财产刑是仅次于生命刑和自由刑的一种刑罚方法，并在各国刑罚体系中占有非常重要的地位。

从世界各国刑法立法例来看，财产刑的种类很多，但从其性质来看，主要是罚金刑和没收财产刑两种，其配置和适用对象主要是侵财性和贪利性犯罪。

罚金刑在多数国家刑法中属于主刑，但可并科适用。

没收财产刑在多数国家刑法中一般只作为附加刑适用。

罚金刑可具体配置于大量过失犯罪，贪利性犯罪，大部分危害不大的故意犯罪也可配置。

没收财产刑是指没收犯罪分子个人所有财产的一部分成全部，强制无偿收归国有的一种刑罚方法。

没收财产刑只能作为国家维护自身安全和社会安宁、打击敌对势力和特别严重的犯罪行为配置的刑罚，否则，予以废除；资格刑是剥夺犯罪人行使某些权利之资格的刑罚。

与死刑、财产刑相比，除其具有惩罚性并具有包含道德遣责性外还包含政治否定功能，基本配置原则将其与政治型犯罪和职务型犯罪相配置。

第四章，法定刑幅度配置，法定刑幅度即是法定刑限度，其表示的是对某特定犯罪及行为人追究刑事责任范围，在具体罪中的刑罚幅度就是具体罪的刑罚结构。

准确评定犯罪的恶害性轻重幅度，决定法定刑幅度上、下限。

确定犯罪社会危害性最重到什么程度，最轻到什么程度，决定对其所分配法定刑上、下限，即刑的轻重幅度。

评定某犯罪社会危害性严重程度最客观标准是其所侵害权益价值的大小及其可能给其所造成损害程度，种罪的社会危害性轻重幅度决定种罪所应配置法定刑幅度轻重。

同时种罪法定刑幅度大小，即刑种跨度多少，取决于其中可能存在个罪危害严重程度的轻重参差不齐的程度，个罪危害性轻重幅度相差越大，种罪的危害性严重幅度越大，其法定刑幅度便应越大，即下限应越低，上限越高；法定刑的幅度的确定还取决于刑罚方法的分配规定；个罪中法定刑幅度决定于个罪的犯罪基本构成要件反映犯罪危害性的严重程度。

法定刑刑格的确定，同一种犯罪，因情节不同表现危害性严重性程度的差别，与此相适应，法定刑幅度也有等级之别。

法定刑刑格的确定应遵循如下原则以基本情节作为分格标准，法定刑幅度等级应与犯罪基本情节相适应。

以犯罪基本情节包括危害后果大小，犯罪数额大小，综合情节划分格基准。

刑格的确定应把握刑轻不分格，幅度越大分格越细和具有层次性的原则。

第五章，法定刑配置理论思考与立法建议，本章在对以上的各章理论分析基础上，从认识论和方法论角度对法定刑配置原则进行了理性思考，并提出立法建议。

在认识论上，在重新审视犯罪与刑罚的关系上，加强法定刑配置的前提—法定刑基础理论研究，加强法定刑配置立法资料积累和分析，以此来选择最合理的配刑方案；在方法论上，立法者在思想上要坚持理性化而避免主观随意情绪化；在立法技术上坚持典型立法，摒弃特例立法；在具体立法方法上，立法者应采取宏观与微观相结合，平面与立体相结合，比较方法，系统论方法，才能达到整个部门法的刑罚结构科学、体系合理、罪刑均衡。

SummaryDisposal of Prescribed Penalty is a specialized legislation by the state and is aims at constructing should-be qualitative and quanlitative correspondence relation between crime and penalty. Thus, research on prescribed penalty takes a point in theory of criminal legislation, though our scholars have paid a lot of attention to it, it is still necessary to make the research more detailed. Based on this fact, I choose Research on disposal Principle for Prescribed Penalty as topic of my thesis under direction and help of my tutor. my aim is to further enhance research level o f disposal principle theory for prescribed penalty, to find out and settle rationally malpractice within legislative equilibrium of disposal of prescribed penalty in our new criminal code , to provide reference improvement of disposal principle theory for prescribed penalty and proposal to legislation, to provide theoretical reference from which judicial application draws lessons under guidance of the most advanced penalty philosophy theory and on basis of acquired achievements by predecessors.Based on analysis of disposal of prescribed penalty in our new criminal code, this thesis takes a view of legislation, with a way combined macro scale and micro scale, plain and stereoscope, analyzes and researches basis and principle of disposal of prescribed penalty quantitatively and quantitatively by comparison , probes disposal of concrete kinds of punishment and range of penalty, aims at equilibrium of disposal of prescribed penalty in legislation and accurate, equilibrium relation between crime and penalty. Divided into five chapters, the thesis researches thoroughly on disposal principle for prescribed penalty.In the first chapter, a prerequisite illustration is done to disposal principle for prescribed penalty. Notion of prescribed penalty and its disposal are analyzed by comparison. Disposal of prescribed penalty is a kind of formulation of penalty which belongs to criminal legislation category, and is a legislative activity that legislators design corresponding punishment norms for crimes after they install concrete crimes in specific provisions of criminal law. Set of crime is regarded as prerequisite of disposal of prescribed penalty. Based on evaluation to extent of crime, disposal of prescribed penalty is the disposal to prescribed penalty for category accusation and specific accusation according to aim of penalty and function of punishment, that is, punish-mint on basis of crime and punishment on basis of need, Basis of disposal of prescribed penalty is the unification disposal theory of punishment on basis of crime embodying idea of fairness and punishment on basis of need embodying utilitarian idea. Whether theory of punishment on basis crime which takes idea of retribution as a core and embodies idea of fairness values or theory of punishment on basis of need which takes thought of utilitarian values or theory of punishment on basis of need which takes thought of utilitarian values of penalty as a core cannot provide a rational interpretation to due basis for disposal of penalty solely. Only the unification disposal theory of punishment on basis of crime embodying fairness ideas and punishment on basis of need embodying stultification ideas can be due basis for disposal of penalty. Disposal of penalty should give consideration to both fairness idea and utilitarian idea, reach equal in value of penalty and crime on basis of evaluation to extent of crime , dispose moderate penalty on accordance with need to prevention of crime , give first place topunishment on basis of crime while makes punishment on basis of need subsidiary. Relation between disposal principle for prescribed penalty and fundamental principle of criminal law is discussed. As instructing norms to the whole procedure of criminal legislation and criminal judicature, fundamental principle of our criminal law certainly should be general disposal principle in the legislative procedure of disposal of prescribed penalty. However, it should be pointed out that disposal principle for prescribed penalty works better due to different-totality and particularity in its contents and at the same time disposal principle for prescribed penalty cannot be detached from fundamental principle of criminal law entirely Chapter Two talks about fundamental principles that disposal of prescribed penalty should follow. This chapter researches disposal principle for prescribed penalty from view both of legislative axiology and of legislative methodology. For legislative axiology, principle of a prescribed punishment for specified crime should be followed and uncertain disposal of prescribed penalty should be opposed. To uphold principle of proportion among crime, responsibility and punishment, disposal of prescribed penalty should be equilibrium, rational and scientific to reap proper proportion among crime, responsibility and punishment in legislation. Disposal of prescribed penalty is based on evaluation to extent of crime in legislation, so it becomes prerequisite and basis of disposal of prescribed penalty that evaluation to factors which affect extent of crime in legislation, that is to say, factors which affect objective hurt or subjective danger of crime in legislation. Principle of unification of legislation of legislations means that equality before the law in legislation becomes necessary need of disposal of prescribed penalty. Principle of systematic ness is to saythat scientific composition and proper proportion of penalty in disposal of prescribed penalty in macro scale should be reached so as to get a scientific penalty system, rational penalty construction and to realize mutual supplement of function and mutual replacement of function of penalty factors an the greatest degree. For legislative methodology, concrete legislation operation should adhere to principle of explicitness on legislative technology. Principle of explicitness is syntactical content of legal principle in axiology, so legislators should render certainty of prescribed penalty and they should oppose uncertain contents of disposal of prescribed penalty and prescribed penalty with an excessively broad range. Principle of equilibrium requires penalty fit for extent of crime on excessively broad range. Principle of equilibrium requires penalty fit for extent of crime on specific accusation of microscope and penalty be moderate on accordance with prevention need meanwhile equilibrium between category accusations, specific accusations, classified crimes should be reaped on microscope. Principle of harmony requires rational disposal of penalty factors constituting penalty structure according to the need for realizing object of criminal control so as to make penalty order on its extent of severe ness, be proper proportion and coordinate the relation. Principle of unification means that when legislators dispose prescribed penalty, they should ensure unification between standard for disposal of prescribed penalty and basis for disposal of prescribed penalty, unification of disposal principle of prescribed penalty for classified crimes, unification of classification basis for scale of penalty. Principle of proportionality demands disposal of prescribed penalty hold secular essence of comparability, that is to say, prescribed penalty of a specificaccusation can compare with each other, which means that severer crime deserves severer punishment. Crime does not own characteristic of comparability when disposal of penalty does not fit for severe ness to the crime.Chapter There is on disposal of kinds of punishment of prescribed penalty, within which disposal principle for different kind of punishment is explained one by one in order to reap unification of equality and moderate degree of disposal of kinds of punishment of prescribed penalty and to get disposal equilibrium of kinds of punish-meant. As a kind of punishment to deprive right of life, capital punishment is a special punishment used ultimately compared with other kinds of punishment. It should be disposed only to the severest crimes. The floor standard to application of capital punishment should be value equality of deprived equity among disposed objects, that is, only crimes with content of depriving life or above belong to the most serious crimes and other crimes should never be disposed capital punishment no matter how severe they are and how necessary it is to prevent since the value of man’s loge deforms the equity the crimes infringe. Punishment of deprivation of freedom is kind of penalty that will restrict or deprive personal liberty and it has long been taking the centre of modern penalty system. It can be applied to all kinds of crimes due to its characteristic of correction, flexibility, wide-application and divisibility. Property-related punishment is a penalty which deprives property from criminals and a kind of punishment only second to capital punishment and punishment of deprivation of freedom , which makes it take an important status in system of penalty of different countries. Taken instance of criminal legislation of word-wide countries, there are many kinds of property-relatedpunishments among which pecuniary penalty and punishment of expropriation take counterpart in essence and they apply mainly to offences against property of offences aiming at property benefit. Pecuniary penalty Delong to principle penalty in most countries but is can be combined in criminal law of most countries. Pecuniary penalty is applicable to many kinds of negligent crime offences aiming at property benignity and most uncovered intentional crimes. Punishment of expropriation is a kind of punishment that enforces gratuitous forfeiture from all or partly of the personal property criminals own by the state forcedly. It is only a punishment that ensure satiety of the state, tranquilium of the society n dot puncture hostile forces and some peculiar severe criminal behaviours, which otherwise should be abolished. Capital-related punishment is a kind of punishment to deprive some king of capacity entitled to rights from criminals. Compared with capital punishment and property-related punishment, it includes moral condemnation and political negative evaluation function besides punishment, which makes it applicable mainly to political crimes and crimes by taking advantage of duty.Chapter four focus on range deposal of prescribed penalty. Tangle of prescribed penalty is the scope of prescribed penalty namely the criminal responsibility scope that some particular crime and its actor should bear. Range of penalty in some peculiar crime is the penalty constructor of the concrete crime. To determine the ceiling and floor for range of prescribed penalty, extent of crime should be evaluated accurately. To decide the ceiling and floor disposal of prescribed penalty for some certain crime, namely the range of its penalty, the most and the least severe degree of social hurt of the crime should be confirmed. The most objective standardfor evaluation of social hurt of a crime is the amount of equity the crime infringes and the degree how much the crime will hurt the equality. Degree of social hurt of category crime will determine the range of its prescribed penalty. Range of category crime prescribed penalty, that is, span of kinds of punishment depends on uneven degree of severe extent of specific crimes within the category crime at the same time. The more the degree difference between hurt of specific crimes is, the broader the extent of prescribed penalty should be, that is to say, prescribed penalty will have a lower floor and a higher ceiling under this circumstance. Determination of range of prescribed penalty still hinges on disposal guidance of penalty. Range of prescribed penalty depends on the severe degree of specific crime replicated by fundamental elements of crime of the specific accusation. Due to different circumstances, a crime has different severe degrees of hurt, on accordance with which range of prescribed penalty should have different classes. Determination of scale of penalty should comply with the following principles; the standard for classification is the elemental circumstances to make scale class of prescribed penalty fit for fundamental circumstances of the crime. Basis of the scale class should be the combined fundamental circumstances of crime including degree of harmful consequences, amount of the crime. At the same time, a principle should be persisted in that a narrow penalty range hasn’t scales while abroad penalty range has its scales of different levels.Chapter five is on theoretical consideration to disposal of prescribed penalty and proposal to legislation. Based on mentioned theoretical analysis in above chapters, this chapter considers rationally disposal principle of prescribed penalty from views of epistemology is concerned ,the relation between crime and penaltyis examined closely again; research of prerequisite for disposal of prescribed penalty namely fundamental theory of prescribed penalty is strengthened ; accumulation and analysis of legislative material for disposal of prescribed penalty is enhanced to choose the most reasonable plan for disposal of prescribed penalty. As far as methodology is concerned legislators should keep their minds rational and keep their modes from ding at random; typical legislation should be adhered to and untypical legislation should be abolishing in legislative technology. To get penalty with scientific constructor, rational system and equilibrium between crime and penalty of the while departmental law legislators should take concrete technology combined macros cape and microscope, plain and stereoscope, comparison and systematic ness.总页数：６５页　开本无图表　提要本文是对法定刑配置问题的配置原则展开的系统性的研究，文章分为五章十五节，第一章主要研究法定刑配置原则的前提性阐释，法定刑配置的相关概念的辨析，法定刑配置的前提预设——犯罪的评定，法定刑配置的根据—公正与功利统一性的要求。