自20世纪初欧洲短期自由刑改革以来,罚金刑日益成为各国重要的有争议刑事制裁措施.罚金广泛适用的真实动因在于增加财政收入和减少司法支出,这是无法消除并加剧支付不能、罚金欠缴、易科监禁,甚至引发美国弗格森骚乱等社会危机的根本原因.日额罚金虽来源于边沁的相对数额理论,但除以芬兰、德国为代表的欧洲国家和拉美国家外,多数国家均采用固定罚金或混合模式.无论是绝对数额或相对数额,还是易科劳役、分期缓免等改革措施,都无法消除罚金滥用和穷人入狱等顽疾.如何避免司法财政与罚金过度,是当前全球司法面临的最大挑战;充分鉴别外国罚金刑的弊端,自觉脱离清末以来的罚金西化之路,有利于重新认识中华赎刑的精髓,对改良中国当代的财产刑体系有借鉴意义.

Previous articleNext article No AccessReviewsChinese Netizens’ Opinions on Death Sentences: An Empirical Examination, by Bin Liang and Jianhong Liu. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2021. xi+333 pp. US$80.00 (cloth), US$34.95 (paper); also available as an e-book.Moulin XiongMoulin XiongSouthwestern University of Finance and Economics, China Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The China Journal Volume 88July 2022 Published on behalf of the Australian Centre on China in the World at the Australian National University Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/720259 Views: 26Total views on this site For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

大清死刑在近两百年中外法制讨论中被极其夸张地烙上滥用、残酷的专政印记,最终造成晚清诸仕为迎列强而开法律西化之路.然而,法制不文明仅是西方夺取商业利益和治外法权,发动鸦片战争的借口,其根源在于法律帝国主义、尊孔禁令后的文明之争.将乾隆五年版《大清律例》中的死罪条文拆分成691种具体规定,解析死刑的分布格局和立法逻辑.多种策略分析后发现,死罪主要是杂犯、监候等基本不杀条文;律文立决条款只占10.27％,过半死罪由例文规定且立决率更高;立决以斩刑为主,绞刑以监候为主;死罪集中在刑律的人身犯罪,以伤亡侵财等加重结果为前提;立决只能是故意犯罪,死刑种类与尊卑、再犯、主犯及严重程度有关.正确看待《大清律例》传承了唐明律的高超立法技术,认识大清死刑中的律例关系、礼法合一、宽严相济,有助于重建和弘扬中华法治文明.

最近的诸多大案洗冤,离不开人民检察院坚持以事实和证据为导向,依法履行客观义务.然而,既有文献主要从公诉角度关注错案的致因,鲜有研究实证评估检察机关在错案纠正方面的实际功效.通过梳理144例死刑错案的洗冤历程,充分肯定了检察法治建设的成就,并凝练出检察机关维护无辜者权益的诸多表现.研究发现,检察机关在监所监督方面积极发现和调查错案,勇于提出检察建议或抗诉,甚至在再审中明确以"原判决事实不清、证据不足"为由要求法院改判无罪.认识并充分肯定检察机关的积极作用,通过控申监督的及时帮助,有助于缓解洗冤压力.

犯罪增长和冤假错案问题近年来讨论热烈,但惩罚不确定和威吓不足所导致的错放问题却鲜有研究.1986-2019年的法律年鉴数据显示,刑事司法虽在命案控制方面成效显著,但对其他类型犯罪应对不足甚至放纵也是其重要特征.具体表现为:破案和逮捕、起诉、审判率低,且呈明显递减趋势;疑似犯罪不立案、不起诉,职务犯罪受案、立案量都显著下降;拘役和非监禁刑比重成倍上升,刑罚不当轻缓化现象明显.时间序列分析显示,各种惩罚不确定性指标对犯罪增长有显著影响.中国在转型时期需坚持惩罚确定性,继续用严格的刑事司法措施和监禁刑控制犯罪.

This chapter introduces the history of mercy law and practice in contemporary China, and examines plausible reasons for the complete absence of executive clemency in People's Republic of China-era capital cases. The absence of legal provisions regarding executive clemency is the critical reason why the effort to save Jia Jinglong failed. Jia Jinglong's execution merely forms the tip of a proverbial iceberg of cases for which executive clemency has been requested in recent years, all of which ended in execution. Legally speaking, China used executive clemency only for non-capital cases during the first eight special amnesties, yet Chinese political leaders undoubtedly exercised a parallel form of mercy in capital cases, sparing war criminals' lives through extra-legal political instructions. Historically, executive clemency was used in China as far back as the Western Zhou Dynasty, founded in 1046 BC, through to the Qing Dynasty, ending in AD 1911.

China has been under international pressure for the death sentences meted out to foreigners for drug-related offenses. Domestically, the sentencing of foreign offenders is perceived to be too lenient compared to that of the natives under similar circumstances. We discuss the due process protections in processing foreigners charged and convicted for capital drug offenses within the context of international law. Further, to empirically assess the sentencing of such cases, we use a sample of 192 cases including both offender groups to examine the role of citizenship status, case characteristics, and defense arguments on the outcome of either an immediate or suspended death sentence. Findings indicate that foreign offenders raise different defense arguments compared to that of native offenders; but citizenship status does not play a key role in the multivariate model; rather the number of defense arguments accepted by the court and the processing time help predict the sentencing outcome.

沈家本在《历代刑法考》中以“富者得生,贫者坐死,自汉以来,议赎法者皆以此为言”总结前人看法.《大清律例》以及《刑案汇览》中1736 ～ 1838年间的359份涉赎案例,为重新认识赎刑给出了证据.大清在袭前朝基础上有新发展,各种赎法在实体和运用程序上机制互补,司法裁判相对公正地“一准于法”.具体表现为:(1)以老幼废疾、妇女、过失等平民犯罪的收赎为主,以官员等特殊群体的纳赎、赎罪、军赎为辅;(2)犯罪类型广泛,赎刑主要用于暴力杀伤等人身安全犯罪,但违反礼制、扰乱司法、渎职徇私等均有涉及;(3)刑罚呈现出橄榄状,笞刑和死刑基本不赎,赎刑主要适用于杖、徒、流.正确认识大清赎刑司法的公平性和广泛性,有助于在中国法制史上重新定位传统赎刑.

中国各省2010-2014年的GDP、环境投诉量、环境犯罪案件惩处力度,可以反映环境治理活动与地区经济发展的关系.研究发现,虽然立案和逮捕环境违法者与经济发展之间的关系不明显,但政府受理和处理的环境投诉量与地区GDP产值高度相关.这说明,环境治理的重心不在于刑事处罚的严厉性,而在于环境执法的严格性和频繁性;环境执法短期内可能造成失业、罚款、减产等问题,但从长期来看有利于经济发展.研究也发现,不同地方对环境污染案件处理仍存在一系列问题,如:环境保护刑事司法地区差异严重,环境保护执法不重视公众投诉,案件公示的透明度低,环境监督信息化水平低,环境污染事件处理缺乏刚性等.研究建议,继续加大环境污染事件处理的公开化,增强人民群众诉求渠道,全方位监督和采取司法手段处理环境污染事件.

如何缓解司法失范所带来的损害,这是当前刑事司法研究的热点和难点.我们统计了近年来披露的316件错案,试图为评估刑诉法的改革背景及未来方向提供依据.我们发现,审前羁押是关系无辜者权利的重要问题,但实际执行中存在如下问题:羁押期限较长,平均羁押1123天,羁押率95.9％;二审基本不纠错,案均4次审级,58.8％被发回重审;再审是纠错的有效途径,但发回重审显著延长羁押871天.1996年刑诉法在控制羁押期限上取得成效,2012年刑诉法虽规定事实存疑案只能发回重审一次,但无辜者仍可能被羁押3年以上.按刑诉法第72条之规定,对发回重审的疑错案可运用监视居住,司法解释可配套相应规定保障其实施效果.

“错判”比“错放”危害大,以及“宁可错放,不可错判”,被认为是刑事司法的正义理念.然而,“错判”等于“错放”、“错放”大干“错判”也不乏大量经典学说和历史支持.如何评价“错判”和“错放”危害性的大小,是帮助刑事立法、司法、政策、教育认识司法错误的重要课题.利用2005年中国综合社会调查关于“错判”和“错放”危害性偏好的10732个样本,研究采用多种统计模型分析后发现:两种司法错误危害相当,任何一个危害偏好均不占优势;有弱者心理的少数民族和纠纷经历者,以及教育程度高的人倾向于认为“错判”的危害更大;犯罪控制评价、守法态度和司法信任对危害偏好没影响,偏好也不影响司法满意度评价.基于司法错误的不可避免性和诉讼风险性,提出危害相当理论,建议坦然接受“错放”和“错判”,从而防止两种刑事司法错误相互转化,消除冤假错案的危害观念,树立积极的认错和纠错态度.

新近的错罪和超期羁押，引发了学界对审前羁押功能的反思。通过文献梳理发现，中外审前羁押理论和立法比较的成果丰厚，但对司法现状掌握不多。以A市1205份刑事判决书及3063份证据为样本，研究发现我国审前羁押率高、羁押期限较长，不必要羁押普遍存在，应当大力推行审前释放。理由为：第一，在嫌疑人到案初期公安机关已查实证明犯罪的主要证据，以押代罚不合理；第二，公诉和审判阶段以程序性证据收集为主，保障诉讼观念须反思；第三，各阶段羁押期限普遍延长且证据收集存在后尾，诉讼效率低下。研究表明，我国的审前羁押处于世界中等水平，取保候审后逃跑、犯新罪等妨碍诉讼案例不常见。鉴于审前释放风险较小，践行无罪推定可缓解立法与司法、精确定罪与预防错案的双重困境。

幸福悖论对发展中国家的真正启示在于,短期和中长期政策的关注焦点不同.从短期来看,中国还处于经济转型时期,国民的主观幸福感还有很大的提高空间.从长期来看,科学的幸福感态度和及时的预防措施也至关重要.我国应当冷静看待国民幸福感这个关键词.未来的一段时间,中国不能仅将主观幸福感作为社会效用评价的唯一机制,还要结合其他社会绩效指标衡量国民的生活态度.

法学研究方法,是中国学者近30年反复讨论的理论话题.通过对1981年以来的研究方法文献进行回顾,并随机抽取2001-11年发表在中国三大顶级法学期刊的310篇论文,对其7835个引证文献进行分析,对比《哈佛法律评论》2003-09年的13篇论文,研究发现中国法学研究方法具有以下特点:1.各种方法指数呈上升趋势,研究逐步科学化;2.引证中专著比例偏高,司法案例比重偏少;3.中外的司法差异分析不足,中国的司法案例较少,外国理论较多;4.影响中国法学研究方法的法系和国家走向多元化.研究揭示,中国未来的法学研究可能还需关注自身的司法问题,减少译著的简单运用.

近10年来,我国政治经济改革的硬件建设发展迅速,党和政府从城乡统筹、福利保障、扩大就业、社会治安等多个角度构建和谐、繁荣的幸福中国.与此同时,法制软环境也逐渐得以改善,各法律体系内颁布物权法、公司法、公务员法、刑法修正案等多项法律文件.有法可依作为法制的基本前提,规范的创立使我国逐步建立起法治社会所需的平台.作为幸福社会的重要环节,我国应继续巩固依法行政的法治理念,培养公民的法治意识,建立健全立法、司法、执法、法制监督的互动体系.

In order to respond to the ongoing debate over the Chinese people's sense of happiness and to assess the effects of macro-economic and policy changes on the life of ordinary people over the past decade, this study employs data from the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) to analyze the development and trends in the happiness (or subjective well-being) of the Chinese people over this period. Based on 5 time points and 44,166 samples, the study finds that the Chinese people's sense of happiness has risen steadily over the past decade, and that groups with different political affiliations, household registration, age, income, marital status and ethnicity have all witnessed, to varying degrees, a growing sense of happiness. Economic growth may be the crucial driving force here; if the economy contracts, people's sense of happiness may also fall. To maintain the coordinated development of the economy and society, more numerous and more detailed follow-up research on happiness needs to be conducted.

现行刑法借鉴了西方世界的罚金刑司法,然而,如何转化吸收却是困扰中国理论界和实务界的难题。调查显示,中国的罚金刑主要通过并处方式适用于财产犯罪,这是罚金不能执行的重要原因。是否应当在中国普遍适用罚金,主要由如下三个因素决定:实质犯罪的传统刑事违法体系;开庭审理的实质诉讼程序;社会结构和社会文化相对应的刑事政策。西方世界广泛使用罚金刑处罚轻微违法者和行政犯,但罚金欠缴、恢复性司法和去罪化运动等导致罚金刑司法出现慎用趋势。中国应重视罚金刑的应用背景及发展方向,恢复至1979年刑法的选科罚金模式,赋予法官是否判处罚金的自由裁量权。

The last decades in Western Countries have witnessed the expansion of criminal law, even if minor offences overloaded criminal justice system. With regard to a popular problem how to win the war against overcriminalization (过度犯罪化) and increasing crime trend, criminologists around the world are seeking to solve the old but troublesome overcriminalization by arguing for decriminalization (去罪化). China, the developing but conservative oriental giant, was and is seeking to control crime by criminalizing serious offences. Unlike extending criminal law sources to statutes, regulations and ordinances, the Penal Code of the People’s Republic of China is the unique law for conviction. On defining crimes, China applies both qualitative and quantitative standards to criminalize extremely dangerous offences while decriminalize regulatory offences and civil infractions. The Penal Code defines crime as serious offences, and declares clearly that minor offences, which are classified (by the author) into Public Security Offence, Administrative Law Violation, and Inner Administrative Offence, would be disposed in accordance with administrative procedure, rather than criminal procedure. By comparing criminal laws in transnational perspectives, this article explores the profound implication of decriminalization in future criminal justice reforms all over the world, and provides the legislative proof for the proposal of decriminalization.

对近30年的文献进行综述后发现,外国罚金刑适用率高并呈扩大趋势是主流学说的"常识性"结论,并因此推动了我国1997年刑法的罚金刑改革。借助于对我国15个地区2000年以来的罚金刑判决和执行情况的数据,以及三家基层法院2010年的量刑统计进行分析,本文指出我国刑事司法面临高罚金适用率和低罚金执行率的两难局面。本文的研究表明,及时修改必并制罚金刑,以我国刑法为基础,减少罚金刑适用是解决罚金刑执行难的应然方案。