论刑法的私力救济
|
摘要
在法治国家,公力救济虽然是解决社会冲突最常见和最重要的方式,但私力救济的作用和功能也是不能忽视的。我国是以公力救济为常态的法治国家,主要是以公力救济为发展模式,有些学者对私力救济存在很多的偏见,极力排斥和抵触运用私力救济来解决纠纷。却不知被法律边缘化的私力救济是人类社会最初的权利救济方式,仍然发挥着非常重要的作用。因为法律规定的公力救济在很多情况下往往是强者的武器,所以,弱者在维护自己合法权益寻求救济的时候,常常不得已采取私力救济进行维权。私力救济能在公力救济和社会救济的夹缝中生存必然有其运行的道理和逻辑,我国的法律法规应该允许私力救济方式在一定的范围内发挥其作用。自从国家权力占主导地位以后,私力救济被运用的范围越来越小了,无可厚非,国家权力运用的过程是法律通过刑事司法制度的强制性力量来实现的。可见,“创造和完善权利主体自主性的私力救济和国家公共权力互动的新形势,这样既有利于私人利益的有效保护,也有利于国家实现社会的整合。”①“虽然我国的刑事法律制度相对比较完善,但它只能满足大多数人即社会性的需求,其中少数人的需求常常会被忽略,刑事司法制度满足了人们的报复需求,却忽略了其获得补偿的愿望。”②所以,在我国,刑事私力救济制度还存在立法的空白,是法律的漏洞还是立法政策的选择则需要进一步深入的探讨。
本文主要是以刑事法律私力救济为突破口,大胆借鉴民事法律方面完善的救济模式,从而为构建我国刑事法律方面的私力救济体系作出创新性的规划。因为概念是人们对事物了解的起初,所以笔者首先对刑事私力救济的概念作了详细的阐述。通过概念的叙述为下文刑事私力救济的现实基础、正当性、存在现状、适用范围、具体构想等方面作出坚实的铺垫。此外,本文阐述最多的是刑事私力救济的实体内容,尤其是私力救济的正当性及其价值,对其进行阐述其实是对正义的解读。一种事物是否具有正当性,是否具有存在的价值、是否符合现实的发展需要、是否具有合理性,关键是看其是否具有实用性。正向私力救济那样在法律的框架外实施私力救济行为来捍卫公力救济所不能触及的领域,始终保持自己的发展空间。这一点是值得思考的。对私力救济阐述最多的方面是否有存在的合理性,这些都是为构建中国特色刑事私力救济体系服务的,笔者从私力救济应遵循的四个原则和四个具体要求提出自己的具体构想的：一是被害人在公诉人的引导下参与审判的诉讼过程,指控犯罪的权利由公诉人去行使。二是国家应当把私力救济纳入法律框架,并且刑事法律应当明确规定当事人可以选择以私力救济方式解决纠纷的案件范围,把各种冲突分门类别地纳入程序化的解决途径中去,使当事人便于找到适合自己的解决方式,从而使法院明确自己直接受理案件的范围。三是以引入私力救济为契机,并以自诉案件为突破口,逐步扩展到公诉案件,待各方面的条件完全成熟时,进而扩展到严重的暴力性犯罪案件,逐步完善公诉替代程序。四是建立专业的私力救济调停机构,培训合格的调停人员,大力规范人民调解制度,可以利用人民调解组织的群众基础,做到法官对私力救济的司法控制和司法监督。通过对私力救济制度进行全方位的规范和修正,使私力救济能和公力救济、社会救济救济手段共同构成中国特色的私力救济制度体系,来恢复人们对法律的信心,重建法律的威信。
In countries ruled by law, public remedy is the most common and important way of solving social conflicts and disputes, but we can not ignore the role and effects of private remedy. Public remedy has a dominant position in China. Many scholars are prejudiced against private remedy, and are active in preventing the use of private remedy to solve disputes. However, private remedy, now legally marginalized, is the earliest form of rights remedy and still plays an important role. Since public remedy stipulated by law is in most cases the weapons of the privileged, the deprived often have to resort to private remedy when in need of safeguarding their legitimate rights. There must be a reason for private remedy to have survived the strong presence of public remedy and social remedy. Our law should allow private remedy to play a limited role. Since the power of state plays a dominant role, private remedy has been used in an increasingly narrower scope. It is understandable that the use of state power is realized through the coercive power of criminal judicial system. An integration of private remedy and state power is conducive not only to the protection of individual interests but also to the national social integration. Although China has a sound criminal law system, it can only meet the needs of the majority of the people or the social needs. The needs of some people are often ignored. Criminal judicial system has met people's needs for retaliation, but ignored their aspirations for compensation.There is no legislation over criminal private remedy in China for now. Whether it's a loophole in law or the intention of the legislature needs to be further discussed.
This thesis starts with private remedy in criminal law and refers to the sound remedy system in civil law, so as to offer innovative planning for China's private remedy system in criminal law. The researcher first elaborates on the concepts of private remedy in criminal law, laying a foundation for the background, justification, status-quo, scope of application, propositions regarding private remedy to be discussed later in the paper. Besides, the thesis focuses on the content of private remedy in criminal law, especially the justification and value of private remedy. Whether something is justified, of value, in conformity with the needs of the reality, and rational or not depends on whether it is of pragmatic use. This is worth thinking about. In elaboration on private remedy, the focus was give to the discussion of its rationality. All these serve the purpose of building a criminal private remedy system with Chinese characteristics. The researcher put forward her propositions based on four principles and four specific requirements regarding private remedy:ⅠIn cases of litigation guided by public prosecutors, prosecutors exercise the rights of accusing the suspect. II The government should include private remedy in the legal system and criminal law should explicitly stipulates the scope of cases in which litigants can choose private remedy to solve disputes, and classify the various kinds of conflicts and disputes,so that litigants can easily find the best way for them to solve disputes and the courts can have a clear understanding of the scope of the cases they should accept directly.ⅢThe government should use the introduction of private remedy as an opportunity, start with cases of private prosecution and gradually expand to cases of public prosecution, then expand to serious criminal cases of violence when conditions are ripe, so as to improve prosecution substitution procedure. IV The government should also establish professional private remedy mediation agencies, train mediators, and regulate people mediation system. The many people's mediation organizations can be used. Judges should have judicial control and supervision over private remedy. Private remedy system should be regulated and revised, so that private remedy, public remedy and social remedy together constitute a remedy system with Chinese characteristics, which helps build the authority of law and recover people's faith in law.
本文主要是以刑事法律私力救济为突破口,大胆借鉴民事法律方面完善的救济模式,从而为构建我国刑事法律方面的私力救济体系作出创新性的规划。因为概念是人们对事物了解的起初,所以笔者首先对刑事私力救济的概念作了详细的阐述。通过概念的叙述为下文刑事私力救济的现实基础、正当性、存在现状、适用范围、具体构想等方面作出坚实的铺垫。此外,本文阐述最多的是刑事私力救济的实体内容,尤其是私力救济的正当性及其价值,对其进行阐述其实是对正义的解读。一种事物是否具有正当性,是否具有存在的价值、是否符合现实的发展需要、是否具有合理性,关键是看其是否具有实用性。正向私力救济那样在法律的框架外实施私力救济行为来捍卫公力救济所不能触及的领域,始终保持自己的发展空间。这一点是值得思考的。对私力救济阐述最多的方面是否有存在的合理性,这些都是为构建中国特色刑事私力救济体系服务的,笔者从私力救济应遵循的四个原则和四个具体要求提出自己的具体构想的：一是被害人在公诉人的引导下参与审判的诉讼过程,指控犯罪的权利由公诉人去行使。二是国家应当把私力救济纳入法律框架,并且刑事法律应当明确规定当事人可以选择以私力救济方式解决纠纷的案件范围,把各种冲突分门类别地纳入程序化的解决途径中去,使当事人便于找到适合自己的解决方式,从而使法院明确自己直接受理案件的范围。三是以引入私力救济为契机,并以自诉案件为突破口,逐步扩展到公诉案件,待各方面的条件完全成熟时,进而扩展到严重的暴力性犯罪案件,逐步完善公诉替代程序。四是建立专业的私力救济调停机构,培训合格的调停人员,大力规范人民调解制度,可以利用人民调解组织的群众基础,做到法官对私力救济的司法控制和司法监督。通过对私力救济制度进行全方位的规范和修正,使私力救济能和公力救济、社会救济救济手段共同构成中国特色的私力救济制度体系,来恢复人们对法律的信心,重建法律的威信。
In countries ruled by law, public remedy is the most common and important way of solving social conflicts and disputes, but we can not ignore the role and effects of private remedy. Public remedy has a dominant position in China. Many scholars are prejudiced against private remedy, and are active in preventing the use of private remedy to solve disputes. However, private remedy, now legally marginalized, is the earliest form of rights remedy and still plays an important role. Since public remedy stipulated by law is in most cases the weapons of the privileged, the deprived often have to resort to private remedy when in need of safeguarding their legitimate rights. There must be a reason for private remedy to have survived the strong presence of public remedy and social remedy. Our law should allow private remedy to play a limited role. Since the power of state plays a dominant role, private remedy has been used in an increasingly narrower scope. It is understandable that the use of state power is realized through the coercive power of criminal judicial system. An integration of private remedy and state power is conducive not only to the protection of individual interests but also to the national social integration. Although China has a sound criminal law system, it can only meet the needs of the majority of the people or the social needs. The needs of some people are often ignored. Criminal judicial system has met people's needs for retaliation, but ignored their aspirations for compensation.There is no legislation over criminal private remedy in China for now. Whether it's a loophole in law or the intention of the legislature needs to be further discussed.
This thesis starts with private remedy in criminal law and refers to the sound remedy system in civil law, so as to offer innovative planning for China's private remedy system in criminal law. The researcher first elaborates on the concepts of private remedy in criminal law, laying a foundation for the background, justification, status-quo, scope of application, propositions regarding private remedy to be discussed later in the paper. Besides, the thesis focuses on the content of private remedy in criminal law, especially the justification and value of private remedy. Whether something is justified, of value, in conformity with the needs of the reality, and rational or not depends on whether it is of pragmatic use. This is worth thinking about. In elaboration on private remedy, the focus was give to the discussion of its rationality. All these serve the purpose of building a criminal private remedy system with Chinese characteristics. The researcher put forward her propositions based on four principles and four specific requirements regarding private remedy:ⅠIn cases of litigation guided by public prosecutors, prosecutors exercise the rights of accusing the suspect. II The government should include private remedy in the legal system and criminal law should explicitly stipulates the scope of cases in which litigants can choose private remedy to solve disputes, and classify the various kinds of conflicts and disputes,so that litigants can easily find the best way for them to solve disputes and the courts can have a clear understanding of the scope of the cases they should accept directly.ⅢThe government should use the introduction of private remedy as an opportunity, start with cases of private prosecution and gradually expand to cases of public prosecution, then expand to serious criminal cases of violence when conditions are ripe, so as to improve prosecution substitution procedure. IV The government should also establish professional private remedy mediation agencies, train mediators, and regulate people mediation system. The many people's mediation organizations can be used. Judges should have judicial control and supervision over private remedy. Private remedy system should be regulated and revised, so that private remedy, public remedy and social remedy together constitute a remedy system with Chinese characteristics, which helps build the authority of law and recover people's faith in law.
引文
① 赵峰.私力救济的法理分析[J].载《北京理工大学学报》,2001.第3期
② 徐听主编.论私力救济[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004.101
① 周林彬,王烨.私力救济的经济分析[J].载《中山大学法学论从》,2001.57-58
① 徐昕主编.论私力救济[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.114
①杨亚丽.我国私力救济制度的立法架构-以刑法为中心[J].载《中州大学学报》,2010.第3期
① 徐昕.通过私力救济实现正义—兼论报应正义[J].载《法学评论》,2003.第5期
① 唐艳.论刑事领域私力救济的运用[J].载《经济与法》,2010.第2期
① 陈瑞华.刑事诉讼的私力合怍模式—刑事和解在中国的兴起[J].载《中国法学》,2006.第5期
② 冯仁强,李益明.刑事和解的理论基础与案件范畴[J].载《法治研究》,2007.第3期
① 徐昕主编.论私力救济[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.331-332
② [意]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚,黄风译[M].北京：中国大百科全书出版社,2005.48-49
① 徐昕主编.论私力救济[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.333～334
② 徐昕.私力救济的正当性及限度[J].载http://www.lawstar.cn/cacnew/200702/30003706.htm
① 陈洁婷.论环境侵权的自力救济[J].载《海南大学学报》,2008.第3期
① 苏力.复仇法律法与经济学研究论文集[C].北京：北京大学法律经济学研究中心,2002.58
① 付小容.私力救济及其价值探讨[J].载《西南大学学报》,2007年人文社会科学版.第5期
① 赵锋.私力救济的法理分析[J].载《北京理工大学学报》,2001.第3期
② 赵锋.私力救济的法理分析[J].载《北京理工大学学报》,2001.第3期
① 徐昕.论私力救济[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.319
① 宋远生,肖波等.刑事和解的法律冲突与衡平[J].载《犯罪研究》,2010.第1期
② 宋远生,肖波等.刑事和解的法律冲突与衡平[J].载《犯罪研究》,2010.第1期
① 赵敦华.现代西方哲学新编[M].北京大学出版社,2001.215-216
② 贺卫方.法学：自治与开放[J].中国社会科学版,2000.第1期
① 陈奎.论刑事和解的本十化[J].载《长春工业大学学报》,2009.第3期
② 秦玉娈.论私力救济的法律制度[J].载《河北经贸大学学报》,2006.第4期
③ 杨亚丽.我国私力救济制度的立法架构-以刑法为中心[J].载《中州大学学报》,2010.第3期
① 马静华.刑事和解制度论纲[J].载《政治与法》,2003.第4期
① 徐昕.论私力救济[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.304
[1]徐昕主编.论私力救济[M],中国政法大学出版社2005年版
[2]苏力.法治及其本土资源[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1996年版
[3]赵敦华.现代西方哲学新编[M].北京大学出版社,2001
[4]佟柔.中华法学大辞典[M].北京：中国检察出版社,1996
[5]范愉.非诉讼纠纷解决机制研究[M],北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001年版
[6]程燎原,王人博.赢得神圣——权利及其救济通论[M].济南：山东人民出版社,1993
[7]季卫东.法治秩序的建构[M],中国政法大学出版社,1999年版
[8][意]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚,黄风译[M].北京：中国大百科全书出版社,2005
[9][美]哈德罗·伯尔曼.法律与宗教,梁治平译[M].北京：三联书店,1991
[10]陈兴良.刑法哲学[M],中国政法大学出版社,1997年版
[11]转引[日]高见泽磨.现代中国的纠纷与法[M].何勤华,李秀清译.北京：法律出版社,2003.15
[12]参见[美]布莱克.社会学视野中的司法[M],郭星华译.北京：法律出版社,2002
[1]杨亚丽.我国私力救济制度的立法架构-以刑法为中心[J].载《中州大学学报》,2010.第3期
[2]陈奎：论刑事和解制度的本土化[J].载《长春工业大学学报》,2009年第3期
[3]陈瑞华.刑事诉讼的私力合作模式—刑事和解在中国的兴起[J].载《中国法学》,2006.第5期
[4]姚虹.私力救济的现实基础及其法律规制[J].学术交流.2006年第4期
[5]徐昕.通过私力救济实现正义[J].法学评论,2003年第5期
[6]徐昕.通过法律实现私力救济的社会控制[J].法学,2003年第11期
[7]汪力,付小容.浅析游离于法律边缘的私力救济[J].内蒙古社会科学,2005年第3期
[8]贺卫方.法学：自治与开放[J].中国社会科学,2000年第1期
[9]冯仁强,李益明.刑事和解的理论基础与案件范畴[J].载《法治研究》,2007.第3期
[10]唐艳.论刑事领域私力救济的运用[J].载《经济与法》,2010.第2期
[11]周林彬,王烨.私力救济的经济分析[J].载《中山大学法学论丛》,2001
[12]陈洁婷.论环境侵权的自力救济[J].载《海南大学学报》,2008.第3期
② 徐听主编.论私力救济[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004.101
① 周林彬,王烨.私力救济的经济分析[J].载《中山大学法学论从》,2001.57-58
① 徐昕主编.论私力救济[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.114
①杨亚丽.我国私力救济制度的立法架构-以刑法为中心[J].载《中州大学学报》,2010.第3期
① 徐昕.通过私力救济实现正义—兼论报应正义[J].载《法学评论》,2003.第5期
① 唐艳.论刑事领域私力救济的运用[J].载《经济与法》,2010.第2期
① 陈瑞华.刑事诉讼的私力合怍模式—刑事和解在中国的兴起[J].载《中国法学》,2006.第5期
② 冯仁强,李益明.刑事和解的理论基础与案件范畴[J].载《法治研究》,2007.第3期
① 徐昕主编.论私力救济[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.331-332
② [意]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚,黄风译[M].北京：中国大百科全书出版社,2005.48-49
① 徐昕主编.论私力救济[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.333～334
② 徐昕.私力救济的正当性及限度[J].载http://www.lawstar.cn/cacnew/200702/30003706.htm
① 陈洁婷.论环境侵权的自力救济[J].载《海南大学学报》,2008.第3期
① 苏力.复仇法律法与经济学研究论文集[C].北京：北京大学法律经济学研究中心,2002.58
① 付小容.私力救济及其价值探讨[J].载《西南大学学报》,2007年人文社会科学版.第5期
① 赵锋.私力救济的法理分析[J].载《北京理工大学学报》,2001.第3期
② 赵锋.私力救济的法理分析[J].载《北京理工大学学报》,2001.第3期
① 徐昕.论私力救济[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.319
① 宋远生,肖波等.刑事和解的法律冲突与衡平[J].载《犯罪研究》,2010.第1期
② 宋远生,肖波等.刑事和解的法律冲突与衡平[J].载《犯罪研究》,2010.第1期
① 赵敦华.现代西方哲学新编[M].北京大学出版社,2001.215-216
② 贺卫方.法学：自治与开放[J].中国社会科学版,2000.第1期
① 陈奎.论刑事和解的本十化[J].载《长春工业大学学报》,2009.第3期
② 秦玉娈.论私力救济的法律制度[J].载《河北经贸大学学报》,2006.第4期
③ 杨亚丽.我国私力救济制度的立法架构-以刑法为中心[J].载《中州大学学报》,2010.第3期
① 马静华.刑事和解制度论纲[J].载《政治与法》,2003.第4期
① 徐昕.论私力救济[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.304
[1]徐昕主编.论私力救济[M],中国政法大学出版社2005年版
[2]苏力.法治及其本土资源[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1996年版
[3]赵敦华.现代西方哲学新编[M].北京大学出版社,2001
[4]佟柔.中华法学大辞典[M].北京：中国检察出版社,1996
[5]范愉.非诉讼纠纷解决机制研究[M],北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001年版
[6]程燎原,王人博.赢得神圣——权利及其救济通论[M].济南：山东人民出版社,1993
[7]季卫东.法治秩序的建构[M],中国政法大学出版社,1999年版
[8][意]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚,黄风译[M].北京：中国大百科全书出版社,2005
[9][美]哈德罗·伯尔曼.法律与宗教,梁治平译[M].北京：三联书店,1991
[10]陈兴良.刑法哲学[M],中国政法大学出版社,1997年版
[11]转引[日]高见泽磨.现代中国的纠纷与法[M].何勤华,李秀清译.北京：法律出版社,2003.15
[12]参见[美]布莱克.社会学视野中的司法[M],郭星华译.北京：法律出版社,2002
[1]杨亚丽.我国私力救济制度的立法架构-以刑法为中心[J].载《中州大学学报》,2010.第3期
[2]陈奎：论刑事和解制度的本土化[J].载《长春工业大学学报》,2009年第3期
[3]陈瑞华.刑事诉讼的私力合作模式—刑事和解在中国的兴起[J].载《中国法学》,2006.第5期
[4]姚虹.私力救济的现实基础及其法律规制[J].学术交流.2006年第4期
[5]徐昕.通过私力救济实现正义[J].法学评论,2003年第5期
[6]徐昕.通过法律实现私力救济的社会控制[J].法学,2003年第11期
[7]汪力,付小容.浅析游离于法律边缘的私力救济[J].内蒙古社会科学,2005年第3期
[8]贺卫方.法学：自治与开放[J].中国社会科学,2000年第1期
[9]冯仁强,李益明.刑事和解的理论基础与案件范畴[J].载《法治研究》,2007.第3期
[10]唐艳.论刑事领域私力救济的运用[J].载《经济与法》,2010.第2期
[11]周林彬,王烨.私力救济的经济分析[J].载《中山大学法学论丛》,2001
[12]陈洁婷.论环境侵权的自力救济[J].载《海南大学学报》,2008.第3期
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |