经济犯罪的刑罚配置
|
摘要
由现代社会的市场经济结构所决定，经济犯罪成了当今世界一个具有国际性的严重社会问题。刑罚是刑法的“灵魂与思想”，对经济犯罪的刑罚配置进行探讨无论在法理研究上还是司法现实中都极具意义。本论文采取“小经济犯罪”的概念，从配刑根据、原则入手，对经济犯罪的立法配置与司法配置进行了探析。
经济犯罪作为法定犯，国家功利性是经济犯罪刑罚配置的首要本性所在，但是功利必须以报应为边界，在经济犯罪配刑中报应限制着对功利的追求。基于经济犯罪类罪的特点及刑罚配置的阶段性要求，笔者将均衡性原则、谦抑原则确定为经济犯罪的配刑原则。经济犯罪的刑罚配置就是在报应或功利抑或二者兼顾的思想驱使下配刑原则的践行。对均衡性的追求源于人类植根于精神本能中对正义的永恒渴望，而谦抑原则之确立作为一种理念，不仅在“经济犯罪圈”的范围上，而且也在刑之配置上牵引着立法者与司法者，使罪刑均衡建立在尽可能轻缓的刑罚基准之基础上。自然科学的属性及社会生活的复杂性使我们无法设计出一个精确的公式来实现经济犯罪立法与司法的均衡配置，但这并不意味着我们只能无所作为。在经济犯罪刑罚配置立法比较之基础上，笔者对影响立法与司法配刑的若干因素进行了思考。指出追求经济犯罪刑罚配置的均衡性不能脱离整个刑罚体系的背景来理解。经济犯罪的处罚只能以既有的罪刑关系为参照系。由于经济犯罪以谋取非法经济利益为目的，因而财产犯罪与其具有可类比性。无论哪一个朝代，对财产犯罪都有相应的制裁方式，这种刑罚配置最初源于追求公正的朴素报应观。而对不同犯罪处以何种程度刑罚的方式一旦产生后，又为后来的立法与司法树立了“范例”，历经不同时代具有“约定俗成”的相对稳定性。当新的犯罪形态出现时，立法者意念里总会寻找与之相
四川大学硕士学位论文
似的既存犯罪作参照，比较社会危害性的轻重配置相应刑罚，以维持整个刑罚
体系的均衡性。同时，在司法断案时，罪刑均衡成为法官的内心理念发挥着重
要作用，他会考虑相似案例的判决从而寻求量刑上的均衡。
然而，现实的世界经常背离我们的理想。从我国经济犯罪刑罚的现实配置
看，无论是立法还是司法都存在一些不完善之处。笔者在经济犯罪刑罚配置现
实透视之基础上，提出了一些完善之策。从总体上说，立法完善应由“厉而不
严”的刑罚结构向“严而不厉”的结构转变。具体而言，可以采取以下方式:
建立经济犯罪数额立法模式;减少死刑在经济犯罪中的分配:增设资格刑及完
善罚金刑制度:确定重罪、轻罪标准。而完善我国经济犯罪刑罚司法配置的首
要方法是确立经济犯罪的量刑基准。对经济犯罪的量刑基准可采取两种方式:
一种方式是以经济犯罪数额为基础建立经济犯罪量刑基准;另一种方式是实证
的方法，设置“量刑指导委员会”，对法定刑运用情况进行实证分析，确定具有
司法约束力的抽象个罪的量刑基准。从而为刑罚正义的最终实现提供制度上的
保障。
It's decided by the structure of the modern market economy that economic crimes have now become a kind of international serious social problems. Penalty is the "soul and spirit" of the criminal law, and to discuss how to make the penalty arrangement for economic crimes is either theoretically or judicially important. This thesis uses the concept of "small economic crimes ", begins with the basis and principle of the penalty arrangements for economic crimes.
Because economic crimes are a kind of legal crimes, to realize the state purpose should be the dominant nature of the penalty arrangement for economic crimes, however, to realize the state purpose should also be within of judgment should limit the process of pursuing the state purpose. According to the characters of economic crimes and the phase requirements for the penalty arrangement, the writer sets both the principle of balance and the principle of modesty as the principle of the penalty arrangement for economic crimes. To arrange penalties for economic crimes is to practise its principle according to the idea of judgment's limiting the pursuit of state purpose. The pursuit of balance is rooted in people's perpetual longing for justice, while as a theory, the principle of modesty guides those people engaged in legislative work and judicial practice in the field of "economic crimes circle" and the penalty arrangement. Thus the balance between crimes and penalties can be achieved, based on comparatively sl
ight criminal punishments. The character of natural science and the complication of social life are always disabling us to invent a precise formula to realize the balance between the legislation and the judicature in the field of economic crimes, but this doesn't mean we can do nothing on this matter. On the basis of legislative comparison of the penalty arrangement for economic crimes, the writer has considered several factors influencing the legislative and judicial penalty arrangements and believes that the penalty arrangement balance for
economic crimes should be connected to the background of the whole penalty system. The punishment for economic crimes should set the available relationship between legal crimes and penalties as the reference object. For the final aim of economic crimes is to gain economic benefits illegally, the crimes against properties have some similarities with them. There were always some relative penalties set for property crimes in each dynasty of ancient times, and those penalty arrangements originally came from the concept of judgment which set justice as its goal. Once the penalty arrangement came into being, it set examples for the later legislative and judicial work and after long periods of time of being adopted, the penalty arrangement would have comparative stability. When new types of crimes appear, the legislative people always try to find similar existent crimes as reference objects and thus arrange penalties by comparing the social perniciousness between the existent crimes and newly-appearing crimes , so they can keep the balance of the crimes and penalty plays important roles in judge's trying cases, and judges will always try to pursue this balance by considering some similar cases.
However, the reality often contradicts our thoughts. In reference to our country's realistic situation in the field of penalty arrangements for economic crimes, there are some legislative and judicial faults. The writer put forward some good ideas about this on the basis of seeing through the penalty arrangement reality in the field of economic crimes. On the whole, the legislative improvement should be transformed from the structure of "severe but not strict" to the structure of "strict but not severe". Concretely speaking, the following measures could be adopted: set the form of amount legislation for economic crimes in order to further clarify the legislation; reduce the adoption percentage of death penalty in the field of economic crimes and adjust the entire level of penalties in order to make the penalty system more reas
经济犯罪作为法定犯，国家功利性是经济犯罪刑罚配置的首要本性所在，但是功利必须以报应为边界，在经济犯罪配刑中报应限制着对功利的追求。基于经济犯罪类罪的特点及刑罚配置的阶段性要求，笔者将均衡性原则、谦抑原则确定为经济犯罪的配刑原则。经济犯罪的刑罚配置就是在报应或功利抑或二者兼顾的思想驱使下配刑原则的践行。对均衡性的追求源于人类植根于精神本能中对正义的永恒渴望，而谦抑原则之确立作为一种理念，不仅在“经济犯罪圈”的范围上，而且也在刑之配置上牵引着立法者与司法者，使罪刑均衡建立在尽可能轻缓的刑罚基准之基础上。自然科学的属性及社会生活的复杂性使我们无法设计出一个精确的公式来实现经济犯罪立法与司法的均衡配置，但这并不意味着我们只能无所作为。在经济犯罪刑罚配置立法比较之基础上，笔者对影响立法与司法配刑的若干因素进行了思考。指出追求经济犯罪刑罚配置的均衡性不能脱离整个刑罚体系的背景来理解。经济犯罪的处罚只能以既有的罪刑关系为参照系。由于经济犯罪以谋取非法经济利益为目的，因而财产犯罪与其具有可类比性。无论哪一个朝代，对财产犯罪都有相应的制裁方式，这种刑罚配置最初源于追求公正的朴素报应观。而对不同犯罪处以何种程度刑罚的方式一旦产生后，又为后来的立法与司法树立了“范例”，历经不同时代具有“约定俗成”的相对稳定性。当新的犯罪形态出现时，立法者意念里总会寻找与之相
四川大学硕士学位论文
似的既存犯罪作参照，比较社会危害性的轻重配置相应刑罚，以维持整个刑罚
体系的均衡性。同时，在司法断案时，罪刑均衡成为法官的内心理念发挥着重
要作用，他会考虑相似案例的判决从而寻求量刑上的均衡。
然而，现实的世界经常背离我们的理想。从我国经济犯罪刑罚的现实配置
看，无论是立法还是司法都存在一些不完善之处。笔者在经济犯罪刑罚配置现
实透视之基础上，提出了一些完善之策。从总体上说，立法完善应由“厉而不
严”的刑罚结构向“严而不厉”的结构转变。具体而言，可以采取以下方式:
建立经济犯罪数额立法模式;减少死刑在经济犯罪中的分配:增设资格刑及完
善罚金刑制度:确定重罪、轻罪标准。而完善我国经济犯罪刑罚司法配置的首
要方法是确立经济犯罪的量刑基准。对经济犯罪的量刑基准可采取两种方式:
一种方式是以经济犯罪数额为基础建立经济犯罪量刑基准;另一种方式是实证
的方法，设置“量刑指导委员会”，对法定刑运用情况进行实证分析，确定具有
司法约束力的抽象个罪的量刑基准。从而为刑罚正义的最终实现提供制度上的
保障。
It's decided by the structure of the modern market economy that economic crimes have now become a kind of international serious social problems. Penalty is the "soul and spirit" of the criminal law, and to discuss how to make the penalty arrangement for economic crimes is either theoretically or judicially important. This thesis uses the concept of "small economic crimes ", begins with the basis and principle of the penalty arrangements for economic crimes.
Because economic crimes are a kind of legal crimes, to realize the state purpose should be the dominant nature of the penalty arrangement for economic crimes, however, to realize the state purpose should also be within of judgment should limit the process of pursuing the state purpose. According to the characters of economic crimes and the phase requirements for the penalty arrangement, the writer sets both the principle of balance and the principle of modesty as the principle of the penalty arrangement for economic crimes. To arrange penalties for economic crimes is to practise its principle according to the idea of judgment's limiting the pursuit of state purpose. The pursuit of balance is rooted in people's perpetual longing for justice, while as a theory, the principle of modesty guides those people engaged in legislative work and judicial practice in the field of "economic crimes circle" and the penalty arrangement. Thus the balance between crimes and penalties can be achieved, based on comparatively sl
ight criminal punishments. The character of natural science and the complication of social life are always disabling us to invent a precise formula to realize the balance between the legislation and the judicature in the field of economic crimes, but this doesn't mean we can do nothing on this matter. On the basis of legislative comparison of the penalty arrangement for economic crimes, the writer has considered several factors influencing the legislative and judicial penalty arrangements and believes that the penalty arrangement balance for
economic crimes should be connected to the background of the whole penalty system. The punishment for economic crimes should set the available relationship between legal crimes and penalties as the reference object. For the final aim of economic crimes is to gain economic benefits illegally, the crimes against properties have some similarities with them. There were always some relative penalties set for property crimes in each dynasty of ancient times, and those penalty arrangements originally came from the concept of judgment which set justice as its goal. Once the penalty arrangement came into being, it set examples for the later legislative and judicial work and after long periods of time of being adopted, the penalty arrangement would have comparative stability. When new types of crimes appear, the legislative people always try to find similar existent crimes as reference objects and thus arrange penalties by comparing the social perniciousness between the existent crimes and newly-appearing crimes , so they can keep the balance of the crimes and penalty plays important roles in judge's trying cases, and judges will always try to pursue this balance by considering some similar cases.
However, the reality often contradicts our thoughts. In reference to our country's realistic situation in the field of penalty arrangements for economic crimes, there are some legislative and judicial faults. The writer put forward some good ideas about this on the basis of seeing through the penalty arrangement reality in the field of economic crimes. On the whole, the legislative improvement should be transformed from the structure of "severe but not strict" to the structure of "strict but not severe". Concretely speaking, the following measures could be adopted: set the form of amount legislation for economic crimes in order to further clarify the legislation; reduce the adoption percentage of death penalty in the field of economic crimes and adjust the entire level of penalties in order to make the penalty system more reas
引文
[1] 邱兴隆：《关于惩罚的哲学》，法律出版社2000年版
[2] [意]贝卡里亚：《论犯罪与刑罚》，中国大百科全书出版社1993年版
[3] 陈兴良：《刑法的价值构造》，中国人民大学出版社1998年版
[4] 周光权：《法定刑研究》，中国方正出版社2000年版
[5] [英]边沁：《立法理论—刑法典原理》，孙力等译，中国人民公安大学出版社1993年版
[6] 陈兴良：《刑法的启蒙》，法律出版社1998年版
[7] 邱兴隆：《刑罚理性评论》，中国政法大学出版社1999年版
[8] 陈泽宪：《经济刑法新论》，群众出版社2001年版
[9] 王世洲：《德国经济犯罪与经济刑法研究》，北京大学出版社1999年版
[10] 周旺生：《立法学》，北京大学出版社1988年版
[11] [德]洪堡：《论国家的作用》，中国社会科学出版社1998年版
[12] 郑伟：《重罪轻罪研究》，中国政法大学出版社1998年版
[13] 《美国量刑指南》，王世洲等译，北京大学出版社1995年版
[14] 谢望原：《刑罚价值论》，中国检察出版社1999年版
[15] [德]黑格尔：《法哲学原理》，商务印书馆1961年出版
[16] 张明楷：《刑法学》(上)，法律出版社1997年版
[17] 白建军：《金融犯罪研究》，法律出版社2000年版
[18] 冯亚东：《刑法的哲学与伦理学》，天地出版社1996年版
[19] 储槐植：《刑事一体化与关系刑法论》，北京大学出版社1997年版
[20] 邱兴隆：《罪与罚讲演录》，中国检察出版社2000年版
[21] 林山田：《经济犯罪与经济刑法》，台北三民书局1981(修订3版)
[22] 李钢：《论市场经济的伦理基础》，载《伦理学》2000年第3期
[23] 许发民：《论犯罪界定中的社会经济政治因素》，载《刑事法学》2002年第5期
[24] 李洁：《罚金刑之数额规定研究》，载《刑事法学》2002年1期
[25] 欧锦雄：《论经济犯罪数额的立法模式》，载《政治与法律》1998年第5期
[26] 储槐植：《议论刑法现代化》，载《中外法学》2000年第5期
[27] 黄祥青：《略论多种量刑情节的适用原则与方法》，载《上海市政法管理干部学院学报》
(法治论丛)2000年第3期
[28]李川：《定罪量刑与形势需要》，载《法学》1998年第9期
[29]周光权：《量刑基准研究》，载《中国法学》1999年第5期
[30]张庆旭：《数量型犯罪的量刑基准研究》载《人民检察》2001年第8期
[31]伍帼瑾：《经济犯罪的成本分析与预防》，载《政治与法律》2003年第1期
[32]刘守芬、汪明亮：《试论罪刑均衡的功能性蕴涵》，载《刑事法学》2000年第1期
[33]李洁：《定罪量刑情节若干问题研究》，载《北华大学学报》2001年第1期
[34]周光权：《法定刑配置的合理性探讨——刑罚攀比及其抗制》，载《法律科学》1998年第4期
[35]童德华：《现行刑事立法技术“六维”评价》，载《法学》2000年第11期
[2] [意]贝卡里亚：《论犯罪与刑罚》，中国大百科全书出版社1993年版
[3] 陈兴良：《刑法的价值构造》，中国人民大学出版社1998年版
[4] 周光权：《法定刑研究》，中国方正出版社2000年版
[5] [英]边沁：《立法理论—刑法典原理》，孙力等译，中国人民公安大学出版社1993年版
[6] 陈兴良：《刑法的启蒙》，法律出版社1998年版
[7] 邱兴隆：《刑罚理性评论》，中国政法大学出版社1999年版
[8] 陈泽宪：《经济刑法新论》，群众出版社2001年版
[9] 王世洲：《德国经济犯罪与经济刑法研究》，北京大学出版社1999年版
[10] 周旺生：《立法学》，北京大学出版社1988年版
[11] [德]洪堡：《论国家的作用》，中国社会科学出版社1998年版
[12] 郑伟：《重罪轻罪研究》，中国政法大学出版社1998年版
[13] 《美国量刑指南》，王世洲等译，北京大学出版社1995年版
[14] 谢望原：《刑罚价值论》，中国检察出版社1999年版
[15] [德]黑格尔：《法哲学原理》，商务印书馆1961年出版
[16] 张明楷：《刑法学》(上)，法律出版社1997年版
[17] 白建军：《金融犯罪研究》，法律出版社2000年版
[18] 冯亚东：《刑法的哲学与伦理学》，天地出版社1996年版
[19] 储槐植：《刑事一体化与关系刑法论》，北京大学出版社1997年版
[20] 邱兴隆：《罪与罚讲演录》，中国检察出版社2000年版
[21] 林山田：《经济犯罪与经济刑法》，台北三民书局1981(修订3版)
[22] 李钢：《论市场经济的伦理基础》，载《伦理学》2000年第3期
[23] 许发民：《论犯罪界定中的社会经济政治因素》，载《刑事法学》2002年第5期
[24] 李洁：《罚金刑之数额规定研究》，载《刑事法学》2002年1期
[25] 欧锦雄：《论经济犯罪数额的立法模式》，载《政治与法律》1998年第5期
[26] 储槐植：《议论刑法现代化》，载《中外法学》2000年第5期
[27] 黄祥青：《略论多种量刑情节的适用原则与方法》，载《上海市政法管理干部学院学报》
(法治论丛)2000年第3期
[28]李川：《定罪量刑与形势需要》，载《法学》1998年第9期
[29]周光权：《量刑基准研究》，载《中国法学》1999年第5期
[30]张庆旭：《数量型犯罪的量刑基准研究》载《人民检察》2001年第8期
[31]伍帼瑾：《经济犯罪的成本分析与预防》，载《政治与法律》2003年第1期
[32]刘守芬、汪明亮：《试论罪刑均衡的功能性蕴涵》，载《刑事法学》2000年第1期
[33]李洁：《定罪量刑情节若干问题研究》，载《北华大学学报》2001年第1期
[34]周光权：《法定刑配置的合理性探讨——刑罚攀比及其抗制》，载《法律科学》1998年第4期
[35]童德华：《现行刑事立法技术“六维”评价》，载《法学》2000年第11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 |