發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-18 02:46

  本文選題：有毒有害食品犯罪 + 輕輕重重�。� 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：通過對有毒有害食品犯罪已經(jīng)判決的案件進(jìn)行實(shí)證研究和分析，我國有毒有害食品犯罪量刑過程中具有明顯的輕輕重重傾向，具體而言，對于食品犯罪的基本情節(jié)犯大多使用輕刑和緩刑，而對于食品犯罪的加重情節(jié)刑法過度使用重刑，甚至死刑。我國目前的社會現(xiàn)實(shí)和法治環(huán)境不同于美國當(dāng)年提出輕輕重重刑事政策的社會背景；同時(shí)西方的輕輕重重刑事政策與我國目前所采用的寬嚴(yán)相濟(jì)的刑事司法政策在刑法思想、刑法模式和語義概念方面存在極大的區(qū)別，因此我國有毒有害食品犯罪量刑時(shí)不能盲目的移植和適用西方的輕輕重重政策。另外，刑法應(yīng)對有毒有害食品犯罪時(shí)存在嚴(yán)重的量刑反制的現(xiàn)象，所謂量刑反制本質(zhì)上是在犯罪認(rèn)定出現(xiàn)疑難問題時(shí)司法部門通過比較假定的犯罪的法定刑與行為社會危害性最終確定罪名的行為。量刑反制違反了罪刑法定原則、違反了罪刑均衡原則、違反了正確的定罪量刑順序，在司法實(shí)踐中應(yīng)當(dāng)予以摒棄。有毒有害食品犯罪在量刑中要防止輕，但主要是要防止重。有毒有害食品犯罪中所體現(xiàn)的“重重”的偏向以及“量刑反制”思想的實(shí)質(zhì)是刑法重刑思維的體現(xiàn)。重刑思維在我國具有悠久的歷史，在現(xiàn)代社會重刑思維仍然具有極為廣泛的影響力，但是重刑思維不論是從功利的預(yù)防犯罪還是從刑法的現(xiàn)代理念而言都是相悖的。重刑思維無力承擔(dān)起社會管理失范所引起的犯罪控制問題，在預(yù)防有毒有害食品犯罪上應(yīng)當(dāng)注重前期的行政監(jiān)管，事前的預(yù)防比事后的刑罰懲罰會收到更好的結(jié)果。
[Abstract]:Through the empirical study and analysis of the cases that have already been adjudicated on the crime of toxic and harmful food, the sentencing process of the crime of toxic and harmful food in our country has obvious slight tendency, specifically speaking, For the basic circumstances of food crimes, most of them use light punishment and probation, while for the aggravating circumstances of food crimes, excessive use of severe punishment, or even the death penalty. The current social reality and legal environment of our country are different from the social background of the light criminal policy put forward by the United States at that time, and at the same time, the western lightly heavy criminal policy and the criminal justice policy adopted by our country at present are in the criminal law thought. There are great differences between the criminal law model and semantic concept, so we can not blindly transplant and apply the western policy when sentencing the crime of poisonous and harmful food. In addition, when the criminal law deals with the crime of toxic and harmful food, there is a serious phenomenon of counter-sentencing. In essence, the so-called sentencing countersystem is the act that the judicial department determines the crime by comparing the legal punishment and the social harmfulness of the crime with the legal punishment and the social harmfulness of the behavior when there are difficult problems in the criminal identification. Sentencing countersystem violates the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime, violates the principle of balance between crime and punishment, and violates the correct order of conviction and sentencing, which should be abandoned in judicial practice. The crime of poisonous and harmful food should be prevented from being light in sentencing, but it should be mainly prevented from being heavy. The "heavy" bias embodied in the crime of poisonous and harmful food and the essence of the thought of "sentencing counter-system" are the embodiment of the thinking of heavy punishment in criminal law. Heavy penalty thinking has a long history in our country, and still has a very wide influence in modern society. However, heavy penalty thinking is contrary to both the utilitarian crime prevention and the modern concept of criminal law. The thinking of heavy punishment can not bear the crime control problem caused by the maladministration of the society. In order to prevent the crime of poisonous and harmful food, we should pay attention to the administrative supervision in the early stage, and the prevention in advance will get better results than the punishment after the punishment.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3;D924.13

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孫力,劉中發(fā);“輕輕重重”刑事政策與我國刑事檢察工作[J];中國司法;2004年04期

2 邱興隆;從復(fù)仇到該當(dāng)——報(bào)應(yīng)刑的生命路程[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年02期

3 胡學(xué)相,周婷婷;對我國重刑主義的反思[J];法律適用;2005年08期

4 張武舉;牛克乾;;歐美輕輕重重的刑事政策概述及借鑒[J];法律適用;2012年06期

5 陳興良;;寬嚴(yán)相濟(jì)刑事政策研究[J];法學(xué)雜志;2006年01期

6 陳興良;;寬嚴(yán)相濟(jì)刑事政策研究[J];法學(xué)雜志;2006年02期

7 游偉;肖晚祥;;論行政犯的相對性及其立法問題[J];法學(xué)家;2008年06期

8 黃華生;;“寬嚴(yán)相濟(jì)”與“兩極化”之辨析[J];法學(xué)家;2008年06期

9 竹懷軍;利子平;;我國刑事政策的抉擇及其合理性論證[J];法學(xué)評論;2006年04期

10 李曉明;;歐美“輕輕重重”刑事政策及其借鑒[J];法學(xué)評論;2009年05期

，

本文編號：2033677