發(fā)布時間：2018-06-18 10:18

  本文選題：刑罰 + 懲罰��； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2016年博士論文

【摘要】：鑒于刑罰關(guān)乎每一個社會成員的生命、自由、財產(chǎn)及尊嚴(yán)等最根本利益,從古希臘的柏拉圖和亞里士多德,到古羅馬的斯多葛學(xué)派,一直到當(dāng)代歐美學(xué)者,無一例外的把刑罰的正當(dāng)性問題當(dāng)成最主要的倫理學(xué)和法哲學(xué)問題之一。迄今為止,學(xué)者們對于刑罰正當(dāng)性問題的答案仍未取得一致,反而形成了“報應(yīng)主義”和“功利主義”兩種刑罰觀的立場分歧和理論對立。以往的相關(guān)研究對于“刑罰正當(dāng)性”這一問題的分析以及對“報應(yīng)主義”和“功利主義”兩種刑罰觀的闡釋充斥著各種混亂,對于這一古老且重大問題的研究只停留在一個相當(dāng)膚淺的程度上。“混亂”和“膚淺”這兩大缺陷在以往相關(guān)研究的“論域”、“論據(jù)”和“結(jié)論”三方面都有所體現(xiàn)。學(xué)界目前公認(rèn)的結(jié)論是兩種理論“各有利弊、互為補充”,進(jìn)而一種以“報應(yīng)限制功利”為原則的所謂“綜合論”或曰“一體論”成為通說,導(dǎo)致當(dāng)前關(guān)于刑罰哲學(xué)的研究幾乎成為一潭死水。另一方面,在實務(wù)界,司法人員們的腦中則充斥著有罪必罰、罪有應(yīng)得等報應(yīng)性的懲罰觀念,成為導(dǎo)致過罪化、重刑化的一個重要原因。本文認(rèn)為,刑罰倫理正當(dāng)性的根基在于、且僅在于功利主義。一、為功利主義辯護(hù)功利主義所強調(diào)的“幸�！�,并不是幸福的主觀感受,而是幸福的客觀條件。功利主義要求共同體保障和增進(jìn)有利于其每一個成員獲得幸福的基本善品,諸如各項基本自由和權(quán)利、財富、各種平等機(jī)會等等。因此功利主義可以進(jìn)行效用計算和人際間的效用比較。尤其是,功利主義認(rèn)為幸福的基石是自由,充分的自由是每個人能夠充分實現(xiàn)自己各種幸福愿望的必要條件。功利主義的口號“增進(jìn)最大多數(shù)人的最大幸�！钡恼嬲�含義指的是“最大限度的增進(jìn)每一個社會成員的幸�！�,即其強調(diào)的是幸福的平等,而不是幸福的總量,功利主義不會為了幸福總量的增加而允許不同的社會成員的幸福之間存在巨大差距。因此,功利主義不會為了特定少數(shù)人的利益而損害特定大多數(shù)人的利益,也不會為了特定大多數(shù)人的利益而損害特定少數(shù)人的利益,功利主義只是允許為了增進(jìn)不特定的大多數(shù)人的利益而減損不特定的少數(shù)人的利益,或者在特定的大多數(shù)人的重大利益與特定少數(shù)人的利益難以兩全的情況下才允許犧牲少數(shù)人的利益。正義和道德來源于功利。通行的正義規(guī)則和道德義務(wù)是歷史形成的這樣一種東西:如果每一個社會成員都普遍遵守它,從整體上看就會對每一個社會成員的幸福都有利。因此,遵守和尊重通行的正義規(guī)則和道德義務(wù),在一般情況下就是最有利于最大多數(shù)人最大幸福的。因此,功利主義并不會導(dǎo)致非正義和不道德(例如“懲罰無辜”),功利主義只會在極端情況下才允許突破通行的正義規(guī)則和道德義務(wù),而這種突破只能是為了更大的正義和更真的道德。并且,對于這種突破,突破者要承擔(dān)功利主義的證明義務(wù),并且要把對通行正義規(guī)則和道德義務(wù)的突破所可能導(dǎo)致的引起混亂等不利后果考慮在內(nèi)。因此,功利主義,作為一種以“追求人類普遍幸福”為理論宗旨的道德哲學(xué)理論,其完全應(yīng)當(dāng)、也能夠成為刑罰正當(dāng)性的倫理根基。二、刑罰正當(dāng)性之功利主義證成首先必須區(qū)分“刑罰正當(dāng)性”這一問題下的兩個不同層面的子問題,一是“刑罰存在之正當(dāng)性”問題,即“刑罰”這一事物的存在為什么是正當(dāng)?shù)?二是“刑罰分配之正當(dāng)性”問題,即怎樣的懲罰才是正當(dāng)?shù)�。�?dāng)前絕大多數(shù)關(guān)于刑罰正當(dāng)性問題的學(xué)說都混淆了上述兩個不同層面的問題,“一般預(yù)防會導(dǎo)致懲罰無辜和重刑,因此一般預(yù)防不能作為刑罰的正當(dāng)目的”就屬于這種典型的論域混淆,因為該論斷只能說明一般預(yù)防不適于作為正當(dāng)刑罰之分配的正當(dāng)原則,但并不能說明其不能作為刑罰之存在的正當(dāng)依據(jù)。從功利主義的立場來看,任何一項公共性的制度、規(guī)則和行動,其正當(dāng)性只能從其最有利于保護(hù)或增進(jìn)共同體內(nèi)每一個成員的最大幸福來得到確證。犯罪即嚴(yán)重危害最大幸福的行為。而刑罰就是在個人良心、社區(qū)感情、道德輿論的力量不足以有效阻止人們將犯罪意愿轉(zhuǎn)化為犯罪行動的情況下告知人們一旦犯罪其就將付出自己的生命、自由等最大幸福要素之代價并在一個人犯罪之后確實使其付出該代價進(jìn)而迫使人們不敢將犯罪意愿轉(zhuǎn)化為犯罪行動,并且通過制裁犯罪而使“最大幸福規(guī)范”的效力和權(quán)威得以確證進(jìn)而達(dá)到預(yù)防犯罪效果的一套制度體系。刑罰存在之正當(dāng)性就在于其是一種預(yù)防犯罪以保護(hù)和增進(jìn)最大幸福的有效的和必要的工具。刑罰的預(yù)防犯罪機(jī)理包括兩方面,一是通過威懾行為(使人不敢犯罪),二是通過確證規(guī)范(使人不愿犯罪)。功利主義要求刑罰分配過程中必須充分考慮能夠?qū)ψ畲笮腋Ｄ繕?biāo)構(gòu)成影響的每一個因素,必須將預(yù)防犯罪這一目的與其他最大幸福相關(guān)因素進(jìn)行平衡以實現(xiàn)更高的目的:保護(hù)和增進(jìn)共同體內(nèi)每一個成員的最大幸福。因此,功利主義并不會主張刑罰分配中的預(yù)防犯罪目的決定一切,功利主義要求刑罰分配必須采取能夠最有利于保護(hù)和增進(jìn)共同體內(nèi)每一個成員的最大幸福的最佳方案。因此,功利主義必然支持罪責(zé)原則,因為罪責(zé)原則對于保護(hù)和增進(jìn)最大多數(shù)人的最大幸福最有利。功利主義也必然不會允許重刑,因為殘忍的或過于嚴(yán)厲的刑罰對于最大多數(shù)人的最大幸福造成的綜合性不利影響必然在絕對值上大于重刑威懾所能夠獲得的預(yù)防犯罪收益。功利主義刑罰分配的基本精神是“迫不得已”,分配原則是“刑罰寧少勿多”和“刑罰寧輕勿重”,這與報應(yīng)主義的“罪有應(yīng)得”和“勿輕勿重”形成了鮮明對比。三、報應(yīng)主義刑罰觀批判報應(yīng)主義分為哲理報應(yīng)主義和直覺報應(yīng)主義兩種類型。前者是指肇源于康德的以哲學(xué)理論為基礎(chǔ)的報應(yīng)主義,后者是指建立在社會公眾正義直覺基礎(chǔ)上的報應(yīng)主義。二者之間的共同性遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)小于二者之間的差異。在哲理的報應(yīng)主義內(nèi)部又可分為兩種類型:強勢報應(yīng)主義和弱勢報應(yīng)主義。強勢報應(yīng)主義的哲學(xué)基礎(chǔ)是康德先驗主義的定言命令,而康德的定言命令實際上是一種訴諸經(jīng)驗和后果的假言命令,因為根據(jù)康德對定言命令的證明邏輯,“為什么對犯罪必須懲罰”終究要從“如果對犯罪不懲罰會怎樣”的角度進(jìn)行回答。因此強勢報應(yīng)主義本身難以作為刑罰存在之正當(dāng)性的理論根基。在刑罰分配之正當(dāng)性領(lǐng)域,強勢報應(yīng)主義主張有罪必罰、刑足抵罪,必然導(dǎo)致理論上的和實踐中的重刑傾向。因此強勢報應(yīng)主義無法也不應(yīng)成為刑罰正當(dāng)性的倫理根基。弱勢報應(yīng)主義的兩個命題是(1)刑罰只能對有罪之人施加(2)刑罰不得超過必要限度。弱勢報應(yīng)主義的缺陷有三方面:第一,弱勢報應(yīng)主義只能指引刑罰應(yīng)當(dāng)怎樣分配,而不能證成刑罰為何應(yīng)當(dāng)存在,因此弱勢報應(yīng)主義是一種殘缺的理論,其不能為“刑罰正當(dāng)性”這一總問題提供完整的理論支撐;第二,弱勢報應(yīng)主義與強勢報應(yīng)主義存在一種邏輯上的斷裂,從強勢報應(yīng)主義的“犯罪必須受罰”無法推導(dǎo)出“有罪才能受罰”和“懲罰不得過度”,因此無論從邏輯上看還是從語義上看,弱勢報應(yīng)主義都難以歸入“報應(yīng)”主義的理論陣營;第三,弱勢的報應(yīng)主義實際上僅僅是主張懲罰要對被懲罰者“公正”,而公正是一個先于并獨立于弱勢報應(yīng)主義的范疇,公正并不是建立在弱勢報應(yīng)主義的基礎(chǔ)上,相反弱勢報應(yīng)主義是建立在公正的基礎(chǔ)上,因此弱勢報應(yīng)主義是一種無用的理論。直覺報應(yīng)主義的主張是“因為公眾需要懲罰而懲罰”或曰“懲罰是為了滿足公眾的需要”。直覺報應(yīng)主義的缺陷有四點:第一,直覺報應(yīng)主義只能說明刑罰之存在的現(xiàn)實必要性,而無法說明刑罰之存在的倫理正當(dāng)性;第二,直覺報應(yīng)主義將公眾報應(yīng)情感的滿足建立在刑罰帶給被懲罰者巨大痛苦的基礎(chǔ)上,這本身就反倫理的;第三,直覺報應(yīng)主義無法為針對那些并不是大多數(shù)社會成員都會對其產(chǎn)生報應(yīng)需求的行政犯罪的刑罰的存在作出合理解釋。以上三點決定了直覺報應(yīng)主義無法成為刑罰存在之正當(dāng)性的理論根基。第四,在刑罰分配問題上,尤其在刑罰的司法分配領(lǐng)域,社會公眾的意見往往是不穩(wěn)定的,會受到媒體和政客的影響,因此直覺報應(yīng)主義也無法作為刑罰分配的正當(dāng)指引。以上強勢報應(yīng)主義的證明邏輯、弱勢報應(yīng)主義的公正要求、直覺報應(yīng)主義的報應(yīng)需要都可以從功利主義角度得到說明,因此報應(yīng)主義完全可以被功利主義所涵蓋,因此相對于功利主義來說,報應(yīng)主義沒有獨立存在的必要。所謂報應(yīng)正義的補充或限制,完全是由功利主義所決定的,任何形式的報應(yīng)主義,最終終究是要去功利主義那里尋找答案,任何形式的報應(yīng)主義都可以用功利主義來解釋——確切的說,它們本來就是功利主義的,只是有意識或無意識的披上了報應(yīng)主義的合法外衣而已。綜上,刑罰的正當(dāng)性的根基應(yīng)當(dāng)是、也只能是功利主義的,功利主義能夠、也只有功利主義能夠?qū)π塘P正當(dāng)性相關(guān)諸問題提供全面的、充分的根據(jù)和基礎(chǔ)。報應(yīng)主義在理論上或者是殘缺的、或者是錯誤的、或者是多余的,在實踐上則是有害的,它造成了重刑的傾向,并阻止我們對什么是更加合理的懲罰之相關(guān)要素進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步的思考,因此應(yīng)當(dāng)從刑罰理論中被徹底剔除出去。
[Abstract]:As the punishment concerns the most fundamental interests of every member of the society, such as life, freedom, property and dignity, from Platon and Aristotle in ancient Greece to the Stoics of ancient Rome, to the contemporary European and American scholars, the problem of the justification of punishment is regarded as one of the most important ethical and legal philosophies. Scholars have not agreed on the answer to the question of the justification of punishment, instead, it has formed the standpoint differences and theoretical opposition between the two kinds of penalty view of "retribution doctrine" and "utilitarianism". The previous related research on the issue of "punishment justification" and the two kinds of penalty view of "retribution doctrine" and "utilitarianism". Interpretation is full of confusion, and the study of this old and important problem is only in a fairly superficial degree. The two major defects of "chaos" and "superficial" are reflected in the three aspects of the previous related research, "argument" and "conclusion". The conclusion that the academic circles now recognised is that the two theories are "beneficial to each other". In addition, the so-called "comprehensive theory" or "one in one", based on the principle of "retribution to restrict utilitarianism", leads to the current research on the philosophy of penalty. On the other hand, in the practical field, the judiciary is full of punishments, such as guilty and deserved punishment, and so on. Concept has become an important reason that leads to a crime and a heavy punishment. This article holds that the foundation of the justification of the ethic of penal ethics lies in utilitarianism. First, the "happiness" emphasized by utilitarianism is not the subjective feeling of happiness, but the objective condition of happiness. Utilitarianism requires the community to guarantee and promote it. It is beneficial to every member of its members to obtain the basic good things of happiness, such as basic freedoms and rights, wealth, all kinds of equal opportunities, etc. so utilitarianism can be used to calculate the utility of utility and to compare the utility of human beings. The true meaning of the slogan of utilitarianism "improving the greatest happiness of the most people" means "maximizing the happiness of every member of the society", which emphasizes the equality of happiness, not the total amount of happiness, and utilitarianism will not allow for the increase of happiness. There is a huge gap between the happiness of the members of society. Therefore, Utilitarianism does not harm the interests of a particular majority for the benefit of a particular minority, nor does it harm the interests of a particular minority for the benefit of a particular majority, and utilitarianism is only allowed to derogate from the interests of the unspecific majority of people. The interests of a small number of people, or the great interests of a particular majority and the interests of a particular minority, allow the sacrifice of the interests of a few people. Justice and morality come from utilitarianism. The prevailing justice and moral obligations are such a thing in history: if every member of society is generally in compliance. Keeping it, as a whole, will be beneficial to the happiness of every member of the society. Therefore, the rule of justice and moral obligation to abide by and respect for the passage is, in general, the greatest happiness for the greatest majority. Therefore, Utilitarianism does not lead to injustice and immorality (such as "punishment of innocence"), utilitarianism only In extreme cases, it is allowed to break through the prevailing rules of justice and moral obligation, which only for the sake of greater justice and more true morality. And for this breakthrough, the breakthroughs have to bear the burden of proof of utilitarianism, and to cause confusion, which may lead to the breach of the rules of justice and the breach of the moral obligations of the Tao. Therefore, utilitarianism, as a moral philosophical theory of "pursuing universal happiness" as the theoretical purpose, should be the ethical foundation of the justification of penalty. Two, the utilitarianism of the justification of penalty must first distinguish between the two different layers under the issue of "the justification of punishment". The first is the question of "the justification of the existence of penalty", that is, why the existence of the "penalty" is justified; two is the problem of "the justification of the allocation of penalty", that is, what kind of punishment is justified. At present, most of the theories about the legitimacy of penalty have confused the above two different aspects, " General prevention leads to punishment of innocence and heavy punishment, so the general prevention cannot be the proper purpose of punishment. "It belongs to this typical domain confusion, because it can only explain the proper principle that general prevention is not suitable for the distribution of the proper penalty, but it does not show that it can not be the justifiable basis for the existence of penalty. In the standpoint of the doctrine, the legitimacy of any public institution, rule and action can only be confirmed from the greatest happiness of each member of the common body which is most conducive to the protection or promotion of the greatest happiness. The punishment is not enough for the strength of the individual, the feelings of the community, and the moral opinion of the community. When it is effective to prevent people from turning criminal will into criminal action, it tells people that once a crime is committed, it will pay its own life, freedom, and the price of the greatest happiness factor and make it pay the price after a person's crime, forcing people to dare not convert criminal will into criminal action, and make it possible to punish crimes by sanctions. The validity and authority of the "maximum happiness standard" can be confirmed and then a system system to prevent the effect of crime. The justification of the existence of the penalty is that it is an effective and necessary tool to prevent crime in order to protect and enhance the greatest happiness. The mechanism of the crime prevention includes two aspects, one is through deterrence. The two is through a confirmation code (which makes a person unwilling to commit a crime). Utilitarianism requires that every factor which can affect the maximum happiness goal must be fully considered in the process of penal distribution, and the goal of the crime prevention must be balanced with other greatest happiness related factors to achieve a higher goal: to protect and enhance the common purpose. Therefore, Utilitarianism does not advocate the decision of the purpose of crime prevention in the allocation of punishment, and utilitarianism requires that the allocation of penalty must be the best case which can best protect and enhance the greatest happiness of every member of the body. Therefore, utilitarianism is bound to support the principle of guilt, Because the principle of guilt is most beneficial to the protection and promotion of the greatest happiness of the greatest majority. Utilitarianism will certainly not allow a heavy penalty, because the comprehensive adverse effect of cruel or too severe punishment on the greatest happiness of the most people is bound to be greater than the benefits of a heavy penalty deterrent. The basic spirit of the allocation of utilitarianism is "forced to be forced", and the principle of distribution is "less punishment than no more" and "punishment rather than not heavy". This is in sharp contrast with the "deserved punishment" and "do not give weight to the weight". Three, the critical retribution doctrine of the retributive doctrine of punishment is divided into philosophical retribution and intuitional retribution doctrine. Two types. The former refers to the retribution based on the philosophical theory of Kant in Zhaoyuan. The latter refers to the retribution based on the intuition of public justice. The commonality between the two is far less than the difference between the two. In the philosophy of retribution, it can be divided into two types: strong retribution and disadvantaged retribution. The philosophical basis of strong retribution is the assertion of Kant's Transcendentalism, while Kant's order is actually a false command to resort to experience and consequences, because, according to Kant's proof of the logic of the assertions, "why punishment must be punished" is ultimately the angle of "what if the punishment will not be punished" Therefore, the strong retribution doctrine itself is difficult to be the theoretical foundation of the justification of the existence of penalty. In the field of the justification of the penalty allocation, strong retribution doctrine advocates that the punishment must be punished and the penalty foot is offset, which inevitably leads to the theory and the practice of heavy punishment. Therefore, the strong newspaper should not and should not be the justification of the penalty. The two propositions of the disadvantaged retribution doctrine are (1) the penalty can only be imposed on the guilty person (2) not to exceed the necessary limit. There are three aspects of the weakness of the disadvantaged retribution doctrine: first, the disadvantaged retribution doctrine can only guide the distribution of the penalty, but the punishment should not exist, so the disadvantaged retribution doctrine is a kind of disability. The lack of theory can not provide complete theoretical support for the general problem of "punishment justification". Second, there is a logical fracture between the weak retribution doctrine and the strong retribution doctrine, and the "crime must be punished" from the strong retribution doctrine, and the "punishment cannot be punished" and "the punishment cannot be overtaken", therefore, no matter from the logic From the semantic point of view, the disadvantaged retribution doctrine is difficult to fall into the "retribution" theory camp. Third, the disadvantaged retribution doctrine, in fact, only advocates that punishment should be "fair" to the punished, and justice is a preceder and independent of the disadvantaged retribution doctrine, and justice is not based on the basis of the disadvantaged retribution doctrine. On the contrary, the disadvantaged retribution doctrine is based on justice, so the disadvantaged retribution doctrine is a useless theory. Intuitional retribution is "punishing the public because the public needs punishment" or "punishment is to meet the needs of the public." there are four points of intuitional retribution: first, intuitionism can only be found. It explains the practical necessity of the existence of the penalty, but can not explain the ethical legitimacy of the existence of the penalty; second, intuitional retribution, based on the great pain of the penalty to the punishes, is based on the enormous pain of the penalty to the penalty; and third, intuitionism can not be aimed at those who are not the majority of the society. The members will make a reasonable explanation of the existence of the punishment of the administrative crime that it produces the retribution demand. The above three points determine the theoretical foundation that the intuitional retribution doctrine can not be the justification of the existence of the penalty. Fourth, on the issue of the allocation of penalty, especially in the field of judicial distribution of the penalty, the public opinion is often unstable and will be affected. To the influence of the media and politicians, intuitionism can not be used as a proper guide for the distribution of penalty. The proof logic of the above strong retribution doctrine, the impartiality of the disadvantaged retribution doctrine, the need of the intuitional retribution can be explained from the utilitarianism angle, so the retribution doctrine can be completely covered by utilitarianism. Therefore, relative to utilitarianism, there is no necessity for the existence of retribution. The complements or limitations of the so-called retribution justice are entirely determined by utilitarianism, and any form of retribution, ultimately, seeks the answer to utilitarianism, and any form of retribution can be explained by utilitarianism. To sum up, they are utilitarianism, only consciously or unconsciously put on the legal clothes of the retribution doctrine. To sum up, the foundation of the justification of the penalty should be only utilitarianism, utilitarianism, and only utilitarianism can provide comprehensive and full basis for all problems related to the justifiable punishment of punishment. And basics. Retribution is theoretically or incomplete, or wrong, or superfluous, and in practice it is harmful. It causes the tendency of heavy punishment and prevents us from further thinking about what is a more reasonable element of punishment, so it should be completely eliminated from the theory of penalty.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D914
，

本文編號：2035139