本文選題：公共政策分析 + 地方政府��； 參考：《西南大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：2011年5月1日實施的《刑法修正案(八)》新設立了危險駕駛罪。將危險駕駛行為作為犯罪進行懲罰,體現(xiàn)了人民群眾對于公共交通安全的高度關注,反映了國家進一步加強保護民生的立法宗旨。作為一項公共政策,司法實踐中以危險駕駛罪名被追究刑事責任的犯罪人,絕大部分是因為醉酒駕駛。醉酒駕駛屬于抽象危險犯,如何把握好此類犯罪的量刑均衡問題,是當前刑事審判工作中的一大難點。為此,筆者以浙江省金華地區(qū)義烏市、永康市、婺城區(qū)、金東區(qū)四家基層法院為分析單位,從中選取1098份醉駕犯罪刑事判決書,采取文獻研究的內(nèi)容分析方法,提取醉駕犯罪刑事判決書記載的犯罪主體情況、案件認定事實、裁判說理以及判處刑罰等信息,分析樣本法院辦理醉駕犯罪案件情況。調(diào)查研究表明,醉駕犯罪人呈現(xiàn)多樣性特征,相應行為模式亦存在差異；對于同一地區(qū)、相同時段、犯罪情節(jié)相近似的案件,樣本法院在緩刑適用比例、判處罰金數(shù)額等方面差異明顯,尚不能實現(xiàn)刑罰的基本平衡。分析原因,主要有：立法過于原則籠統(tǒng)、地方政府懲治重點存在差異、政府交管部門查處力度不一、檢察機關缺少明確的量刑建議、樣本法院裁判思路不統(tǒng)一、內(nèi)部協(xié)調(diào)不足等。而醉駕犯罪量刑均衡問題在法律層面表現(xiàn)為公正量刑問題,從經(jīng)濟學的角度看則是刑罰的效率問題。為了解決這個問題,本文運用公共政策分析方法,借鑒法經(jīng)濟學理論成果,將刑法價值取向設定為效率,從醉駕犯罪和刑罰的經(jīng)濟分析入手,探索建構細化醉駕犯罪量刑政策的經(jīng)濟學分析理論平臺。主要內(nèi)容包括：一、全面分析醉駕犯罪個人成本與收益,運用行為經(jīng)濟學理論,構建理性犯罪決策模型,揭示醉駕犯罪決策機制。二、依據(jù)犯罪個人成本與收益結構的差異,區(qū)分和歸類不同的行為模式,細化研究對象,具體分析適用緩刑的條件。三、創(chuàng)新科斯交易成本理論在刑罰領域的運用,將刑罰成本外部性內(nèi)部化,解決量化罰金數(shù)額問題。四、分析拘役對犯罪人造成的經(jīng)濟損失,構建拘役與罰金替代關系函數(shù)模型,解決適用緩刑情況下罰金量化問題。五、分析罰金執(zhí)行不能與刑罰收益的均衡,探討緩刑適用比例問題。據(jù)此,筆者基于地級市地方政府視角,提出完善醉駕犯罪量刑政策的建議：政府交管部門規(guī)范執(zhí)法；檢察機關規(guī)范推進量刑建議工作；審判機關細化醉駕犯罪量刑規(guī)則；地方政府職能充分發(fā)揮。
[Abstract]:On May 1, 2011, the Criminal Law Amendment (8) established the crime of dangerous driving. The punishment of dangerous driving behavior as a crime reflects the people's great concern for the safety of public transportation and the legislative purpose of the state to further strengthen the protection of the people's livelihood. As a public policy, most of the criminals who are prosecuted for dangerous driving in judicial practice are drunk driving. Drunken driving is an abstract dangerous crime. How to grasp the balance of sentencing of this kind of crime is a big difficulty in the current criminal trial. Therefore, taking four basic courts in Yiwu, Yongkang, Wucheng and Jindong District, Jinhua District, Zhejiang Province as analysis units, the author selects 1098 criminal judgments on drunk driving crime, and adopts the content analysis method of literature study. This paper extracts the information of the subject of the crime recorded in the criminal judgment of drunk driving crime, the facts of the case identification, the reasoning of the judge and the sentence, and analyzes the situation of the sample court dealing with the case of drunk driving crime. The investigation and research show that the drunk driving offenders have diverse characteristics, and the corresponding behavior patterns are different. For the cases with similar crime circumstances in the same area and the same time period, the sample court applies to the probation rate. The difference in the amount of fine is obvious, and the basic balance of penalty can not be realized. The main reasons are: the legislation is too general, the focus of local government punishment is different, the investigation and punishment efforts of the government traffic control department are different, the procuratorial organ lacks the clear sentencing suggestion, the sample court judgment mentality is not unified, Inadequate internal coordination, etc. On the other hand, the balanced sentencing of drunk driving crime is the problem of fair sentencing on the legal level, and the efficiency of penalty from the angle of economics. In order to solve this problem, this paper applies the method of public policy analysis, draws lessons from the theoretical achievements of law and economics, sets the value orientation of criminal law as efficiency, and starts with the economic analysis of drunk driving crime and penalty. To explore the construction of a detailed sentencing policy of drunk driving economic analysis theoretical platform. The main contents are as follows: first, the author analyzes the individual cost and income of drunk driving crime, constructs a rational crime decision-making model and reveals the decision-making mechanism of drunk driving crime by using the theory of behavioral economics. Secondly, according to the difference of the structure of individual cost and income, the author distinguishes and classifies the different behavior pattern, refines the research object, and analyzes the condition of applying probation concretely. Third, innovate the application of Coase's transaction cost theory in the field of penalty, internalize the externality of penalty cost and solve the problem of quantifying the amount of fine. Fourthly, it analyzes the economic loss caused by criminal detention, constructs the function model of substitute relation between criminal detention and fine, and solves the problem of penalty quantification in the case of probation. Fifth, analyze the balance between fine execution and penalty income, and discuss the applicable proportion of probation. On this basis, the author based on the perspective of local governments at the prefectural level, put forward some suggestions to improve the sentencing policy of drunk driving crime: government traffic control department to standardize law enforcement, procuratorial organs to standardize the promotion of sentencing advice work, judicial organs to refine the sentencing rules for drunk driving crimes; The functions of local governments should be brought into full play.
【學位授予單位】：西南大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 劉洋;;理性犯罪人假設的法經(jīng)濟學分析[J];中國城市經(jīng)濟;2010年09期

2 孫大偉;;探尋一種更具解釋力的侵權法理論——對矯正正義與經(jīng)濟分析理論的解析[J];當代法學;2011年02期

3 李潔;于雪婷;徐安懷;;量刑規(guī)范化的規(guī)范方式選擇[J];當代法學;2011年03期

4 王順安;;寬嚴相濟的刑事政策之我見[J];法學雜志;2007年01期

5 俞朝輝;周吉;;外來人口犯罪遏制對策研究[J];法制與社會;2010年23期

6 馬春曉;;罰金刑緩刑制度探究[J];淮北煤炭師范學院學報(哲學社會科學版);2010年01期

7 閆彬;喬旭;;試論罰金刑易科制度[J];經(jīng)濟研究導刊;2011年02期

8 李蔚濤;;罰金刑適用中存在的問題及原因探析[J];經(jīng)濟研究導刊;2011年23期

9 盧建平,苗淼;刑罰資源的有效配置——刑罰的經(jīng)濟分析[J];法學研究;1997年02期

10 姜濤;;寬嚴相濟刑事政策司法化研究[J];理論導刊;2011年01期

相關碩士學位論文 前2條

1 萬桂勇;憲政視域下醉駕行為研究[D];安徽師范大學;2013年

2 賴曉蕊;醉駕慎刑論與嚴刑論爭鳴的法理反思[D];湖南大學;2013年

，

本文編號：2041600