【摘要】：死緩限制減刑是指人民法院根據(jù)犯罪情節(jié)、人身危險(xiǎn)性等情況，對(duì)被判處死刑緩期執(zhí)行的累犯以及因故意殺人、強(qiáng)奸、搶劫、綁架、放火、爆炸、投放危險(xiǎn)物質(zhì)或者有組織的暴力性犯罪被判處死刑緩期執(zhí)行的犯罪分子，在作出裁判的同時(shí)決定對(duì)其限制減刑。《中華人民共和國(guó)刑法修正案（八）》及最高人民法院《關(guān)于死刑緩期執(zhí)行限制減刑案件審理程序若干問題的規(guī)定》規(guī)定了死緩限制減刑司法適用的前提，寬嚴(yán)相濟(jì)刑事政策和死刑政策是死緩限制減刑適用的政策根據(jù)，犯罪分子的人身危險(xiǎn)性是適用死緩限制減刑的實(shí)質(zhì)條件。死緩限制減刑自2011年5月實(shí)施至今，各地法院陸陸續(xù)續(xù)地作出了限制減刑的判決，通過對(duì)這些死緩限制減刑案例的研究，對(duì)于進(jìn)一步完善死緩限制減刑的司法適用具有重要意義。通過分析死緩限制減刑適用的罪名、累犯的組合類型、判死緩的理由、適用死緩限制減刑適用的實(shí)質(zhì)條件、死緩限制減刑的溯及力等發(fā)現(xiàn)，死緩限制減刑在司法適用中存在諸多問題。例如，罪名的適用不當(dāng)，適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上存在較大的差異，限制減刑被過度適用。導(dǎo)致死緩限制減刑司法適用出現(xiàn)這些問題的原因是，，死緩限制減刑適用的范圍較窄，限制減刑適用的實(shí)質(zhì)條件過于籠統(tǒng)，法官的自由裁量權(quán)過大。為解決死緩限制減刑司法適用不當(dāng)?shù)膯栴}，應(yīng)當(dāng)通過立法的形式適當(dāng)擴(kuò)大死緩限制減刑的適用范圍，通過司法解釋將模糊規(guī)定具體化，通過發(fā)布指導(dǎo)性案例細(xì)化死緩限制減刑適用的條件，增加控訴機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)死緩限制減刑的建議等對(duì)策來予以防范。
[Abstract]:Suspension of death limit and reduction of sentence refers to recidivism who has been suspended from execution by the people's court according to the circumstances of the crime and personal dangerousness, as well as those criminals who have been sentenced to suspended execution for wilful rape, robbery, kidnapping, arson, explosion, release of dangerous substances or organized violent crimes, and the suspension of the death penalty for crimes committed by the people's court on the basis of intentional rape, robbery, kidnapping, arson, explosion, release of dangerous substances or organized violent crimes. At the same time of making a decision, it is decided to limit the reduction of sentence. < Amendment to the Criminal Law of the people's Republic of China (8) > and the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on the suspension of the death penalty and the limitation of the trial procedure of the case, stipulate the premise of the judicial application of the suspension of death restriction on the reduction of sentence, and the criminal policy of combining leniency with the death penalty policy is the policy basis for the application of the suspension of restrictions on the reduction of sentence, The personal dangerousness of criminals is the essential condition for the application of suspension of death to limit the reduction of sentence. Since the suspension of death sentence was implemented in May 2011, local courts have continuously handed down sentences restricting the reduction of sentence. Through the study of these cases, it is of great significance to further improve the judicial application of the limitation of suspension of death sentence. Through the analysis of the charges applicable to the limitation of suspension of death, the types of recidivism, the reasons for suspending the sentence, the substantive conditions for the application of suspension of death and the retroactive effect of the limitation of remission, it is found that there are many problems in the judicial application of the limitation of suspension of death. For example, the application of charges is improper, there are great differences in the applicable standards, and the limitation of commutation is excessive. The reasons for these problems are that the scope of application of suspended penalty is narrow, the substantive conditions of limiting the application of commutation are too general, and the discretion of judges is too large. In order to solve the problem of improper judicial application of the limitation of suspension of death, we should appropriately expand the scope of application of the restriction of suspension of death through legislation, concrete the vague provisions through judicial interpretation, refine the conditions for the application of the limitation of suspension of death through the issuance of guiding cases, and increase the suggestions of the prosecution organ on the limitation of reduction of sentence.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王政勛;論社會(huì)危害性的地位[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年02期

2 林維;論死刑緩期兩年執(zhí)行制度的異化[J];河北法學(xué);2005年07期

3 龔稼立;關(guān)于先例判決和判例指導(dǎo)的思考[J];河南社會(huì)科學(xué);2004年02期

4 張旭;張延華;;淺談罪責(zé)刑相適應(yīng)原則[J];科教文匯(上旬刊);2009年09期

5 龍洋;關(guān)于我國(guó)死刑政策與死刑限制的反思與重構(gòu)[J];理論導(dǎo)刊;2005年11期

6 董文輝;姚光銀;;累犯制度的新動(dòng)向[J];鐵道警官高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2011年03期

7 張明楷;;故意傷害罪司法現(xiàn)狀的刑法學(xué)分析[J];清華法學(xué);2013年01期

8 趙秉志;;我國(guó)現(xiàn)階段死刑制度改革的難點(diǎn)及對(duì)策——從刑事實(shí)體法視角的考察[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2007年02期

9 康鳳英;論故意傷害罪的量刑——適用死刑的條件[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2001年05期

10 劉憲權(quán);;我國(guó)刑法中溯及力相關(guān)問題探論[J];政治與法律;2007年03期

本文編號(hào)：2504870