發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-02-09 16:38

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 駁案匯編 賊盜 量刑 實(shí)體公正　出處：《鄭州大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：量刑作為以法律為根據(jù),對(duì)犯人裁量刑罰的審判活動(dòng),是將法律實(shí)行的過(guò)程,是對(duì)相對(duì)人實(shí)體權(quán)利產(chǎn)生影響的活動(dòng)。司法者在量刑過(guò)程中所遵循的原則、依據(jù)等直接體現(xiàn)了當(dāng)時(shí)的法律水平,量刑的結(jié)果公平與否不僅關(guān)乎案件當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益是否得到維護(hù),也關(guān)乎民眾對(duì)于法律及其背后支撐的國(guó)家權(quán)力信奉與否,進(jìn)而影響社會(huì)穩(wěn)定及法治進(jìn)程。我國(guó)幾千年的法制進(jìn)程中自有其獨(dú)特的量刑方法和原則,體現(xiàn)著傳統(tǒng)的價(jià)值選擇和判斷。在量刑問(wèn)題依然制約法治進(jìn)程和人民法律信仰程度的今天,或可通過(guò)借鑒古代量刑智慧來(lái)改進(jìn)當(dāng)前的量刑實(shí)踐,使法治得以實(shí)現(xiàn),使人民從每一個(gè)案件中感受到公平正義,通過(guò)一個(gè)個(gè)案件來(lái)認(rèn)可法律的權(quán)威。清代作為封建社會(huì)的最后一個(gè)朝代,法制和司法模式已經(jīng)成熟,有很強(qiáng)的借鑒意義。而要了解清代的量刑,《駁案匯編》是最具代表性的資料,《駁案匯編》作為清代乾嘉時(shí)期的成案編集,所收案例一般都是原檔案和卷宗的復(fù)錄,以其真實(shí)性、全面性、權(quán)威性的特點(diǎn)而具有很高的研究?jī)r(jià)值。通過(guò)對(duì)其中案例的分析,以清晰的得出當(dāng)時(shí)的司法運(yùn)作狀況。賊盜案歷來(lái)為統(tǒng)治者所嚴(yán)厲打擊,賊盜律位于《大清律例·刑律》之首,對(duì)《駁案匯編》中的賊盜案進(jìn)行詳細(xì)的研究能概括出當(dāng)時(shí)的量刑狀況和有益經(jīng)驗(yàn)�！恶g案匯編》中的有關(guān)賊盜案例,體現(xiàn)了其刑罰適中、情罪相符、審慎量刑、合乎情理的量刑原則,在量刑的過(guò)程中,力求平允,犯罪者所受的刑罰與其所犯罪行和造成的危害相當(dāng)。在駁回督撫呈遞的案件中,刑部批駁理由大都是定罪不平,案件事實(shí)不情,罪名輕重攸分,事關(guān)生死,未便率覆,體現(xiàn)了其量刑審慎,力求公正的量刑原則。在具體案例中,以常人情理判斷案中當(dāng)事人的具體行為,從而對(duì)案件情節(jié)進(jìn)行判斷量刑,以真正做到懲惡蔽辜,達(dá)到實(shí)體公正,體現(xiàn)了其合乎情理,罰當(dāng)其罪的量刑原則。各個(gè)量刑原則體現(xiàn)在一個(gè)個(gè)具體的案例中,揭示著當(dāng)時(shí)的量刑者在量刑的過(guò)程中所一直堅(jiān)持的準(zhǔn)則。在具體的案例中,可以分析出當(dāng)時(shí)的量刑者希望通過(guò)量刑達(dá)到“辟以止辟,刑期無(wú)刑”、靖風(fēng)俗、穩(wěn)定社會(huì)秩序、懲惡蔽辜的量刑目的。當(dāng)時(shí)的量刑,追求的是實(shí)體的正義,讓惡者得到懲罰,讓無(wú)辜的人得到情理上的補(bǔ)償。同時(shí),通過(guò)量刑,達(dá)到預(yù)防犯罪,靖肅風(fēng)俗,穩(wěn)定社會(huì)秩序的目的。在案例中也體現(xiàn)出量刑者對(duì)于事實(shí)狀況、情節(jié)認(rèn)定、律文選擇、罪名確定等方面的嚴(yán)謹(jǐn),對(duì)刑法適用的慎重,這些對(duì)于當(dāng)今時(shí)代的量刑也具有重要的借鑒意義。
[Abstract]:Sentencing, as a judicial activity based on the law and discretion of the criminal penalty, is the process of enforcing the law and has an impact on the substantive rights of the relative person. The basis and so on directly reflected the level of the law at that time. Whether the result of sentencing was fair or not was not only related to whether the legitimate rights and interests of the parties to the case were protected, but also whether the public believed in the law and the state power underpinned by it. Thus affecting the process of social stability and the rule of law. Our country has its own unique sentencing methods and principles in the legal process of thousands of years. It reflects the traditional value choice and judgment. Today, the sentencing problem still restricts the process of the rule of law and the people's legal belief, or we can improve the current sentencing practice by using ancient sentencing wisdom for reference, so that the rule of law can be realized. Let the people feel fair and just in every case, and recognize the authority of the law through one case after another. As the last dynasty of feudal society, the legal system and judicial model have matured. This is of great significance for reference. In order to understand the sentencing of the Qing Dynasty, the Collection of refuting cases is the most representative data. As a compilation of successful cases in the Qianjia period of the Qing Dynasty, the cases received are generally rerecorded from the original archives and files, with their authenticity. Comprehensive, authoritative characteristics and has a high research value. Through the analysis of the cases, in order to get a clear understanding of the judicial operation at that time. Theft cases have always been severely attacked by the rulers. The theft law is located at the head of the "Qing Law 路Criminal Law". A detailed study of the theft case in the Collection of rebuttal cases can generalize the situation of sentencing and beneficial experience at that time. The relevant cases of burglary and theft in the Collection of refuting cases reflect the appropriate penalty. The principle of appropriate, prudent and reasonable sentencing. In the course of sentencing, the offender is subject to a penalty comparable to the crime he has committed and the harm he has caused. In the case submitted by the governor, Most of the reasons approved by the Ministry of torture are unfair conviction, the fact of the case is not sentimental, the charges are serious and serious, the death or death is concerned, and the rate of failure is repeated. This reflects its discretion in sentencing and strives for a just sentencing principle. In specific cases, Judging the concrete behavior of the party in the case by ordinary people's reason, so that the circumstances of the case can be judged and sentenced, in order to truly punish the evil, to achieve substantive justice, which reflects its reasonable, Penalty is the sentencing principle of its crime. Each sentencing principle is embodied in a specific case, revealing the criteria that the sentencing person at that time insisted on in the course of sentencing. In the specific case, It can be analyzed that the sentencing people at that time hoped to achieve the sentencing purposes of "opening up a sentence without punishment," pacifying customs, stabilizing social order, and punishing evil people. At that time, sentencing was meant to pursue substantive justice, so that the villains could be punished. Let innocent people get reasonable compensation. At the same time, through sentencing, to achieve the purpose of crime prevention, Jing Su custom, and stabilize social order. In the case, it also reflects the sentencing person's choice of facts, circumstances, and laws. The rigorous determination of charges and discretion in the application of criminal law are also of great significance for sentencing in the present age.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D924.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 余艷;;淺談醉酒犯罪的定罪量刑問(wèn)題[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2011年20期

2 洪流;對(duì)量刑問(wèn)題的再認(rèn)識(shí)[J];中央政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年04期

3 周蔚;任志中;;量刑問(wèn)題研究——以量刑方法為主要視角[J];人民司法;2008年03期

4 何東;關(guān)于刑事附帶民事訴訟中刑事量刑問(wèn)題的立法建議[J];法學(xué)探索.貴州省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1992年04期

5 陳柳紅;陳銳鋒;;青少年犯罪的量刑問(wèn)題研究[J];法制與社會(huì);2013年02期

6 姜偉;擄人勒贖行為定罪量刑問(wèn)題的探討[J];西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1985年01期

7 田懷章;單位騙貸行為的定罪量刑問(wèn)題[J];中央政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1994年03期

8 新華;;最高法官員就電信詐騙定罪量刑問(wèn)題答問(wèn)[J];中國(guó)新通信;2011年08期

9 戴福康;怎樣掌握強(qiáng)奸未遂犯的量刑問(wèn)題[J];法學(xué);1983年02期

10 徐玉,李瑞生;量刑問(wèn)題研究[J];山東審判;2004年03期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前3條

1 楊鑫;醉駕案件量刑問(wèn)題建議[N];西部法制報(bào);2013年

2 中國(guó)刑法學(xué)研究會(huì)會(huì)長(zhǎng)、北京師范大學(xué)刑事法律科學(xué)研究院暨法學(xué)院教授 趙秉志;試析薄熙來(lái)案件的定罪量刑問(wèn)題[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

3 記者 王斗斗;試點(diǎn)案件無(wú)因量刑問(wèn)題抗訴申訴[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前7條

1 徐新艷;《駁案匯編》之賊盜案量刑問(wèn)題研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2017年

2 張璐;貪污罪量刑問(wèn)題實(shí)證研究[D];南昌大學(xué);2016年

3 屈首敬;多情節(jié)并存量刑問(wèn)題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

4 鄒劍，

本文編號(hào)：1498381