摘要
有关想象竞合犯的处断原则,主要存在着"从一重处断"说、"从一重重处断"说以及"数罪并罚"说之争。在立法及理论上,实质的一罪说和实质的数罪说均有主张"从一重处断"或"从一重重处断"的观点,但都存在着逻辑上不能自我证成的缺陷。分析学说争论的原因,除了想象竞合犯的罪数本质之外,禁止重复评价、全面评价等体现责任均衡的原则影响着想象竞合犯处断原则的确立。想象竞合犯在本质上是实质的数罪竞合,因此,采取单一刑罚制的处断方式并不合理。对想象竞合犯数罪并罚处断,不仅是量刑客观性考量的结果,而且能够更好地体现责任衡平,理应为最优选择。
As to the principle of punishing imaginative joinder of offenses, there mainly exist three different opinions, namely, sentencing on the basis of the most serious crime, heavier punishment on the most serious crime and cumulative crime punishment. In legislation, the two opinions about qualitative once-crime and multiple crimes have their supporters but cannot justify themselves in nature. Both of the opinions approve of sentencing on the basis of the most serious crime or heavier punishment on the most serious crime. However, neither of them can be self-validated and therefore, they have their deficiencies logically. Besides the quantity nature of imaginative joinder of offenses, prohibition of double evaluation and comprehensive criminal evaluation affect the principle of equilibrium of responsibility and influence the choice of principle of punishment. Essentially, imaginative joinder of offenses is concurrence of plural crimes. Thus, it is unfair to adopt a single penalty. The author advocates that joinder of punishment for plural crimes is not only an ob）eetive assessment on measurement of penalty, but also fully reflects the balance of responsibility, so, joinder of punishment for plural crimes should be the optimum penalty choice.
出处
《河南大学学报（社会科学版）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2013年第2期55-62,共8页
Journal of Henan University(Social Sciences）
基金
河南省哲学社会科学规划项目"我国‘打黑’刑事政策研究--基于整体意识的考量"(2011CFX009)阶段性成果
关键词
想象竞合犯
处断原则
“从一重处断”说
“从一重重处断”说
数罪并罚
imaginative joinder of offenses
principle of punishment
sentencing on the basis of the most serious crime
heavier punishment on the most serious crime
joinder of punishment for plural crimes
