摘要
我国司法实践不区分责任刑与预防刑,虽然有助于提高司法效率,但也不可避免地陷入刑罚是否正当合理的质疑。实际上,责任刑与预防刑是刑罚的一体两面:回顾过去,对犯罪人施以报应惩罚;展望未来,预防犯罪人及其他公众再犯罪。目前,学界通说认为责任刑居于主要地位,预防刑居于次要地位。但是,并合主义产生的二律背反问题反射出学界不置可否的态度,进而在确定量刑基准时陷入点幅之争的旋涡。究其原因,在于未厘清责任刑的体系定位。在刑罚体系中,以消极责任主义为根基的责任刑应居于核心地位,责任刑并合预防刑,形成以预防刑附属于责任刑为原则、预防刑突破责任刑为例外的刑罚体系。在此基础上,量刑基准的确立可由静态的点幅之争转为动态的确立程式。
Liability penalty and preventive penalty are two sides of the penal system: on the one hand,liability penalty imposes retribution on the offender’s past behavior;on the other hand,preventive penalty prevents the offender and other members of the public from committing crimes in the future. The academic circles generally support the determination of preventive punishment within the scope of liability punishment. However,the comprehension theory may cause ambiguity,and the pointand-frame dispute when determining the sentencing standard. The root of these problems is the unclear positioning of the liability penalty system. The liability penalty based on penal passivism should take the core position in the penalty system with preventive penalty subordinating to liability punishment. On this basis,the dispute in the establishment of sentencing standards can be transformed from point-and-frame to establishment procedure.
作者
黄明儒
张继
HUANG Mingru;ZHANG Ji(Law School,Xiangtan University,Xiangtan Hunan,411105,China)
出处
《西南石油大学学报（社会科学版）》
2022年第2期92-98,共7页
Journal of Southwest Petroleum University(Social Sciences Edition)
基金
国家社会科学基金项目“风险社会背景下行政犯扩张及其适用限缩研究”(19BFX061)。
关键词
责任刑
预防刑
消极责任主义
并合主义
二律背反
liability penalty
preventive penalty
penal passivism
theory of comprehension
antinomy
