价值及其实现

【作者】 廖兴界；

【导师】 陈忠林；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2007， 硕士

【副题名】实体亲告罪要论

【摘要】 从礼法合一的唐代在法典中设立告乃论的犯罪开始，亲告罪在我国刑法中就一直占据着一席之地。然而与此不相称的是：除了作为一种犯罪分类之外，亲告罪在刑法理论中却没有立足之地。在大多数学人眼里亲告罪只是刑事诉讼法上的问题，告诉才处理与起诉并无二致，都只是刑事诉讼程序的一小段而已。诚然，亲告罪并无涉于构罪之行为，但是对于何罪附加告诉的才处理也并不是基于程序便利之考虑，更不是简单地为了司法资源高效率的使用。其当有对其他优越条利益的考量，如被害人的感受，加害人之矫正以及被害人与加害人之间和谐关系的恢复等等。这些考量无疑正是亲告罪存在以及实现的实体法基础。本文从刑法理论中长期受到忽视的被害人的角度出发切入到长期以来被刑法理论忽视的亲告罪的研究上；对亲告罪立法，亲告罪的价值及其实现等做了一定的分析，并试图有所创新。全文共有六个部分，共4万余字，其中正文四章，另外包括前言以及结语。文章主要内容如下：前言：前言从被害人在刑事法理论中地位的演变引出刑法理论应当加强对被害人关注的观点。认为刑法理论不应当只注重被害人事前的自我决定权的实现即被害人承诺问题，更应当重视被害人事后的自我决定权的实现即亲告罪的问题。最后综述了理论界对亲告罪研究的一些现状，并指出亲告罪远不只是一种简单的犯罪分类，其当有何以存在的实然基础，这种基础不是程序的而是深深扎根于实体法上的，因此我们应当加强对亲告罪实体法方面的研究。第一章：亲告罪概述。本章下分三节分别讨论亲告罪的概念、分类以及立法体例方面的问题。所谓名不正则言不顺，本章的首要目的就是为亲告罪“正名”，我们认为亲告罪就是法律明文规定需要告诉权人的告诉才处理的犯罪。然后我们顺势讨论了亲告罪的立法模式，并指出我国亲告罪应该继续坚持总分式的立法模式，但需要在刑法总则中完善相关的程序性规定。最后我们通过对四种类型的亲告罪的论述破除在学界如亲告=自诉等根深蒂固但却不正确的观点，从而为讨论亲告罪范围打下基础。第二章：亲告罪的价值分析。本章是本文的重点。我们认为亲告罪的实体基础其实就在于亲告罪的价值及其实现。亲告罪的价值表明了亲告罪存在之目的，也表明了对某罪附加告诉乃论之合理。本章从批判目前言价值必言“自由、秩序、效率、公正”出发，认为对于亲告罪这样一个在我国有着悠久历史的类罪而言，其价值从“本土资源”中去找寻更为妥当。进而提出了以和谐和无讼作为亲告罪的社会价值的观点。而作为一个刑法术语，我们认为亲告罪也应当有其独特的法学价值。在分析、比较了谦抑与不得已这一对近似概念之后，我们认为应当摒弃谦抑这一不规范的外来语而以不得已作为亲告罪的法学价值。第三章：亲告罪的范围界定。本章也是本文的重点。谈范围的界定首先当然必须确立界定之标准。本章从批判目前亲告罪界定标准的通说——“危害程度—罪轻、可操作性—易举证”出发，认为通说之标准没有全面考察中国古代和国外的立法经验以及亲告罪存在的基础，是建立在对亲告罪=自诉的错误认识上的。而从刑法的调整对象是全体公民的基本人权同公民个体的基本人权之间的关系出发，我们认为确立亲告罪范围应当次第考察被害人可以自己决定的基本人权，侵犯上述基本人权的行为的社会恐慌性以及被害人的再次被害性和被害人与加害人的某些亲属关系。对无社会恐慌性的侵犯被害人可以自己决定的基本人权的犯罪应当亲告化；在有社会恐慌性的侵犯被害人可以自己决定的基本人权的犯罪中分别考虑上述之被害人的再次被害性和被害人与加害人的某些亲属关系，对有被害人的再次被害性之虞的犯罪亲告化。而当被害人与加害人存在某些亲属关系时，该非亲告罪仅对被害人的亲属亲告化。最后我们以此标准为依据并考虑我国目前自诉案件的受理情况简单划分了一下我国刑法中的亲告罪范围。第四章：告诉才处理的定位。本章从亲告罪与非亲告罪在条文上的区别出发，指出“告诉才处理”条款是决定上述两者区别的唯一因素，进而认为对告诉才处理的理论属性的定位是我们研究亲告罪尤其是实体亲告罪不可忽略的重要理论问题。我们认为告诉才处理具有实体法与程序法双重性质，其中“告诉”主要体现了其程序法性质而“不告诉”则主要体现其实体法性质。告诉才处理在程序法中的理论归属当为诉讼条件，而其在实体法中的理论归属当为刑罚的阻却事由。结语：结语简略的结束了全文，并提出当我们找到了亲告罪存在的合理性时，剩下的也许就应该是改革与继续探索。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since the statute book of Tang Dynasty, the crime handled only uponcomplaint has occupied space in our country’s Criminal law. On the oppositeside, the crime handled only upon complaint has no space in our theory ofCriminal law, besides as a kind of class about crime. In most colleagues’opinion, the crime handled only upon complaint only belongs to criminalprocedure code; no trial without complaint isn’t different with legalprosecution; they are only the small stage of Criminal process.Certainly, the crime handled only upon complaint have nothing to do withthe behavior in constitute of crime. But why some crime should be added’no trial without complaint’ is not on account of convenience of process; it ison account of some other superior benefit as the victim’s reception andrecovery of the harmonious relationship between the victim and the guiltyperson. It exactly is my purpose that I can rectify the wrong knowledgeabout the crime handled only upon complaint from discussing foregoingsuperior benefit.Full text includes six parts more than 40,000 characters in total:Preface: The preface elicits the viewpoint that the theory should thinkhighly of the victim, from the position’s variation of the victim in the theoryof Criminal law. We think that the theory of Criminal law should not thinkhighly of the implement of the victim’s self-determination power beforeguilt i.e. consent of the victim only; but it should think highly of theimplement of the victim’s self-determination power after guilt i.e. the crimehandled only upon complaint too. We overview the status quo of the crimehandled only upon complaint, and point out that the crime handled onlyupon complaint is not a kind of class only, it has foundation which make itexist. This foundation is not in the procedure-law but in the stereo-law. Sowe should strengthen the research of the crime handled only complaint.The first chapters: Overview of the crime handled only upon complaint.This chapter has three articles, which discuss the concept and kinds of thecrime handled only upon complaint and the style of legislation about the crime handled only upon complaint. The first purpose of this chapter isrectifying the concept of the crime handled only upon complaint. We thinkthe crime handled only upon complaint is the crime that needs the sue of theperson with the power of sue and is ruled by law. Then we discuss thepattern of legislation of the crime handled only upon complaint. We thinkthat our crime handled only upon complaint should insist on the pattern of"general notice-specific provisions"; but we need consummate theprovisions about process in the general notice of Criminal law. At the last,we want to explode some wrong view as no trial without complaint=privateprosecution, through discussing the four kinds of crime handled only uponcomplaint.The second chapter: The value of the crime handled only upon complaint.This chapter is the focal point of the text. We think the base of stereo-lawabout the crime handled only upon complaint is the value and its implementof this crime. The value of the crime handled only upon complaint signs thepurpose of the existence of the crime handled only upon complaint. Becausethe crime handled only upon complaint has long history in our country, wethink the value of the crime handled only upon complaint should be lookedfor from the "native resource". So we propose the viewpoint that the socialvalue of the crime handled only upon complaint is harmony and "no-litigation". As a terminology of Criminal law, we think the crime handledonly upon complaint should have its distinct value of law. We think itsdistinct value of law is necessity, not tolerant spirit; after analyzing andcomparing the necessity and tolerant spirit.The third chapter: The boundary of the crime handled only uponcomplaint. We think the general theory of fixing the boundary of the crimehandled only upon complaint is wrong; because it is set up on the wrongstandpoint-"no trial without complaint". Because we think that the adjustingobject of Criminal law is the relation between the basic human right of allpeople and the basic human right of individual; so we think we shouldconsider the victim’s basic human right of self-determination, the socialpanic of the behaviors that offend that human right, victim’s second victimization and some kinship between the victim and the guilty person insequence. We think the crimes that has no social panic but offend thevictim’s basic human right of self-determination should be the crimehandled only upon complaint. In the crimes that has social panic but offendthe victim’s basic human right of self-determination, we think that crimeswhich has the danger of the second victimization and when there is somekinship between the victim and the guilty person should be the crimehandled only upon complaint.The fourth chapter: The location of the no trial without complaint.Because the "no trial without complaint" is the only difference between thecrime handled only upon complaint and others; so the location of the no trailwithout complaint is not ignored when we research the crime handled onlyupon complaint. We think it has the dual nature that contains the stereo-lawand procedure-law. The "no trial without complaint" is condition of lawsuitin procedure law. But it is the hindering cause of punishment in criminallaw.The last chapter: This chapter completes the text. And we think we shouldreform our legislation and theory of the crime handled only upon complaint,when we has found the rationality of it.更多还原