【作者】 熊谋林；

【导师】 冯亚东；

【作者基本信息】 西南财经大学 ， 人口学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 当前,我国刑事司法建设处于从传统到现代的制度转型时期,法制规范建构应当立足于我国的传统文化和定性定量的犯罪认知体系。在全球法律文化交流日益频繁的今天,正确认知两大法系和前苏联刑法与我国刑法的差异,是当前刑事法规范研究的重要任务。犯罪和刑罚体系的建构不可忽略既定环境下的规范意识和社会控制体系,更不可能一蹴而就。如何在域内外法律辨析基础上进行法律移植和规范借鉴,这是我国刑事法建设过程中不可或缺的一门必修课。否则,我国的制定法规范难以与我国的法制体系相契合。过去30年,我国刑事法学界的通说认为罚金刑是刑罚轻缓化和刑罚文明的表现,外国刑事司法实践中的罚金刑正在被扩大适用,罚金刑作为刑事制裁措施高比例应用于犯罪控制。由于我国79年刑法未广泛规定罚金刑,受选科罚金刑影响,当时我国刑事司法中的罚金刑适用比率并不太高。在外国刑事司法的罚金适用率数据影响下,我国多数学者从1985年开始一直认为我国应当提高罚金刑适用率和扩大其适用范围。在此背景之下,我国1997年刑法以并处罚金方式进行了扩大立法,以至于刑法分则中近1/3的罪名有罚金刑条款,并且对常态型财产犯罪均规定了并处罚金。然而,新刑法修订后,罚金刑在刑事司法中出现了非常严重的难以执行问题。从2000年最高法院颁布司法解释制定罚金刑执行规范开始,近10年来我国刑事司法的罚金刑难以执行局面不但没有被解决,罚金刑执行率反而越来越低。全国范围内,各基层法院和高级法院均毫无例外地出现高比例的罚金刑不能执行的现状。为什么外国刑事司法中普遍适用的罚金刑,在移入到我国刑事司法后,就出现如此严重南橘北枳的规范不适问题?是我国刑事司法中的罚金刑适用过于频繁,还是罚金刑与我国的刑事违法体系不相协调?是罚金刑判罚数额过高超过被告人的财产支付能力,还是罚金适用于本不应该适用的犯罪人和罪名?罚金刑应用于刑事司法实践,是出于刑罚体系的不得已选择,还是着眼于刑罚文明的征表?这些问题都属于重大刑法基本理论问题。因此,重新认识外国刑事司法中的罚金刑,并探索我国罚金刑难以执行的根源,从而为我国的罚金刑改革献策是本文的核心任务。本文第一章通过文献综述,介绍了我国理论界30年来罚金刑研究的近况,笔者欲在本部分说明的问题是：(1)我国的罚金刑研究是怎么得出结论的,是充分分析外国刑事司法中的罚金刑,还是理论推测；(2)由谁提出,并因何原因广泛应用于司法实践；(3)过去30年中国刑法学界罚金刑研究的理论走向是什么,以及这种走向发生的原因是什么?针对上述三个问题,笔者得出的结论如下：(1)主张扩大罚金刑立法的依据不充分,我国对外国罚金刑的认识起源于两位法学前辈客观而全方位介绍外国罚金刑主要适用于轻微违法和交通违法等行政犯,后来的多数研究成果忽略这一关键问题,并此基础上主观而片面性地提倡我国应扩大罚金刑。外国罚金现状直接取材于4位外国学者对外国罚金适用的零星介绍,缺乏对外国罚金刑的系统实证考查。(2)我国对外国罚金刑的司法适用情况存在一定误解,外国的罚金适用数据距离我国的立法已经相距甚远,我国的罚金研究无法与外国的真实司法环境适时跟进。(3)忽略外国刑事司法中的罚金适用对象,未细致而准确地对罚金刑适用对象进行研究,外国刑事司法中的罚金刑适用对象至少有交通违法和轻微违法两大块在我国已经为非刑事违法。(4)理论研究的自相矛盾造成司法资源的浪费,多数研究者在1997年以前大力主张扩大罚金刑适用范围和增加罚金刑适用力度,2000年后又投入大量人力物力资源去研究和确立司法对策以解决扩大罚金刑所产生的执行难问题。本文第二章通过对我国三个基层法院2010年的刑事判决书进行统计,以及全国范围内16个地区的考察,了解我国的罚金量刑和执行情况。在本部分第一节中,文章主要回答如下几个问题：(1)我国的罚金整体适用率水平如何,以及具体犯罪中的罚金适用情况；(2)罚金主要适用于什么罪名,以及何种违法类型；(3)罚金主要适用对象是什么,是自然人犯罪,还是单位犯罪；(4)罚金的适用模式是什么,是单处罚金,还是并处罚金；(5)罚金判罚数额如何；(6)被判处罚金的犯罪人财产支付能力如何。本部分第二节主要调查并分析我国的罚金执行状况,全国范围内罚金案件的欠缴或不支付情况是本节的中心。针对上述几个问题,本文的回答如下：(1)我国三个基层法院罚金整体适用水平达63.8%(1000个犯罪人中有638个被罚金),全国16个地区法院的平均罚金适用率达56.9%(1000个犯罪人中有569个犯罪人被判处罚金),财产犯罪罚金适用率接近100%；(2)罚金主要适用于财产犯罪,三个基层法院平均达80.7%(1000个罚金案件中有807个是财产犯罪)；(3)罚金主要适用于自然人犯罪(98.5%),单位犯罪罚金仅占极少数部分(1.5%)；(4)罚金主要通过并处罚金方式(96.9%),单处罚金占非常少数部分(3.1%)；(5)罚金刑数额较高,且需要数月工资支付；(6)罚金案件主要适用于低学历犯罪人,财产支付能力不足；(7)罚金案件不能支付的现象非常严重,全国范围内的调查显示,超过71.5%的罚金案件不能执行。本文第三章通过对34个国家或地区的犯罪统计进行分析,研究外国刑事司法中的罚金案件适用情况。在本部分第一节中,文章主要回答如下几个问题：(1)外国刑事法中的罚金适用趋势如何；(2)罚金主要适用于何种罪名及违法类型；(3)外国罚金的判罚数额如何；(4)外国罚金判罚的刑事诉讼程序是什么。针对上述问题,本文给出的答案是：(1)外国刑事司法中的罚金刑自从上世纪70年代开始己呈明显下降趋势；(2)罚金案件主要适用于轻微违法,以及交通违法等行政犯案件(超过3/5)；(3)罚金判罚数额较低,罚金仅需被告人数天工资；(4)罚金案件主要通过非诉讼的简易程序判处。本部分第二节主要通过对外国刑事违法体系进行分级,也即,对包含轻微违法的整体违法体系和排除轻微违法后的实质违法体系进行不同层次的分析,并进而介绍不同违法体系的罚金案件适用水平差异。因此,文章主要回答如下几个问题：(1)各违法体系的罚金适用率水平如何；(2)各违法体系中的罚金适用对象如何；(3)罚金适用模式如何。本文给出的答案是：(1)整体违法体系下部分国家因轻微违法案件的影响而普遍适用罚金,但部分国家的罚金刑出现非常明显的低水平现象(低于10%),实质违法体系中各国的罚金刑适用都出现明显的低水平现象(普遍低于20%)；(2)罚金案件在整体违法体系中主要适用于交通违法,实质违法中财产犯罪很少适用罚金(约10%)；(3)罚金案件主要通过单处罚金方式适用于刑事违法(超过4/5),并处罚金案件仅占极少部分(最低3.9%)。在综合比较中外刑事司法中的罚金刑适用现状后,文章基于中外罚金的适用模式和对象的重要区别,本文第四部分提出核心观点——限制适用罚金刑,尤其是财产犯罪罚金刑应当慎用。因此,本部分以独立成节的方式欲回答如下问题：(1)西方社会的罚金刑具备什么功能；(2)中国刑法中的罚金刑应当关注的现实问题是什么；(3)中国罚金刑执行难的根源是什么；(4)解决罚金刑执行难的可行方案是什么。系统分析前述各部分后,本文给出的答案是：(1)外国刑事司法中的罚金刑具有教育和预防功能,违法体系调节功能,效率保障功能,犯罪体系调节功能；(2)我国刑事司法中的罚金刑必须立足于我国刑事司法中的现状,注意刑法规范的适应性,司法程序适应性,司法观念适应性；(3)基于上述分析,可以发现我国的罚金执行难根源在于,无选择适用可能的并处罚金刑,盲目信赖罚金刑,罚金数额过于确定而缺乏裁量权,罚金数额过高被告人难以承受,罚金案件集中于生存型财产犯罪；(4)改革罚金刑的可行方案应当是降低罚金数额限制,判处与犯罪人支付能力相适应的罚金数额,以及改必须判处罚金刑的“应当”型模式为可选择适用罚金的“可以”型模式。由于罚金刑超过80%适用于财产犯罪,且为并处罚金,本文认为我国的罚金刑执行难最可行的解决办法是控制对财产犯罪适用罚金。基于低学历财产犯罪人存在明显的支付能力缺陷,高数额的罚金刑与自由刑的并处必然导致大量罚金不能支付。因此,建立与我国刑事法相适应的刑事制裁体系的前提是,正确认识外国刑事罚金刑所对应的特定违法体系,认识罚金刑的扩大适用并非世界性趋势,以及不同国家将罚金刑作为刑事制裁措施的立法背景。回顾摘要,本文认为,只有正确重新定位外国刑事法中的罚金刑,才有可能建立与中国立法和司法相适应的罚金适用体系,我国的罚金刑立法和司法特色建设也才具有意义。已有研究对罚金刑的理论探讨非常丰富,本文注重实证性研究,因此在理论分析上着墨不多,尤其是犯罪体系和犯罪概念的分析并未详细展开,这需要未来做更多更进一步的研究。更多还原

【Abstract】 The China’s law should base on its traditional culture, at present time, and quantitative and qualitative system for crime, because the construction of criminal justice lies on the transformative period from traditional to modern time. With the global communication more often, that how to find out what is the different thing of China’s law from both the continental and Anglo-American is the important mission for contemporary criminal research. Building the crime and penal system never success without considering of regulatory ideology and social control system, let alone start once for all. How to learn from foreign law based on differentiating the various laws is a necessary course for criminal justice construction, or the China’s law would never find his perfect way to match legal system.The mainstream academics in the last thirty years insisted on that criminal fine represent the lenience and global civilization of criminal justice, and that criminal fine was extending to more crime as an expression by increasing ratio of application. By contrast, the criminal law promulgated in1979did not set criminal fine as often as oversea, and our criminal fine ratio, as a result, the applying percentage of criminal fine is very low with the impact of optional method for criminal fine. Influenced by the oversea trend of criminal fine, most of scholars recommended that China should extend crime fine to more crimes and increase the application ratio of fine since1985. Accordingly, the1997criminal law extend criminal fine by mandatory fine with imprisonment, and that cause almost1st over three of crime in specific provisions of criminal law, especially for all property crime in daily life. However, the criminal fine was so hard to be paid by offenders after the new law applied to criminal justice in1997.Why does the criminal fine used very often in oversea countries describe the cockeyed phenomenon that law unmatched with China? Could it be explained by either criminal fine was used more often than it should be, or the criminal fine wasn’t proper for criminal justice system? Could it be explained by either the criminal fine amount was higher than the level which the offender can afford, or criminal fine should not be used for criminals and crime in China? Fine used for criminal justice was no choice or on behalf of penalty civilization? Thus, the dissertation focus on that thinking over criminal fine in oversea countries, and seeking to find out its reason why criminal fine in China was so hard to pay, and propose for reformation of criminal justice.By. literature review, chapter one introduce the Chinese academic researches about criminal fine in last thirty years. The author seeks to issue questions as below:(1) How do researchers in China conclude the situation of criminal fine, either fully analyze oversea criminal fine, or theoretical presumption?(2) Who recommend using fine, and why fine was overloaded in criminal justice?(3) What is the academic trend of criminal fine in China, and why it happened? Responded to issues, the author generates that:(1) There is no evidential analysis applied to criminal fine research. Two previous scholars introduce that the oversea trend of criminal fine was mainly applied to minor offence and regulatory offenses such as traffic offence, however, most scholar ignore the objective analysis and partially recommend increasing criminal fine in China. Empirical data for criminal fine in oversea countries absorbed directly from a few papers or books written or translated by four foreigners, without systematical investigation.(2) It do exists stable misunderstanding to Chinese academic fields and that lead China’s law to mismatch the empirical data which is far away the time Chinese scholars used.(3) Ignoring the objects of criminal fine applied in oversea countries is so different from China that minor offences and traffic offences which is crime in oversea countries but decriminalized in China.(4) The conflict between academic research cause serious waste of judicial resource. Most researchers highly recommended, before1997, to extend the boundary of fine and increase the level of criminal fine in China. However, after2000the national organs invest again plentiful human resource and promulgate judicial documents to deal with the serious problem of default since extended criminal fine.Chapter two analyzes the application and payment of fine in China by both empirical data from three primary courts and sixteen districts. In the first part, the dissertation tries to answer the following questions:(1) What is the general level of criminal fine, and what is the situation of specific crime in China?(2) What is the main part of crime which criminal fine applied to, and specific classification?(3) What is the main objects criminal fine applied to either legal unit or individuals?(4) What mode criminal fine used for either independently using or complementary fine with imprisonment?(5) What is the amount of criminal fine?(6) What is the financial ability offender pay for criminal fine? In the second part, this dissertation tries to investigate the level of fine payment and default in nationwide which are the center of this paper.For these issues, the author answer as following:(1) The general level of fine payment in three primary court up to63.8%, that is,638offenders per1000offenders were sentenced to fine, the mean level in16nationwide court is56.9%,which means569offender were punished by fine per1000offender, but the percentage level in property crime increase to100%.(2) Criminal fine mainly applied to property crime,80.7%of criminal fine consist of property crime.(3) Fine mainly applied to individual crime which takes up98.5%of criminal fine, and quite few of legal unit criminals which is only1.5%.(4) Offender was punished by complementary fine which is increase to96.9%, and only3.1%for legal unit criminals.(5) The amount of fine is so high that offenders have to use wage of several months.(6) Criminal fine mainly applied to offender with low education level and poor ability to pay fine.(7) The nationwide phenomenon of fine default is so serious that71.5%of offender with fine penalty cannot pay.Chapter three analyse criminal fine payment outside China by criminal statistics in34oversea countries or districts. In division1of this chapter, the author plan to coping with issues below:(1) What is the general trend of criminal fine?(2) What kind of crimes and violations are the main sources of criminal fine?(3) How about criminal fine amount?(4) What is criminal procedure for criminal fine in other countries? For these issues, the author answers as below:(1) Criminal fine in other countries has witnessed an undoubtfully decreasing trend since1970s.(2) Fine cases mainly applied to minor offences, and regulatory offences such as traffic offences.(3) The amount of fine is so low that offender can pay fine by several days.(4) Criminal fine case mainly sentenced by non-prosecution criminal procedure. With the classification of offences, the author assort offence into general offense which include but not limited minor offences and serious offence, and true criminal system without minor offences. Accordingly. the second division in chapter three specify the criminal fine level in different offenses system, and try to answer the following questions:(1) How about the specific level of criminal fine in different offenses system?(2) What are the main objects criminal fine applied to offender?(3) What pattern of the criminal fine was used for, either complementary fine with imprisonment or independent fine without imprisonment? The author answers as below:(1) Criminal fine is commonly used in general offences system because of the minor offences included, but some of countries’s level of fine is very low (below10%). However, the serious offences system in every country is very low without exception (20%or less).(2) Criminal fine cases applies to general offences come mainly from traffic offences, property crime in serious crimes take up a little part (around10%). Criminal fine without imprisonment is the main part of fine for crime (more than4/5), and very little fine with imprisonment (the lowest countries3.9%).Comparing Chinese criminal justice to oversea countries, chapter four conclude that China should control criminal fine, especially property crime, relied on the different mode and object. Thus this dissertation tries to answer the following questions:(1) What functions do the criminal fine played in Western societies?(2) What issues China’s fine in criminal law should focus on?(3) What reasons can explain the default of fine in China?(4) What practical schedules can be applied to deal with default? After analyzing every issue, the paper issues the following answer:(1) Criminal fine in oversea countries play a function of education and prevention, adjust legal system, save efficiency, regulate crime system.(2) Criminal fine in China should consider the situation and environment of China, criminal law’s adaptability, adaptability of judicial procedure, and adaptability of judicial conception.(3) The reasons why criminal fine in China is so hard to execute are that complementary fine is impossible for choice, that over-trust criminal fine more than it should be, that certain amount of minimum fine unavailable for arbitration, that the amount of criminal fine is higher than the financial ability the offender affordable, that criminal fine concentrate property crime for life support.(4) The practical schedules for criminal fine reformation are decrease the limitation of amount, and sentenced criminal fine match with the offender’s ability of financial payment, and transfer the mandatory fine to optional criminal fine. In this dissertation the best solution for fine default in China is to refuse fine with imprisonment from property crime since fine for property crime take up80%of total fine. By consideration of criminals who committed property crime is hard to pay fine with low education, complementary fine with large amount must bring about fine default. Therefore the logic premise that construct the proper criminal punishment system suit for China’s criminal justice is to realize that the specific violation system and its fine in oversea countries, and that the world trend isn’t to extending fine as Chinese scholar recommended, and that the legislative background why criminal fine regard as criminal penal system in different countries.Reviewing abstract above, the author thinks that there is no way to build proper criminal fine system adapt for China’s legislation and justice, if we cannot reconsider the fine system abroad and aim to construct meaningful criminal legislation and justice. The previous researches discuss deeply the theory of criminal fine, however, this article focus on the empirical studies. To be honest, there is a serious defect in theoretical analysis in the paper, especially the crime system and crime definition related to fine was limited to some narrow topics. The author still has to figure out more issues and theoretical analysis in future.更多还原