【作者】 许其勇；

【导师】 杨兴培；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 刑法作为和平时期最具暴力性的权力样态，其通过惩罚犯罪恢复社会正义、发挥威慑力预防犯罪，但如果用之不当则极易造成对公民自由的侵害，而且是严重的甚至是不可逆转、难以弥补的侵害。因此，在刑事法治领域，其核心的问题是防止刑罚权的滥用，防止国家权力异化为对个人自由的专断干预。本文即志于确立自由精神在现代刑法中的引领作用，通过深入挖掘自由的价值所在，表明现代刑法应当彰显自由精神，并通过制度建构既确认刑罚权又限制刑罚权从而保障自由。在导论部分，文章开宗明义点明中心论点，认为现代刑法的根基是自由精神，现代刑法就是自由刑法，是力图以法律限制国家刑罚权，使之成为个人自由保障的刑法。导论中还交代了针对这一主题的研究现状及本文的写作思路。第一章主要论述自由价值的至上性。这主要从以下几个方面加以展开：首先涉及到对“自由”一词的界定问题。文中所说的“自由”并不是哲学上的意志自由，也不是指人可以从事某件具体事情的“积极自由”（free to），而仅仅是指免于奴役的“消极自由”（liberty from）。其次是对自由价值的理论根据的挖掘。文章从人本主义、功利主义以及知识论上的无知论角度阐述了自由价值具有至上性，是人类生存、发展的基本需求，也是终极目的。最后则详细介绍当下中国强调自由价值的必要性所在。一方面我国传统文化中缺乏自由精神，无论是儒家文化还是法家精神都是重秩序而轻自由，重集体而轻个人。近代以来在救国图存的压力之下，并未真正张扬自由精神，更多地依然是强调团结和集体的力量。新中国成立很长一段时间内，集体主义的趋势并未减弱，个人依然是无足轻重的，国家、集体利益至上，自由要服从于秩序的需要，个人服从于集体的需要。所以，对自由价值的推崇应当是当下中国政治文明的必然选择。第二章则阐述自由价值的张扬对国家观、刑法观产生的影响。自由理念之下的国家观认为，个人是本源，人应当根据自身的需求而充分发展，但人作为群聚起来的社会动物为了共同生存又必须尊重他人同等的自由。因此，人们才自愿让渡部分权利，组织国家来维持基本社会秩序，管理公共事务。国家存在的目的在于维护个人自由，其手段是民主制度和法治，即人民通过推选代表组成国家最高权力机构，由这个最高权力机构制定法律来实现人民的自我管理，而不是由凌驾于人民之上的权威来控制人们的生活。这个作为人们自我管理的法律规则既划定了个人与个人间的界限，也同时划定了国家公权力干预个人生活的界限，而且从保障自由的角度来说后者的意义更大于前者。因为古往今来对个人自由造成最大侵害的往往是公权力而不是个人对个人，而且个人受到他人侵害尚可求助于公权力，而公权力若异化为压迫个人的力量则个人无以为援。因此，现代政治理论最为重要的课题是如何限制公权力以保障公民自由。由这样的政治理论衍生出的现代刑法观认为，刑事法治的核心是限制刑罚权，制定刑法的目的就是为了限制刑罚权以保障自由。因此，一方面，在刑罚权来源上要坚持民主原则。只有人民自己为自己立法才能使刑法不成为专断的工具，不至于成为侵害公民自由的“刀把子”。另一方面，在刑罚权的设置上要契合自由精神。现代刑法要坚持法益侵害原则、责任主义原则和谦抑性原则，以最大限度为公民个人自由留出空间。只有在公民处于非奴役的自由状态下实施侵害他人自由的行为，并且没有其他补救措施用以抗制时，才值得动用刑罚权。以此为标准，文中还展开对中国传统刑法的批判。就刑罚权的来源来说，古代中国法自君出，有法律而无法治，法律从来都只是统治者用以御民的工具。统治者在法律约束之外，君王更是集最高立法、司法、行政权于一身。儒家与法家、德治与法治之间争论的只是该以德为主还是以刑为主。正如梁治平先生所说的那样，中国古代的政制是人治，其基本的统治模式是：人→法→人。君主站在权力的顶端发号施令，大大小小的官吏负责执行，庶民永远是法律施行的客体，赏刑由之；就刑罚权的设置来说，刑法泛化，刑法是控制社会最为常用的手段，礼刑合一，刑民不分，而且刑罚无度，重典盛行。司法中更是重实质理性，轻形式理性，以“春秋决狱”为代表，讲究原心论罪，司法擅断，刑罚肆虐，极大地侵害个人自由。第三章是现代刑法自由精神所要求的刑罚权来源正当性、刑罚权设置正当性的制度实现。一方面，现代刑法从形式上要求刑事立法上的“国会保留”，要最大限度的体现公意，而且立法机构制定的刑法必须是明确的，以确保公意能得到真实地展现与贯彻。另一方面，现代刑法从实质合理性上来限制刑法对社会生活的干预度，确立起刑法在规范体系中的“保障法”地位，确保刑法只是作为最后的手段使用。在刑法与道德规范的关系上，刑法不介入未侵害他人法益的纯道德领域。在刑法与其他法律规范的关系上，则坚持民法、经济法、行政法等法律规范先行的原则，用其他法律规范能够解决的，刑法就不应该介入。这既是刑罚正义的体现，也是社会分层治理的需要及刑法规范明确性对于法定犯的特殊要求。对照我国现行刑法，虽已将罪刑法定写入刑法，刑罚权受到一定限制，但刑事立法的民主性依然不足，全国人大常委会在行使刑法修改权时常常僭越，导致全国人大刑事立法权被架空。在经济犯罪等法定犯中，刑法没有保持其应有的谦抑品性，常在“他法”未行的情况下冲到打击社会失范行为的最前沿。第四章论述的是对现代刑法自由精神造成威胁的几种刑法理论与实践。首先要警惕的是刑法工具论。我们曾有过数千年将刑法视为御民之器用的封建专制法制传统。新中国的成立虽推翻了封建制废弃了旧法统，但传统的价值观念依然在人们观念及实际生活中发挥着主导性的作用。我们曾有过将刑法视为阶级斗争利器甚至无法无天的惨痛经历。在阶级斗争理论影响下，刑法成了对敌斗争的工具，为了政治的需要，可以超越法律的规定而实施惩罚，甚至以大规模、频繁的群众运动代替严肃的司法活动，刑事法治遭到了空前破坏，惩罚权根本得不到有效地控制，公民自由饱受其害，甚至于性命悠忽。“文革”结束后重新开启的法治进程亦不是一帆风顺的，刑法工具论的观念依然挥之不去。在“严打”的浩大声势中，刑法的人权保障功能再被忽视甚至淡忘，刑权力轻易地越过了刑法的界限，侵害了公民自由。即使是进入21世纪的今天依然有许多掌权者将权力视为私家之物，将法治误为只是以刑治人。其次是对风险刑法、敌人刑法的警惕。当时今日，风险社会理论风行，社会安全感缺失，刑法维护社会秩序、安全的工具价值又被不当放大，以秩序、安全为价值先导的风险刑法甚至敌人刑法构成了对现代刑法自由精神的新挑战。因此，现代刑法需要将自由的观念融入其中，时时警醒，不能忘乎刑法本身乃为限制刑权力保障自由之真品性，否决刑法就会吞噬我们，专断可能借尸还魂，技术的进步可能带来更为骇人的社会控制。在结语部分，重申了在自由与秩序的关系中应当自由优先的宗旨，并强调法律不应当是专属于国家的统治手段，而是公民之间的契约，公民与国家之间的契约，无论是“吾国”还是“吾民”都要受其制约。对公民的制约在于，法律明令禁止的则不可为。对国家的制约在于，法律明确授权的才可为。刑法更不应当是维护秩序甚至镇压的工具，国家动用刑罚权要以法律明文规定为前提，刑法应当承担起平抑刑权力的使命。刑事法治的真义就在于通过限制刑罚权保障公民自由。如果把刑法当成维护秩序工具，就永远难以摆脱其从属于政治目的的器用格局，必然沦为人治之术，而空有法律之名，国家将不再是人民安居乐业的寓所，只有法庭与监狱。更多还原

【Abstract】 Criminal law is a type of authority with the highest degree of violencein peacetime, which recovers social justice by punishment on crimes andprevents offences through deterrent effects. However, a wrongful use ofcriminal law could also easily lead to infringement towards civilliberties, sometimes so seriously that it could brought irrevocable andirremediable harm. Therefore to the rule of law in the sphere of criminallaw, the essential issue is to prevent abuse of power of punishment, andto prevent state power from alienating into dictatorial interfere onpersonal liberties. This thesis is committed to establish the leading roleof the spirit of freedom in modern criminal law, discover the values offreedom, in order to reveal that it is essential for modern criminal lawto represent the spirit of freedom, and by construction of suitablesystems which shall hold the power of punishment confirmed as well asconfined, and the liberties shall be protected therefore.The Introduction Chapter will present the key points directly, whichidentifies the spirit of freedom as the foundation of modern criminal law,and regards modern criminal law as a criminal law of freedom, its purposeis to confine the rights of punishment belonging to the state, and to forge it into a criminal law protecting person liberties. The present studieson this subject and the plan of this thesis are also included.Chapter One will focus on the supremacy of the value of freedom. Itis elabrated as several parts. Firstly, the term ‘freedom’ will beexamined. In this thesis, the term ‘Freedom’ is not freewill inphilosophy, neither the ‘positive freedom’ for men to engage in acertain action (free to), but the ‘negative freedom’ for men to avoidbeing salved (liberty from). Secondly, I will try to discover theoreticalfoundations of the value of freedom. The supremacy of freedom will beestablished on humanism, utilitarianism and non-known in knowledge theory,which shall reveal that freedom is a basic need of sustainablity anddevelopment of human kind, and the ultimate purpose thereof. Lastly, Iwill introduce why currently it is necessary for China to emphasise thevalue of freedom. On the one hand, the traditional Chinese culture islacking of sprit of freedom. The Confucians and Legalists both regardedthe value of order more important than freedom, and group than individuallikewise. In modern times, under the pressure of nation security, thespirit of freedom was not promoted either, but emphasise more on unityand strength of group. After1949, there was a long duration in which thefocus on group weakened little, and individuals were still neglected, theinterests of state and group were overwhelming, and the value of freedomwas subjected to the needs of order while the individuls was subjectedto the needs of group. Therefore, the promotion of the value of freedomshall be an inevitable choise for the current civilization process ofChinese politics.Chapter Two will elaborate the effects imposed on the ideologies ofstate and criminal law by the promotion of the value of freedom. The ideaof state under the freedom maintains that individuals shall be its origin,and people shall develop themselves according to their own needs. But humans, as social animals gathered together, shall respect freedom ofothers according to the same degree for the purpose of living together.Therefore individuals voluntarily give up part of their rights to forma state in order to maintain social order and arrange public affairs. Thepurpose of state is to protect personal freedom by means of democracy andrule of law, i.e., the highest authority shall be composed ofrepresentatives selected by people, and the people rule themselvesthrough legislations of the highest authority, instead of beingsuppressed by an authority high above people. This principle of law, bythe nature of self-governance, defines the boundries between individualsas well as between public authority and personal life, and the latter onemay be considered as more important from the point of view offreedom-protection. Because from antiquity to modern time, the mostsevere injuries made on personal liberties was not coming from individualsbut public authorities, and one might plead for remedy to publicauthorities when he was harmed by others, but would find no help when thepublic authorities had been alienated into some kinds of suppressive force.As a result, the most important issue in modern political theory is thathow to protect civil liberties by confining public authorities.Accordingly, modern criminal law which is developed under suchpolitical theory maintains that the essence of the rule of law in criminalsphere is to confine the power of punishment, the purpose of a system ofwritten criminal law is to confine the power of punishment in order toprotect freedom. Thus on the one hand, as to the origin of power ofpunishment, the principle of democracy shall be insisted. The criminallaw shall not be turned into an instrument of infringing civil libertiesonly when the people make laws for themselves. On the other hand, thesetting of power of punishment shall be fit for the spirit of freedom.The modern criminal law shall insist on principles of legal interests injury, responsibility and modesty, in order to save space for civilfreedom as much as possible. Only when citizens engage in acts ofinfringement of the freedom of others in a free condition of non-slavery,and there is no other remedies for this action, the use of the power ofpunishment is then justified. And traditional Chinese criminal law is tobe criticized according to this standard. As to the origin of the powerof punishment, in ancient China the law derives from the emperor, thereis law but no rule of law, the law has long been just an instrument forthe monarchy to rule the people. Rulers are outside the constraints ofthe law, and the king is the highest legislative, judicial and executivepowers in one. The debate between Confucianism and Legalism, or the ruleof virtue and the rule of law is just a question of which part shall bedominated, virtue or punishment. As Mr. Liang Zhiping said, ancientChina’s political system is the rule of man, the basic rule model is:people→Law→people. Monarch standing on the top of the power torelease orders, the officials are responsible for the implementation,while the common people is always the object of legal force, receivingrewards or punishments. As to the settings of power of punishment,criminal law is generalized, the criminal law is the most commonly usedmeans of society-control, punishment confused with rites, there is nodifference between criminal and civil rules, and the punishment isexcessive, heavy penalties are prevalent. In the process of lawenforcement, substantive rationality is emphasized over formalrationality, as the example of the “judgement according to Spring andAutumn”, the attention is paid to the judgement on motives, law isenforced with arbitrariness, punishment is flourished, and individualfreedom is infringed greatly.The third chapter is on the legitimacy of the source of the power ofpunishment required by the spirit of freedom of modern criminal law, and the institutional realization of the legitimacy of the settings ofpunishment power. On the one hand, the modern criminal law formallyrequires criminal legislation to be “preserved for the parliament”, topresent the maximum expression of the public will, and the criminal lawenacted by legislature must be clear to ensure that the public will beable to get truly demonstrate and implement. Modern criminal law, on theother hand, from a substantive reasonableness position to limit theintervention of the criminal law of the social life, setting up a “Lawof Protection” status of the criminal law in the system of norms, toensure that the criminal law is only used as a last resort. On therelationship of the criminal law and the code of ethics, the criminal lawshall not intervene in the field of pure morality which does not infringelegal interests of others. On the relationship of criminal law and otherlaws, it shall adhere to priority of principles of civil law, economiclaw or administrative law, and that can be solved using other legal norms,the criminal law should not intervene. This shall be deemed asmanifestation of both justice of penalty, and the principle of thestatutory guilty which is required by social stratification governanceand the clarity of criminal rules. Contransting to our current criminallaw, although the principle of “conviction and penalty according to law”has been enacted, and the power of punishment subject to certainrestrictions, but the democracy of the criminal legislation is yetinsufficient, the legislative power of the National People’s CongressCriminal is often overstepped and dissolved by the Standing Committee ofthe National People’s Congress in the exercise of the amending right ofcriminal law. As to the economic crimes and other legal transgressions,the Criminal Code does not keep due modesty character, often rushed tothe forefront of combating social anomie behavior without appealing toother suitable legal rules. The fourth chapter deals with several kinds of theories and practicesof criminal law which pose a threat to the spirit of freedom of moderncriminal law. The first thing to be wary of is the opinion of takingcriminal law as a tool. For thousands of years Chinese imperial traditiondeemed Criminal Law as a tool for ruling of people. After the foundingof China PR, though the old regime is overthrew and the old law systemis abandoned, the traditional values still play a dominant role inpeople’s attitudes and actual life. We had painful experiences of takingthe criminal law as weapon of the class struggle and even some times oflawlessness. Under the influence of the theory of class struggle, thecriminal law has become a tool of suppress the enemy, in needs forpolitical ends, penalties could be imposed without regards of provisionsof the law, and even call upon large-scale, frequent movements of themasses instead of serious judicial activities, therefore the criminalrule of law suffered destruction unprecedently, the power of punishmentlost its effective control, civil liberties suffered greatly, even livesjeopardized. The rule of law in the process of re-opened after the endof the "Cultural Revolution" is still not easy, the concept of criminallaw as a tool is still lingering. In the vast-scope “strike hard”operations, criminal law’s function of protection of human rights is nolonger be overlooked or even forgotten, the punishment powers easilycrossed the boundaries of the criminal law and infringed civil liberties.Even into the21st century there are still many rulers take authority asa private thing, and mistake the rule of law for merely rule by punishment.Secondly there is the problems of risk-control criminal law and “enemycriminal law”. Today, the theory of social risk is popular, social senseof security is lacking, and the utilitarian value of criminal law isamplified improperly, thus the risk-control criminal law even “enemycriminal law”, which put order and security as its leading orientation, constituted new challenge for the spirit of freedom of modern criminallaw. Therefore, the modern criminal law requires the merge of concept offreedom into itself, always keeps vigilant, refuse to forget that the truecharacter of criminal law is to protect civil freedom, or criminal powersmight devour us, arbitrary dictatorship might reincarnated, and advancesin technology might bring more appalling social control.In the conclusion part, this thesis reiterates that in therelationship between freedom and order, the former should be first, andstresses that the law should not be the exclusive means rule of state,but a covenant between the citizens, a covenant between the citizens andthe state, both “my State” and “my People” shall be bound by it. Theconstraint of citizens is to avoid doing what prohibited by law, whilethe constraint of the state is to only implement what expressly authorizedby law. Further more, the criminal law should not be deemed as a tool ofmaintaining order or even a tool of suppression, the state shall use itspower of punishment according to that law expressly provides, and criminallaw should take on a mission to stabilize and balance the criminal powers.The true meaning of the criminal rule of law is to protect civil libertiesby limiting the power of punishment. As if the criminal law is identifiedas a tool of maintaining order, it is always difficult to get rid of itssubordination to the political purposes as a tool, and will inevitablybecome mere an skill of the rule of man bearing a name of law, while thestate will no longer be a commonwealth that people could live and workin peace and contentment, but only the courts and prisons.更多还原