【作者】 姜敏；

【导师】 陈忠林；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2009， 博士

【副题名】《论犯罪与刑罚》解读

【摘要】 贝卡里亚是刑法学界家喻户晓的伟人,《论犯罪与刑罚》是誉满古今的经典名著。此人此书传承的思想引领了几个时代的刑法学,并继续教育着21世纪的刑法学人。贝卡里亚对封建刑法进行了无情的批判,并建立了功利主义刑法体系。贝卡里亚以“趋利避害”为基本特征的“需要”人性观是其论证犯罪和刑罚的理论根据,亦是其功利主义刑法体系建立的思想基础。他借助社会契约展开功利主义刑法体系构建,从理论上论证了刑罚权源于公民权,实现了刑罚权起源之历史性转变。这一历史性转变导致了刑法理念革命性改变——从“国家本位”转向“公民个人本位”,在理论上实现了刑法领域“人之解放”。为保护公民个人权利,针对封建刑罚的残酷、肆意、野蛮、擅断,《论犯罪与刑罚》建构了三大公理性原则——罪刑法定原则、罪刑均衡原则和刑罚人道主义原则,这在当时的影响巨大。但由于时代的局限、贝卡里亚对君主的妥协和保守,决定了他认识不到人民的力量,所以一直期望君主能制定出良好的法律保护人民的权利,这在实践上决定了公民权利的保护最终将是南柯一梦。笔者在解读贝卡里亚思想的同时,对《论犯罪与刑罚》进行了反思,认为要在实践上真正保护公民的权利,实现“公民个人本位”之司法民主思想,就应把普通公民都认同的最基本的道理、最基本的是非观、最基本的善恶观、最基本的人类感情,即常识、常理和常情,作为判断刑法是否合理与正当的标准。全文除导论和结语外共分六章。第一章是贝卡里亚的生平以及《论犯罪与刑罚》的产生。为了更好地理解贝卡里亚的思想,笔者比较详细地介绍了当时的时代背景,包括政治、经济、人文因素,以及主要启蒙思想家的刑法思想。通过这种比较全面的介绍,以期对贝卡里亚的思想和《论犯罪与刑罚》的产生有比较全面的展示。第二章是《论犯罪与刑罚》刑法思想的理论基础——以“趋利避害”为基本特征的“需要”人性观。贝卡里亚时代,是启蒙运动蓬勃展开的时代,启蒙思想家要实现人的解放,把人从神的控制中解脱出来,必须找到一种理论根据作为自己的武器。这时的启蒙思想家从经验和人的理性出发,试图从抽象的人性和人自身找到合理的依据,结果人性论成为了世俗社会的奠基,人性论成为启蒙思想家反对神权的有力武器。贝卡里亚深受启蒙运动的影响,也把“人性”作为《论犯罪与刑罚》的思想根据。贝卡里亚认为,人类在险恶的环境下,由于环境提供的条件不能满足人类的需要,有人为了满足自己的需要,侵犯他人,这样引起人类互相斗争。作为斗争的极端形式——犯罪就这样产生了,所以犯罪是行为人满足需要的表达;为了摆脱这种斗争状态,人类便联合起来通过社会契约的方式,让渡自己的权利形成刑罚权,所以刑罚也是人类共同需要的产物——避免犯罪的侵犯,保护自己的权利。所以实质上贝氏坚持的是一种“需要”人性观,认为犯罪和刑罚都是人类需要的满足。贝卡里亚的人性观不再停留在对行为善恶的表面分析,而是更为深刻的分析行为善恶的内在原因,突破了人性善恶论或者人性二元论。同时,人性的需要本质决定了人在行为时的趋利避害:人之所以会犯罪,那是“利”的驱使;而大家愿意联合起来缔结社会契约,形成刑罚权,那是对“害”的避免——保护自己的权利。又因为社会契约思想,刑罚权是公民个人权的让渡,所以国家的刑罚权也必须以保护公民的基本权利为宗旨,所以刑罚要对犯罪人进行惩罚,也必须以实现“最大多数人最大幸福”为目的,才具有正当性。而“趋利避害”本身是以行为和结果之间的利弊进行权衡的功利主义思想,所以贝氏以“人性”为基础,建构了功利主义刑法思想体系,并对当时封建社会刑法的“虚伪功利”进行了尖锐的批判。第三章是贝卡里亚功利主义犯罪观。贝卡里亚功利主义犯罪观主要涉及两个方面:贝卡里亚的犯罪原因观和犯罪的判断标准问题。而对贝卡里亚犯罪原因观的理解上有很大分歧,分歧的焦点在于犯罪原因到底是自由意志还是机械决定。古典刑事学派的“自由意志”是指人作为理性人,能够根据各种环境条件,在利弊权衡下自由作出选择,而不受他人干涉;从词本身的含义看,“意志”意味着“做”某事和“不做”某事的主观决定能力和选择能力,“自由”意味着人可以自由支配自己的这种能力。所以,自由意志就意味着,行为人可以“自由”根据自己的能力去做某事或者不做某事。而机械决定论,是指人因为受到环境制约,所以只能按照环境的制约作出选择,而不能有自己主观能动性的发挥。如果认为“自由意志”就是可以不受环境条件的影响,毫无考虑的任意选择,这就是混淆了“自由意志”和任意或者随意的关系。任意或随意绝不是自由意志,也不是人的理性反映。所以以人不具有理性的“任意”行为而反对犯罪中行为人“自由意志”的存在,是对“任意”和“自由意志”的混淆。贝卡里亚认为人是理性的,具有趋利避害的本性,能在犯罪和刑罚之间权衡,最终作出选择。显然贝卡里亚并不认为人是无助的接受环境的制约,机械的去适应或者接受环境对自己的安排,而是充分发挥自己的主观能动性在利和弊之间进行取舍。所以可以说,虽然贝卡里亚在《论犯罪与刑罚》中没有使用“自由意志”这个词,但却接受了启蒙思想家的“自由意志”思想。犯罪是“趋利避害”功利的结果;同时,犯罪也是“自由意志”的选择。笔者以为“趋利避害”和“自由意志”同是在论证犯罪的原因,但并不矛盾。从“自由意志”含义看,驱动行为人作何种选择的动力是功利,也决定了行为人的行为不可能是任意行为,而是通过理性判断而后自由选择的行为。所以以理性存在为前提的自由意志选择,本身就是功利的体现。贝卡里亚认为犯罪的判断标准是“社会危害”。犯罪是对社会契约的违反,但社会契约作为一种抽象的存在,就需要一种客观的标准来对犯罪进行表征。贝卡里亚针对封建社会思想为罪的现象,提出以“社会危害”作为犯罪的判断标准,并以此对封建社会惩罚思想、把罪孽当作犯罪的标准进行了批判,从而实现了犯罪判断标准从以主观为核心到以客观为核心的转变。后来者在对贝氏的“社会危害”原则进行分析的时候,认为贝卡里亚是客观主义的代表。这种定位本身无可厚非,但这种定位却往往忽视贝卡里亚对人主观的不排斥,甚至认为贝卡里亚借助“社会危害”把行为人的主观从判断是否犯罪要素中排挤出去。从《论犯罪与刑罚》整篇看,这种观点是不合理和不全面的。贝氏在对客观重视并把“社会危害”作为犯罪判断标准的时候,并没有轻视人的主观,以及主观在定罪量刑中的作用。相反贝卡里亚在对把“社会危害”作为犯罪的标准进行论证的时候,他区分故意、严重过失,轻微过失和完全无辜,并认为应处以不同的刑罚;区分犯意和思想为罪的不同,认为犯意应该受到惩罚。所以贝卡里亚在把“社会危害”作为犯罪的判断标准时,并不是把主观因素从判断是否犯罪中完全排挤出去,不是绝对的客观主义,这才是对贝卡里亚犯罪立场的合理和全面的评价。“社会危害”作为犯罪的判断标准,使“思想犯罪”无立足之地。贝卡利亚的见解对于那个世纪无异于一股清泉涌入那个政教不分,政治力量与宗教权威混乱于一堂的世界,理清了当权者、统治阶级的思绪,批判了蒙昧主义的精神,闪现着理性的光辉以及人道的思想,并为刑罚权之发动设置了一个客观的依据,从而避免公民受无辜的追诉,保护了公民的权利;另一方面,贝卡里亚把“社会危害”作为犯罪的判断标准,也表明他对社会“最大多数人最大利益”的维护。所以,从价值立场上看,“社会危害”本身就是功利主义的立场。个人的行动只要不对自身以外其他人造成侵害,就不能受到刑罚惩罚;但对他人或者社会的利益有害的行动,个人则应当负责,并且还应当承受法律的惩罚。在贝卡里亚看来,“社会危害”理论既可保证个人自由和权利,又可确保国家以强制和控制方法对个人施加刑罚的合法性。所以说,“社会危害”理论归根结蒂是一种功利取向。第四章是贝卡里亚的功利主义刑罚观。从刑罚权根据观看,贝卡里亚前的刑罚根据是刑罚权神授。这也是时代的产物,是宗教和法律紧密相联或者说是宗教对法律的干预的结果,反映了当时的统治阶级或者是宗教想用虚无缥缈的东西来为自己的统治服务并愚昧民众。在很长时间内导致君主的权力神秘不可违抗,具有绝对性。君权神授、天罚神判的刑罚权根据论是在人的自身之外寻找权力的依据。在这种思想指导下的刑法必将表现出对人本身的轻视和对人权利的蔑视,表现出对人的基本感情、基本存在需要的抹煞,缺乏对人最起码的了解,忽视人作为自然的存在。贝氏以社会契约论开始,对封建刑罚权的正当性进行了反思性的解构和革命性的建构,认为刑罚权来源于公民权,刑罚之目的在于保护公民权利,所以残酷、肆意、野蛮的刑罚缺乏正当性根据。当时的社会契约思想是已经深入人心的启蒙运动思想之一,贝氏也成为把社会契约思想引入刑法领域的第一人,实现了刑罚思想中从“身份到契约”、从“国家本位”到“公民个人本位”的转变,并为国家刑罚权设置了底线,使刑罚权失去了随意性和无限性。在刑罚目的观上,历来有报应论、预防论和折中论之争。对于贝卡里亚的刑罚目的观,有学者认为是报应论,有学者认为是预防论,也有学者认为是折中论,有很大分歧。笔者以为,无论是从《论犯罪与刑罚》中关于刑罚目的的表述,还是从他的罪刑阶梯、罪刑均衡原则、对死刑是否废止的分析、对酷刑的批判上来看,出发点都是基于预防而不是报应。为了更好地达到预防犯罪的功利目的,贝卡里亚还提出了刑罚的及时性、必要性和确定性原则。另外,贝氏还主张通过其他方式,比如道德、教育等方法来对犯罪进行预防。所以从《论犯罪与刑罚》的整篇看,贝卡里亚坚持的是功利主义的预防犯罪观,没有要对行为人已然之罪进行报复的目的,相反,贝氏是彻底的否定刑罚的报复思想。刑罚本身当然脱离不了对行为人的惩罚,但这种惩罚的目的就在于避免行为人再次犯罪和威慑社会上的人不要犯罪,其目的还是在预防而不是报复。第五章主要内容是贝卡里亚刑罚人道主义思想的构建,以及人道主义和功利主义的统一。在封建社会下,刑法是神道和王道的婢女,国家的刑罚权是国家的一种垄断权力,是一种可以生杀予夺的利器,完全违背了公民让渡权利的初衷。在这种思路下,法是上帝或者就君主意志的产物,神或者君主的意志高于一切,人性遭到抹杀,人间的正义与邪恶、公道与偏颇、正确与错误、正统与异端都在神那里得到解决,或者说以神的名义得到解决。在神道和王道压迫之下.权力被赋予了绝对性,刑罚没有人道性可言。就实质而言,神道和王道的实质就在于否定人的至上性,否定“人是万物的尺度”这一命题。随着当时启蒙运动的发展,人对基督教的信仰发生了动摇,人逐渐认识到人的主体性。人不是上帝的一个玩物,人有自己独立的人格、尊严和理性。所以这时候的思想家呼吁人的平等、自由、民主和天赋人权思想,反对蒙昧、神权、专制、迷信。贝卡里亚受到启蒙思想的影响,针对当时封建刑法对人性的忽视,呼吁以人为本,尊重人性,建构了刑罚人道主义思想。贝卡里亚人道主义建立在人性的基础上,强调尊重人,呼吁刑罚的缓和。他批判了封建刑法的落后和不合理;以罪刑法定追求刑罚的确定,避免刑法的肆意、擅断和专衡;以罪刑均衡反对封建刑法的严酷和残忍,提倡刑罚缓和,要求在惩罚犯罪的时候,使刑罚大小程度与犯罪的危害程度相均衡,刑罚的性质与犯罪的性质相似,刑罚的执行也要与犯罪性质相称性;封建刑罚不仅残酷,而且还漠视人的基本感情,贝卡里亚在尊重理性的基础上质疑封建刑法对人类基本感情的践踏,并认为对公民感情的尊重是法律可行的条件之一;为防止司法权对立法权的侵蚀,贝卡里亚禁止法官解释刑法;抨击封建刑法的不平等;贝氏还反对愚昧,提倡教育和科学,提倡人的解放和明达。这都体现了贝卡里亚以人为本,尊重人性的刑罚人道主义思想。贝卡里亚之刑罚功利主义和人道主义是统一的。贝卡里亚功利主义是建立在人性基础上,他的犯罪观和刑罚观都是以人性为基础,尊重人的需要,促成人的幸福,防止不幸。从人道的本质看,其本身也就是为了满足个体的需要,尊重人性,所以二者建立的基础是一致。从目的来看,功利主义是为了预防犯罪,实现“最大多数人最大幸福”,人道主义是为了保护公民权利,这好象有不一致的地方。从贝卡里亚的社会契约论和全文的立场看,贝卡里亚的“最大多数人最大幸福”不是指社会整体利益或者公共利益,而是指“最大多数个人最大幸福”。既然刑罚权是社会契约下公民权之让渡,那么刑罚权就必须依据社会契约,保护包括犯罪人在内的最大多数个人最大幸福。很显然没有排斥对公民权利的保护,不违反人道主义。当然,刑罚要预防犯罪,保护最大多数人最大幸福,脱离不了对犯罪人惩罚,但这个惩罚具有正当性。从贝卡里亚把“社会危害”当作犯罪的判断标准看,公民的个人权利是有限度的。公民作为社会中的人,在行使自己权利的时候,不得侵犯他人的权益,这是底限。如果超过一定的限度,对其他公民造成了损害,当然就应到受到刑罚的惩罚。而且这也是公民缔结社会契约时都认同的,并不违反人道主义。贝卡里亚刑罚的正当性除了有以公民的“社会危害”作为正当性的根据外,还把惩罚保持在必要的、合理的“度”内。这既是刑罚正当的需要,也是刑罚功利的需要。即:为了使刑罚的功利最大化,也需要使用较小、适度的投入,甚至投入最小量的刑罚,达到保护最大的利益,实现最大的功利;而刑罚人道主义也要求刑罚缓和,从而尊重人的权利。所以二者在目的上也是一致的。第六章主要是对贝卡里亚刑法思想的反思和超越。贝卡里亚刑法思想影响深远,但仔细分析,《论犯罪与刑罚》中还是遗留了很多问题没有解决。第一,当立法者制定的是“虚伪功利”之法时,公民的命运如何?第二,禁止法官释法和刑法必须解释的矛盾出路何在?第三,罪刑法定导致的法条和现实可能的僵局如何打破?第四,主张保护公民的权利,但公民权利是否被保护的标准谁定?第五,法律反映的“社会普遍意志”如何获得?本章在反思贝卡里亚遗留的这些问题时,认为贝氏之所以有那么多问题,主要在于贝卡里亚及《论犯罪与刑罚》的缺陷造成的。其一,贝卡里亚社会契约的假定性,导致他的理论前提和结论是否正确存在怀疑。社会契约论是假定的,假定的、不存在的社会契约如何能到达对公民权利的保护?同时,即使承认社会契约的存在,怎么能保证公民在签定契约时都是平等的参与?其二,人性观的局限性。贝卡里亚认识到人性的趋利避害,认识到犯罪和刑罚都是满足人性趋利避害的需要。这种人性观克服了“人性善”论、“人性恶”论和人性二元论的弊端,但却没有看到人性的具体性——人类需要的永不满足和人类满足需要的方式要得到他人的认同。这一结果导致贝卡里亚对君主立法权没有限制,虽然他也期望君主能制定良好的法律,但却没有认识君主制定法律的需要得到公民的认可才具有真正的可行性。其三,贝卡里亚刑法思想的妥协性和保守性。根据社会契约论,君主的刑罚权是公民权的让渡。因此,从理论上讲,君主就应该按照公民的要求去做,遵循公民诉求的基本价值,保护公民的权利。但在签订社会契约后,贝卡里亚却没有把刑法是否合理和正当的判断标准交给公民去制订,而是期望君主能制定完美的法律保护人民的利益。很显然,贝卡里亚没有认识到人民的力量,从而转向了对君主的妥协。贝卡里亚立场的转变导致我们对君主制定的法律是否在实践上能保护公民产生怀疑。其四,贝卡里亚对刑罚确定的追求导致其对文字的迷信。贝卡里亚对君主信任,却对法官怀疑。因此他提出罪刑法定原则,想通过文字的确定限制司法权。这对司法权是具有限制作用,但这里可行前提是文字必须是确定的。但如果过分强调文字的确定,却可能导致罪刑法定原则的绝对化和形式主义的泛滥,导致法律不能体现正义。要解决贝卡里亚遗留的问题,就要克服贝卡里亚的思想局限。贝卡里亚借助于社会契约说明公民实际上应该拥有超越立法者的最高权利,公民权决定刑罚权。即在社会契约中包括两个要素,公民和君主(立法者),存在的法律关系是:“公民——君主(立法者)”。但立法者只能规定普遍性行为,从而使立法完成了客观化、实定化的使命,接下来的问题是如何保证法律在所有的案件中得到普遍的遵守。这就是法官的使命,于是产生了新的行动者——法官。但法官受命于、也受制于作为君主的立法者,它的使命是对作为公民的人实施立法者的法律,行使司法权,这样形成了另外一个基本结构:“公民——君主——法官”。在这三方关系中,如果法律是正确的,且法官和立法者都确实是天使的化身,那么结果也许是正当的;但如果法律不良好,君主和法官也不总是天使,当出现非正当的结果时,公民让渡权利之目的就会在实践中落空。构想并不就是实在,完美和动听说辞也必须付诸实践才能兑现。所以要真正保证公民在刑法中的“公民个人本位”思想,真正实现社会契约之目的,还必须在实践上保证公民对立法、司法、和执法的监督。所以真正保护公民权利的结构应是:公民——君主(立法者)——法官——公民,从而真正保证刑法是按照公民的意愿办事,保护公民的权利。而刑法要真正保护公民的权利,就必须遵循公民都认同的基本道理、对事物的基本认识和基本感情,即遵循公民都认同的常识、常理、常情。这是因为常识、常理、常情是符合人性的,是在实践中长期形成的,并已经实践的考验,且能在公民的良知中找到。刑法遵循常识、常理、常情就避免了虚伪功利之法,避免了“社会普遍意志”的抽象性,且把公民是否受到保护的标准交给公民自己制定,让刑法成为公民自己的法,让公民在国家面前不再委曲求全,而是理直气壮,让统治者真正的听命于民,真正保护公民的权利。当体现公民意志的刑法制定以后,在实施的过程中也会出现刑法的高度抽象性和现实生活的复杂性之间的张力关系,以及某段时间内人类认识的有限性和生活发展的无限性之间的紧张关系。所以刑法必须解释,而且法官也必须解释刑法。为了保护公民的权利和刑法解释对人类基本价值的维护,也必须按照常识、常理和常情解释刑法,从而缓解刑法和现实之间的紧张关系,且不会造成司法权对立法权的侵犯。相反,是司法忠诚地遵守了人民制定法之内容和精神,保证了对公民权利的保护。而在实践上,为了实现刑法体现公民意志的司法民主构想,在制度上应该实行“陪审团”制度,真正实现“公民—立法者—法官—公民”的“公民个人本位”思想,从而也实现在继承贝卡里亚刑法思想基础上的新突破。更多还原

【Abstract】 Cesare Becaria is one of the most extraordinarily world widely known scholars in criminal law academic circles;On Crimes And Punishments is the most classical masterpiece with the reputation in both ancient and modern times.The spirit of Cesare Becaria and“On Crime and Punishment”have been eagerly a status of leadership for Several eras in legal science,and continued to educate academicians of criminal law in the 21st century.Cesare Becaria carried on the heartless critique agaist the feudal criminal law and constructed utilitarianism criminal law system,based on the human nature of“necessity”with the feature of“tendency of interest and avoidance of harms”,which is his theoretical foundation on Crimes and Punishments.He argues that the power of punishment results from civil rights through social contract,and historically changed the power of punishment’s origin,which leads to the historical transformation in criminal law view from“nation standard“to the individual citizen standard”and realizes human liberation in criminal law.In order to protect civil rights from the harm of the willfully cruelty and uncivilized arbitrarily judge of feudal penalty,Cesare Becaria established three influential axiomatic principles:the principle of legality,appropriation of crime committed and punishment,appeal of penalty humanitarianism.But because of limitation of times and thought compromise and conservativation of Cesare Becaria,he could not know actually the strength of citizens themselves.Therefore,he always expects that the crowned head could formulate the good law to protect citizen’s rights,which is just fond dream.Probing in On Crimes And Punishments, the author thinks that the standard of reasonable and justifiable criminal law should be general sense,general reason and general humanity,which can protect civil right and realize the individual citizen standard.The full dissertation altogether is divided into six chapters except introduction and conclusion.First chapter deals with the biography of Cesare Becaria,as well as production of On Crimes and Punishments.In order to better understand Cesare Becaria’s thought,author also quite detailedly introduces time background,including political,economical,and humane factors,as well as main enlightenment thinkers’ criminal law thoughts.Through this kind of quite comprehensive introduction,the author hopes to fully display Cesare Becaria and his book.Second chapter mainly analyzes the“necessity”human nature with the feature of“tendency of interest and avoidance of harms”.At that time,Enlightenment movement was in progress and the enlightenment thinkers had to find a new theatrical weapon to make man get out control of God and realize the human liberation,which is theory of human nature through the empirical and rational of human.And deeply influenced by enlightenment movement,Cesare Becarias’s On Crimes and Punishments is based on human nature.Cesare Becaria thinks in the peril environment,lack of resource,that someone who wants to satisfy his own need infringed others results in mutual combat,and the extreme forms of the combat-crime is created which is the expression of human who wants to satisfy his need.To avoid the combat,human transfers his own right to the power of punishment in form of social contract.And punishment is the product of human common need:avoiding infringement from crime and protecting one’s right.So Cesare Becaria insists on“necessity”of human nature and thinks that crime and punishment is methods to satisfy human needs.Cesare Becaria’s human nature viewpoints are not a superficial analysis of behavior of good and evil,but a deep analysis on the intrinsic reason of it which breaks through the traditional human nature of“good”and“evil”or the human nature dualism.In the meantime, the“necessity”human nature features of“tendency of interest and avoidance of harms”when man acts.The reason for the humane crime is for the profit,the reason for people to establish social contract and transfer rights is to avoid harm and protect his own right.Owing to its transfer of civil right,the punishment power aims to guard the civil basic rights,and it is just,when penalty is used,to realize the goodness of the mass.And Cesare Becaria,with the aid of utilitarianism in human nature which compares the defect and advantage of behavior,carries on the critique against the feudal society’s false utilitarianism thought in criminal law.Third chapter deals with Cesare Becaria’s viewpoint of utilitarianism crime view.It involves two factors:reason for crime and crime yardsticks.Whether the reason for crime is free will or mechanical determinism is controversial.Classical crime school argued that free will should be a reasonable man who makes his choice freely after weighing the advantage and disadvantage without others interruption in such environment.From the connotation of itself,“will”means the capacity of deciding and choosing“do”or“not do”,and“free”means the capacity of controlling oneself.Therefore,free will means one could do or not do something according to his own will.Mechanical determinism means that man is restricted to environment and makes choice without subjective positivity.Those who think“free will”could not be influenced by environment,just a willfully choice confusing free will and willfully choice.Willfully choice is not free will and the reflection of men’s reason.Cesare Becaria thinks men are reasonable,and know how to tend to advantage and avoid disadvantage,and makes choice after weighting advantage and avoid disadvantage.Therefore Cesare Becaria disapproves mechanical determinism.Though he does not use the word“free will”,he accepts the idea of enlightenment thinkers.Crime is the result of“tendency of interest and avoidance of harms,utilitarianism and the choice of“free will”.The author thinks there is not contradiction on“tendency of interest and avoidance of harms”with utilitarianism and the choice of“free will”,and they are both reasons for crimes.Utilitarianism drives man to make reasonable choice but not willfully choice.Reason is the premise of free choice and embodiment of utilitarianism.Cesare Becaria considers“social harms”as yardstick of crime.Crime was the violation of social contract which was a kind of abstract existence,so it is necessary to get a objective standard.Criticizing the feudal punishment thoughts,Cesare Becaria argues that social harms is the yardstick of crime and transfers the yardstick of crime from subjective to objective.It is right when scholars look on Cesare Becaria as representative of objective doctrine.But it is not ground when they neglect Cesare Becaria tolerance of human subiective,even misunderstand that Cesare Becaria excludes subjective factor from crime by use of social harms.Cesare Becaria pays much attention to objective factor when he considers social harms as yardstick of crime,but dose not neglect subjective factor and the effect of subjective factor in conviction and punishment.On the contrary,Cesare Becaria distinguishes intention,malicious negligence,slight negligence from completely innocence,allotting different penalty.Cesare Becaria distinguishes mens rea from thought of crime and thinks one with mens rea should be punished.It is ground that Cesare Becaria is not absolutely objectism,because he does not exclude the objective factor from crime when he uses social harms as yardstick of crime.Social harms as yardstick of crime makes thought of crime non-existance.Cesare Becaria’s idea like spring poured into the world confused of politics and religion,making the ruler’s thoughts,criticizing obscurantism,sparking the reason and humanism,and setting up a objective standard for punishment power so as to avoid innocent citizen’s prosecution and protect citizen rights.On the other hand,Cesare Becaria considers social harms as yardstick of crime which manifested his protection of the goodness of the mass.Therefore,from value standpoints,social harms itself is in utilitarianism shoes.One could not be punished if not damaging others or social interest,and vice versa.Cesare Becaria thinks social harms theory could ascertain individual freedom and assure the legality of punishment imposed by state.Chapter four deals with Beeearia’s utilitarianism view of penalty.Before Beccaria, the ground of punishment was authorized by God which was product of time and the result of religion’s interruption in law or the close connection between religion and law,and reflected the ruler’s want to use religion to cheat the mass and strengthen his ruling.In a long time,the authority of monarch was deem to be absolute and non-violated.The punishment power authorized by God finds the origin of punishment power outside humans,and under such idea,criminal law would neglect human beings,contemn human right,know nothing about human feeling,human need and human nature.Beccaria criticizes feudal criminal for its cruelty and inhumanity,which is reflected in capital punishment and cruelty of punishment. Beccaria deconstructs the just ground of feudal punishment power in lien to social contract and thinks penalty power stem from civil right and the purpose of punishment is to protect civil rights.Beccaria was the first one who introduced social contract into criminal law field and realized the transformation from status to contract,from“nation standard”to“the individual citizen standard”and set bottom-line for punishment power and restricted its misuse.There is retribution,prevention and comprise theory on penalty purpose in history.But for Beccaria’s penalty purpose,scholars are in dispute.The author thinks Beccaria’s penalty purpose is prevention which is shown in the expression on penalty purpose in”On Crime and Punishments”and his idea about principle of suiting punishment to crime,abolishment of death penalty,criticism of cruel punishment.Beccaria suggests that punishment should be in time,necessary and certain in order to realize the punishment purpose of prevention and he also suggests other methods to prevent crime such as moral,education.Seen from the whole paper of“On Crime And Punishment”,Beccaria insisted on not retribution but utilitarianism preventive viewpoint.Punishment cannot escape from punishing the actor,but its purpose lies in not retribution but prevention which deters actor from committing crimes again and the other people committing crimes.Chapter five involves the construction of the humanistic thought of Beccaria’s punishment,and the unity of humanitarianism and utilitarianism.In feudal society,criminal law was the serving girl of religion and monarch,and punishment power was monopolized by state and a weapon on death or life which violated the origin intention of citizen.And law was product of God and monarch,the will of God and monarch was above everything.human nature was trampled.God settled the question of just and evil,impartial and partial,right and wrong,orthodox and heterodox.Under the oppression of religion and monarch,punishment was inhumane owing to the absolution of power.In fact,the essence of religion and monarch neglected the importance of human and the fact that“human is the rule of everything”.As the development of enlightenment movement,human realized the subjective of human and wavered Christian belief,and human who had his own independent personality,dignity and reason was not the toy of God.Therefore,the enlightenment thinkers approved idea of human equality,freedom,democracy and innate human rights, objected obscurantism,religion,despotism and superstition.Influenced by enlightenment thinkers,Beccaria aims at the neglection of human nature in feudal criminal law and demands the respect of human nature and construction of humanism punishment.Beccaria’s humanism is based on human nature,and emphasizes the respect of human and demand mitigation of punishment.He criticizes unjust and backward feudal criminal law,and pursues certain punishment through legality of law so as to avoid the willfully criminal law,and objected cruel feudal criminal law which neglected human feeling through suiting punishment to crime and demand mitigation of punishment.Beccaria thinks the feasibility of law was the respect of human feeling and disapproves construction of law of judge so as to avoid the infringingment of legislative power and criticizes the inequality of feudal criminal law.And Beccaria also opposes ignorance and advocates education、science、human liberation.We can see from aforesaid that Beccaria respects human nature and advocates humanism punishment.Beccaria’s utilitarianism and humanism are uniformed.Beccaria’s utilitarianism and viewpoint of crime and punishment is based on human nature with intention to respect human need,strengthens human happiness and avoids unhappiness.Humanism could satisfy individual need and respect human nature,so the basis is concord.The purpose of utilitarianism was prevention of crime,realizing the goodness of the mass,the purpose of humanism is to protect civil rights.It seemed the two purpose are different.The goodness of the mass is not pubic interest but the goodness of the mass according to social contract including the committer.Punishment is transferred by the civil rights,and it must protect the goodness of the mass including the committer according to social contract.It obviously does not exclude the protection of people.Of course,punishment must protect people from crime and protect the goodness of the mass,but it must be just.When Beccaria considers social harms as crime standard,civil right is limited.Citizen should not infringe other’s just right when he make use of his own right as a member in society.If he infringes,he should be punished which is just and agreed by all when they established the social contract.Except that,Beccaria demand the necessity of punishment which is in line with the just and utilitarianism of punishment.And it means maximum of utilitarianism of punishment and minimum of input.That is,minimum of input of punishment can get maximum of utilitarianism,and the humanism means mitigation of punishments,so the purpose is the same.Chapter six deals with the reflection and surpass of Beccaria’s punishment thoughts. His thoughts have great influenced in each country so far,but there was a lot of questions left unsolved.Firstly,what was the citizen’s fate when the law was false utilitarianism law. Secondly,how to solute the conflict between the probation of judge’s explanation of criminal law and the must of criminal law should be construed.Thirdly,how to break the deadlock between legality principle and reality.Fourthly,how to protect civil right and who make the standard of protection.Lastly,how to acquire the common will of people in the law.The questions left unsolved is due to the defect in“On Crime and Punishment”.Firstly, the supposal of social contract makes the premise and conclusion of his theory doubtful. How can a supposed social contract protect the civil rights.Even social contract dose exist, how to guarantee the equal participation of citizen when they established the social contract. Secondly,the limit of human nature.Beccaria knows the tendance to interest and avoidance harms of human nature and the need is satisfied with crime and punishment.This kind viewpoint of human nature surmount disadvantages of the theory of good nature,the theory of bad nature and the theory of double nature,but does not find the concreteness of human nature-never satisfied human need and the way to meet human need should be agreed by others which resulted no limit to monarch legislative power.Beccaria hopes that the monarch made good law and does not realize the feasibility of law made by monarch depending on the citizen agreement.Thirdly,the tendency toward compromise and conservativeness of Beccaria’s thought,According to social contract,monarch punishment power is transferred by civil right,and monarch should act on citizen demand and follow value appealed by citizens and protect civil right.After signing social contract,Beccaria just hopes the monarch could make perfect law to protect citizen,does not demand citizen make law.It is obvious that he does not see the power of people,and comprises with the monarch.His changed standpoint makes us doubt of the effect of law made by monarch to protect citizen.Fourthly,Beccaria pursues definite punishment which leads to literal superstition.He trusts monarch and doubts judge and wants to limit judicial power by text through legality principle.But overemphasis on definite text would lead to absolute legality principle and formalism overflowing and law could not embody justice.We should solute the problem left by overcoming the limit of Beccaria’s thought.By virtue of social contract,Beccaria illustrates citizen has surpass power and determined punishment power.The legal relationship is“citizen and monarch(legislators)”in social contract.Legislators regulated common behavior and performed task of objectification and substantiation of law.And judges taking new step was authorized and limited by legislators whose task was exercising judicial power and implementing law and formed a basic structure:“citize-monarch-judge”.in the triangular relationship,if law was correct and legislators and judge were good,perhaps the result was justifiable;if law was not good,and legislators and judge were not good,the result was bad,and the purpose for citizen transferring civil right could not be realized.Envision and good word should be realized by practice.If we want to guarantee the citizen standard and realize the purpose of social contract,we should guarantee citizen supervision on legislation,judicial activity and law enforcement.The citizen protective structure should be:citizen-monarch(legislators)-judge-citizen which guarantees criminal law express citizen will and protect civil right,and law should follow the common sense、general knowledge and general reason which conform with human nature and forms for a long time and stand trial of practice and is rooted in human conscience.And this kind of law is not false utilitarianism,avoiding the concreteness of“social common will”,truly protecting civil right.When law expressing citizens will is made,it perhaps occurs the nervous relationship between abstractness of criminal law and complexity of reality,the limitation of human knowledge and boundlessness of life.Therefore,law must be explained and judges have to explain law.In order to protect civil right and human basic value and alleviate contradiction between criminal law and reality and prevent judicial infringement to legislative power,we have to explain law in accordance with common sense、general knowledge and general reason. And in the practice,jury is a good sytem.It is a new breakthrough to Beccaria’s criminal thought when judicial loyally abides the spirit in law made by people,protects the civil right and realizes“citizen-monarch(legislators)-judge-citizen”and“the individual citizen standard”thought.更多还原