假释制度比较研究
摘要
假释是国家有权机关对于符合法定条件的正在被执行剥夺自由刑的罪犯,经法定程序将其附条件提前释放的刑罚执行制度。在当代,假释已经从一种国家对个别罪犯的恩惠演变成罪犯普遍享有的一种权利,是罪犯在自由刑执行过程中保持良善行为的结果。因而,在关于假释本质的各种学说中,假释权利说是合理的。假释权利说是以现代刑法思想为指导的对假释本质的全新的诠释,是国家对罪犯刑罚观念和关系的嬗变在假释本质理论上的具体反映。现代法治国社会国家原理改变了传统的刑罚关系,国家或刑罚权主体与罪犯的关系由传统的单向关系变成了具有社会意义的在一定情况下的权利义务的关系。国家有对罪犯施用刑罚的权力,也有对他们施以扶助和救助的义务。罪犯有依法接受国家刑事惩罚的义务,也有请求扶助和挽救的权利。假释权利说与现代刑罚的目的相契合,报应与预防兼容的刑罚目的综合理论是合理的。国家对罪犯的强制性隔离,只有在对罪犯的矫正和改造没有收到预期的效果时,才是必要的和正当的。如果罪犯在经历了必要的监禁期以后,以自己的行为表明其已不具有人身危险性和社会危害性,国家就有义务将其放归社会,以社会处遇的方式,执行尚未执行的刑罚。假释权利说观念指导下的假释已由例外变成了一种原则,一种制度化的处遇措施。它充分利用了自由刑的时间弹性,使自由刑的执行变得充满生机和活力,它也大大激发了罪犯改过自新、奋发向上的原动力,因而无论对罪犯还是监狱来说都具有非常深刻的革命性意义。假释权利观念在世界许多国家的刑事立法和司法实践中都占据了主导地位。由假释的本质所决定,假释权应是一种行政权而非司法权,假释权应当由行政性质的狱政部门或专门的假释委员会行使。假释的功能是指国家有权机关对罪犯适用假释所产生的积极的社会作用。假释对罪犯的功能包括激励罪犯自新向善、帮助罪犯顺利回归社会、弥补无期徒刑和长期自由刑的弊端以及使严厉的刑罚变得轻缓。假释对监狱的功能包括维护监狱的秩序、缓解监狱拥挤的状况和节约监狱经费。假释对社会的功能包括保护社会和延续惩罚。
假释制度具有悠久的历史,它在19世纪发端于英属殖民地澳大利亚。假释制度的产生是一个逐渐的过程,是一个从无到有、从不完善到完善的嬗变。当时英国的流放制度为假释的产生提供了契机,亚瑟·菲利蒲的释放票制是假释制度的萌芽,亚历山大·麦克诺基的点数制是假释的雏形状态,沃尔特·克罗夫顿的爱尔兰制标志着假释制度的最后确立。假释制度产生后,其他国家纷纷效仿,很快在各国的刑罚执行制度中取得了举足轻重的地位。美国纽约州议会1876年制定的《埃尔米拉教养院法令》是世界上第一个关于假释制度的立法。中国最早规定假释制度的法律是1910年的《大清新刑律》。新中国
The parole is a punishment execution system which the powerful organization of country releases the prisoners of according with the legal condition on condition who are being executed punishment of depriving liberty prior to the expiration of their sentence by legal process. In modern society, parole has evolved from the grace which the country endow with the individual prisoner to the right which the prisoners enjoy generally. It is the fruit that the prisoners keep good act during the term sentence. The parole right theory is rational in these theories about parole essential theory. Parole right theory is a new explanation about parole essence directed by the modern criminal idea. It reflects the evolving of the punishment idea about the relationship of country and prisoners. The social country principle of modern country of rule by law has changed the traditional punishment relationship. The relationship of the country and the prisoners has evolved from the traditionally single relationship to the social meaning conditional relationship of right and duty. The country has the power to punish the prisoners. Meanwhile country has the duty to help and save the prisoners. The prisoners have the duty to accept the criminal punishment of country. They also have the right to apply for the help and remedy. The power right theory accords with the modern penal aim. The synthetical theory of purpose of penalty which is compatile with retribution and prevention is rational. The country isolate the prisoners compulsorily is essential and reasonable only when the reform have not achieved the anticipated effects. The country has the duty to release the prisoners to the society and executes the surplus punishment through social treatment way when prisoners have been executed essential term sentence and their act have indicate that they have no the personal danger and social harmfulness. The parole directed by the idea of parole right theory has changed from the exception to a principle and a systematized treatment measure. It fully utilizes the time elasticity of the liberty punishment and makes the execution of liberty punishment brimming vitality and vigor. It also fully stimulates the prisoners to reform and progress. Parole right theory has very deep revolutionary meaning to the prisoners and the prisons. The idea of parole right theory dominates the criminal legislation and the judicial practice the essence of parole decides that the parole power is an administrative power other than a judicial power. Parole power should be carried out by the organization of prison administration with administrative character special parole board. The function of parole is a active social function which the powerful organization of the country applies the parole to the prisoners. The parole function to prisoners includes encouraging the prisoners to make a new start and
do good act ,helping the prisoner to return to society smoothly, supplementing the malpractice of life imprisonment and long term of depriving liberty sentence, making the severe punishment modified.Parole system has a long history. It emerged in Australia where was a colony to England in nineteen century. The emerging of parole system had been a gradually process. The process had been an evolution from black space to emerging, imperfecting to perfecting. The banishing system of the England offered the chance to the emergence of parole. The Ticket of Leave of Authur Philip was the sprout of the parole system. The Mark System of Alexander Maconochie was the embryonic form. The Irish Progressive System of Walter Crofton indicated the finial establishment of parole system. Other countries followed the example of the parole system one after another after it's establishment. The parole system took the important status in the punishment execution system of each country. The Elmira Reformatory Act which the New York State Parliament enacted in 1869 is the first legislation about the parole system. The first law stipulated the parole system in china is The Qing Dynasty New Criminal Law which was acted in 1910. After the New China establishment, The People's Republic of China Labor Reform Act which the state council enacted in September 7,1954 was the first administrative act which stipulated the parole system. The 1979 Criminal Law stipulated the parole system in criminal law code in our country. The parole system which the 1979 criminal law stipulated is praiseworthy in technique of legislation, contain of stipulating and scientific rationality. It was the symbol of the establishment of modern parole system in our country. The 1997 Criminal Law has supplemented and perfected the legislation of parole of 1979 Criminal Law. It makes the system and structure of parole system more perfecting and rationalizing, the contains of parole system more painstaking and detailing. It fully embodies the social prevention function of the criminal law. The main defect of the parole system of 1997 criminal law is the insufficient in protecting the human right of prisoners. For example, It stipulates that the recidivists and the prisoners who committed crimes of violence and was sentenced heavy penalty shouldn't be paroled. It also stipulates strict parole revocation condition to some acute critics from the domain of criminal law theory and the judicial practice.The theory and learning argue of the criminal classical school and the criminal positive school was the very spectacular in the developing history of the criminal law theory. The result of the argue has produced a more deep and long effects to the forming of modern criminal law theory and the criminal legislation and criminal judicature of each country of the world. The criminal classical school can't offer the theory foundation for parole. The personal danger theory was the
core foundation of the criminal positive school. Its establishment and development was the premise and idea foundation. The visual angle of personal danger theory was to study the question of criminal essence from the angle of actor. It made the focus of the criminal law science changed from the criminal act to convict. It offered the theory space of criminal law science for the establishment of parole system. The personal danger theory changed the traditional idea of criminal responsibility. It offered the responsible theory foundation for the parole system. The personal danger theory also realized modifying the original judicial idea of criminal law. It offered a rational explain to the justice character of parole system. The personal danger theory took the process of executing the liberty punishment as the process of annihilating the personal danger. It poured the new idea into the execution of liberty punishment. It made the parole system obtaining the rational explanation in theory and standard of performance in practice. We should realize the question of personal danger rationally other than raise it's value of theory and practice without limit. The modern criminal law theory holds that the theory of penal aims has extensively been used to prove the rational foundation of the system of criminal judicature. The synthetic theory of purpose of penalty is rational in all of the theory of purpose of penalty. The justice character is the basic attribute of the social system and law system. The parole system reflects the retributive purpose of punishment. It implicates the requirement to the penalty justice. It has fully just foundation. Parole is one of the important means to encourage the prisoners to correct faults and do good act. Parole guides the prisoners to step on the right road. Parole keeps supervising and protecting the prisoners after they returning to the society until they fully adapts to the social life. In this sense, the parole system accurately expresses the purpose of special prevention of penalty. It is an important means to realize the purpose of special prevention of penalty. The application of parole is restricted by the purpose of general prevention meanwhile it is beneficial to realization of the purpose of general prevention. The theory of educational penalty is the most directed and fundamental foundation of the parole. The theory of educational penalty deems that the reform of prisoners is just and the prisoners may be reformed. The parole system grew up and developed on the basis of reform of prisoners. The justice character of prisoner reform is an announcement to the justice of parole from the utilizable angle. The resocialization of the prisoners is the ultimate aim which the theory of educational penalty pursuits. The parole system has unsubstitutable role to realize the aim. In one hand, the role of parole system to resocialization of prisoners shows the promoting role. It accelerates the process of resocialization of prisoners through encouraging the prisoner reform actively. It makes the process
of resiciaiization of prisoners from unwillingness to volunteering gradually. The process of resocialization which the prisoners actively participate is more quickly than that of the prisoners being forced. In the other hand, the role of the parole to resocialization of prisoners is soft landing. This means that it can guide the prisoners to adapt to social life gradually. Penalty individualization is the essence of the educational penalty. It is a basic penalty principle. Parole not only reflects the initial spirit of the penalty individualization but also is the fruit of practice of penalty individualization as a basic system of penalty execution.The adapting condition of parole means that the prisoners can be adapted to parole in what case. The stipulation about the parole condition of each country has the characteristics of assimilating and difference. The formal condition of parole means the basic requirement and premise of which the law stipulates that the prisoners acquire the parole qualification. Parole should only be adapted to these prisoners who are sentenced the penalty of depriving liberty. It is irrational to spread the extend of parole to other kind of penalty such as security measure, the penalty of executing in society and attached penalty .It is unnecessary to adapt the parole to the short-term liberty penalty which is excessively short. In the legislative stipulation about the lowest serving sentence term of parole, there are three models about the lowest serving sentence term of parole of depriving liberty sentence that are the unlimited model, limited model and mixed model. The mixed model which stipulates different serving sentence rate according to the individual case of different prisoner and different offense and stipulates the serving sentence rate from the angle combining the just retribution and personal danger, meanwhile restricts to adapt the parole to excessively short short-term depriving liberty penalty is rational. The stipulation of lowest term serving sentence of parole of life imprisonment includes unlimited model and limited model. The limited model is rational. We should stipulate the lowest serving term sentence of life imprisonment to ten to fifteen years. The essential condition of parole application mainly means a trend that the prisoners can adapt to the society through their act during the imprisonment term and other factors reflecting. The core of the essential condition of parole application is the judgment about the personal danger. We should use the experience of other countries for reference. This means that we should judge the personal danger effectively through the method of drawing up the scientific forecasting that stipulates exceptions about the condition of parole adaptation. But these exceptions are limited by the serving term sentence. We should abolish the exception stipulation of parole in our criminal law because it hasn't stipulate and limiting condition to the exception. There are few countries have the stipulation prohibiting about parole. We should comprehensively view and rationally analyze
the prohibiting stipulation which our criminal law stipulates. On the standpoint of countries and viewing from the meaning of struggling with the serve offenses in our country, the existence of prohibiting stipulation of parole is rational in some extent. But viewing from the extent of the world and analyzing from the historical trend of the penalty development, the existence of stipulation of parole is irrational. It should be abolished when the criminal law is revised in future. Because of different recognition about the character and attribution of parole power, there are three models about the deciding organizations of parole in abroad legislative stipulation that are the administrative organization deciding model, judicial organization deciding model, administrative officers and judges united deciding model. The parole power is an administrative power. We should use the experience of other countries for reference. That means to establish social correction administrative bureau in the judicial organization. The parole board which attributes to the social correction administrative bureau should hold the parole power. In modern countries of ruling by law, the importance of process has been as same as the entity and even has presented the trend of exceeding the entity. In abroad, many counties have stipulated very perfecting parole process. We should perfect our parole process. We should establish a good and mutual active restricting relationship about the parole right and power, establish pre-parole prisoners person investigation system, establish parole hearing process. The parole process should be stipulated unified by the criminal procedure law.The testing term of parole is a special penalty execution term. It is an inspecting term to test and verify if the personal danger of prisoners have really disappeared. It is the adaptation term of the prisoners returning to society . There are three legislative models about the stipulation of testing term of parole in each country that are the remaining term of sentence doctrine, testing term doctrine and eclecticism. The legislative model of eclecticism which combines the absolute remaining sentence term of fixed-term imprisonment and relative testing term doctrine of life imprisonment is rational. The supervision and protection of parole includes two aspects that are the supervising guide and guiding support. The two aspects combine mutually and supplement each other, constitute mutually the modern and integrate supervision and protection system of parole. We should perfect the stipulation of supervision and protection of parole that means to detail the supervision condition, supplement the stipulation about guiding support to parolee, endow with free adjudication power to the judge in some extent. In addition, it is irrational that the police office supervises the parolee. It should be perfected that the parole board take the duty of supervising and protecting the parolee. We should establish organization system of parolee supervision and
protection with three gradations. We should establish and perfect the protection society of distressed prisoners. The reason of parole revocation generally includes that repeat an offense new crimes during the parole testing term, discover unconvicted crimes and violate the parole condition during the parole testing term. It is irrational that stipulate the evading crimes as the reason of parole revocation. The stipulation about the parole revocation of violating parole condition in our criminal law is too loose. We should stipulate that revoke the parole when the prisoners violate the parole condition with severe details. The Supreme Court of American established the due process of parole revocation in the adjudication of Morrissey V. Brewer case. The process of parole revocation in our country exists irrationality in some extent. We should perfect the process of parole revocation according to the requirement of due process and right protection of parolee. The court revoke the parole according to the judicial process when the prisoners repeat an offense the new crimes or are found the evading crimes. The court should revoke the parole through organizing the hearing meeting when the parolee was accused of violating the law and stipulation by the parole supervision organization. The prisoners should be endowed with deserved right in parole revocation hearing. The process of parole revocation and the related right of prisoners should be stipulated definitely in the criminal procedure law.
假释制度具有悠久的历史,它在19世纪发端于英属殖民地澳大利亚。假释制度的产生是一个逐渐的过程,是一个从无到有、从不完善到完善的嬗变。当时英国的流放制度为假释的产生提供了契机,亚瑟·菲利蒲的释放票制是假释制度的萌芽,亚历山大·麦克诺基的点数制是假释的雏形状态,沃尔特·克罗夫顿的爱尔兰制标志着假释制度的最后确立。假释制度产生后,其他国家纷纷效仿,很快在各国的刑罚执行制度中取得了举足轻重的地位。美国纽约州议会1876年制定的《埃尔米拉教养院法令》是世界上第一个关于假释制度的立法。中国最早规定假释制度的法律是1910年的《大清新刑律》。新中国
The parole is a punishment execution system which the powerful organization of country releases the prisoners of according with the legal condition on condition who are being executed punishment of depriving liberty prior to the expiration of their sentence by legal process. In modern society, parole has evolved from the grace which the country endow with the individual prisoner to the right which the prisoners enjoy generally. It is the fruit that the prisoners keep good act during the term sentence. The parole right theory is rational in these theories about parole essential theory. Parole right theory is a new explanation about parole essence directed by the modern criminal idea. It reflects the evolving of the punishment idea about the relationship of country and prisoners. The social country principle of modern country of rule by law has changed the traditional punishment relationship. The relationship of the country and the prisoners has evolved from the traditionally single relationship to the social meaning conditional relationship of right and duty. The country has the power to punish the prisoners. Meanwhile country has the duty to help and save the prisoners. The prisoners have the duty to accept the criminal punishment of country. They also have the right to apply for the help and remedy. The power right theory accords with the modern penal aim. The synthetical theory of purpose of penalty which is compatile with retribution and prevention is rational. The country isolate the prisoners compulsorily is essential and reasonable only when the reform have not achieved the anticipated effects. The country has the duty to release the prisoners to the society and executes the surplus punishment through social treatment way when prisoners have been executed essential term sentence and their act have indicate that they have no the personal danger and social harmfulness. The parole directed by the idea of parole right theory has changed from the exception to a principle and a systematized treatment measure. It fully utilizes the time elasticity of the liberty punishment and makes the execution of liberty punishment brimming vitality and vigor. It also fully stimulates the prisoners to reform and progress. Parole right theory has very deep revolutionary meaning to the prisoners and the prisons. The idea of parole right theory dominates the criminal legislation and the judicial practice the essence of parole decides that the parole power is an administrative power other than a judicial power. Parole power should be carried out by the organization of prison administration with administrative character special parole board. The function of parole is a active social function which the powerful organization of the country applies the parole to the prisoners. The parole function to prisoners includes encouraging the prisoners to make a new start and
do good act ,helping the prisoner to return to society smoothly, supplementing the malpractice of life imprisonment and long term of depriving liberty sentence, making the severe punishment modified.Parole system has a long history. It emerged in Australia where was a colony to England in nineteen century. The emerging of parole system had been a gradually process. The process had been an evolution from black space to emerging, imperfecting to perfecting. The banishing system of the England offered the chance to the emergence of parole. The Ticket of Leave of Authur Philip was the sprout of the parole system. The Mark System of Alexander Maconochie was the embryonic form. The Irish Progressive System of Walter Crofton indicated the finial establishment of parole system. Other countries followed the example of the parole system one after another after it's establishment. The parole system took the important status in the punishment execution system of each country. The Elmira Reformatory Act which the New York State Parliament enacted in 1869 is the first legislation about the parole system. The first law stipulated the parole system in china is The Qing Dynasty New Criminal Law which was acted in 1910. After the New China establishment, The People's Republic of China Labor Reform Act which the state council enacted in September 7,1954 was the first administrative act which stipulated the parole system. The 1979 Criminal Law stipulated the parole system in criminal law code in our country. The parole system which the 1979 criminal law stipulated is praiseworthy in technique of legislation, contain of stipulating and scientific rationality. It was the symbol of the establishment of modern parole system in our country. The 1997 Criminal Law has supplemented and perfected the legislation of parole of 1979 Criminal Law. It makes the system and structure of parole system more perfecting and rationalizing, the contains of parole system more painstaking and detailing. It fully embodies the social prevention function of the criminal law. The main defect of the parole system of 1997 criminal law is the insufficient in protecting the human right of prisoners. For example, It stipulates that the recidivists and the prisoners who committed crimes of violence and was sentenced heavy penalty shouldn't be paroled. It also stipulates strict parole revocation condition to some acute critics from the domain of criminal law theory and the judicial practice.The theory and learning argue of the criminal classical school and the criminal positive school was the very spectacular in the developing history of the criminal law theory. The result of the argue has produced a more deep and long effects to the forming of modern criminal law theory and the criminal legislation and criminal judicature of each country of the world. The criminal classical school can't offer the theory foundation for parole. The personal danger theory was the
core foundation of the criminal positive school. Its establishment and development was the premise and idea foundation. The visual angle of personal danger theory was to study the question of criminal essence from the angle of actor. It made the focus of the criminal law science changed from the criminal act to convict. It offered the theory space of criminal law science for the establishment of parole system. The personal danger theory changed the traditional idea of criminal responsibility. It offered the responsible theory foundation for the parole system. The personal danger theory also realized modifying the original judicial idea of criminal law. It offered a rational explain to the justice character of parole system. The personal danger theory took the process of executing the liberty punishment as the process of annihilating the personal danger. It poured the new idea into the execution of liberty punishment. It made the parole system obtaining the rational explanation in theory and standard of performance in practice. We should realize the question of personal danger rationally other than raise it's value of theory and practice without limit. The modern criminal law theory holds that the theory of penal aims has extensively been used to prove the rational foundation of the system of criminal judicature. The synthetic theory of purpose of penalty is rational in all of the theory of purpose of penalty. The justice character is the basic attribute of the social system and law system. The parole system reflects the retributive purpose of punishment. It implicates the requirement to the penalty justice. It has fully just foundation. Parole is one of the important means to encourage the prisoners to correct faults and do good act. Parole guides the prisoners to step on the right road. Parole keeps supervising and protecting the prisoners after they returning to the society until they fully adapts to the social life. In this sense, the parole system accurately expresses the purpose of special prevention of penalty. It is an important means to realize the purpose of special prevention of penalty. The application of parole is restricted by the purpose of general prevention meanwhile it is beneficial to realization of the purpose of general prevention. The theory of educational penalty is the most directed and fundamental foundation of the parole. The theory of educational penalty deems that the reform of prisoners is just and the prisoners may be reformed. The parole system grew up and developed on the basis of reform of prisoners. The justice character of prisoner reform is an announcement to the justice of parole from the utilizable angle. The resocialization of the prisoners is the ultimate aim which the theory of educational penalty pursuits. The parole system has unsubstitutable role to realize the aim. In one hand, the role of parole system to resocialization of prisoners shows the promoting role. It accelerates the process of resocialization of prisoners through encouraging the prisoner reform actively. It makes the process
of resiciaiization of prisoners from unwillingness to volunteering gradually. The process of resocialization which the prisoners actively participate is more quickly than that of the prisoners being forced. In the other hand, the role of the parole to resocialization of prisoners is soft landing. This means that it can guide the prisoners to adapt to social life gradually. Penalty individualization is the essence of the educational penalty. It is a basic penalty principle. Parole not only reflects the initial spirit of the penalty individualization but also is the fruit of practice of penalty individualization as a basic system of penalty execution.The adapting condition of parole means that the prisoners can be adapted to parole in what case. The stipulation about the parole condition of each country has the characteristics of assimilating and difference. The formal condition of parole means the basic requirement and premise of which the law stipulates that the prisoners acquire the parole qualification. Parole should only be adapted to these prisoners who are sentenced the penalty of depriving liberty. It is irrational to spread the extend of parole to other kind of penalty such as security measure, the penalty of executing in society and attached penalty .It is unnecessary to adapt the parole to the short-term liberty penalty which is excessively short. In the legislative stipulation about the lowest serving sentence term of parole, there are three models about the lowest serving sentence term of parole of depriving liberty sentence that are the unlimited model, limited model and mixed model. The mixed model which stipulates different serving sentence rate according to the individual case of different prisoner and different offense and stipulates the serving sentence rate from the angle combining the just retribution and personal danger, meanwhile restricts to adapt the parole to excessively short short-term depriving liberty penalty is rational. The stipulation of lowest term serving sentence of parole of life imprisonment includes unlimited model and limited model. The limited model is rational. We should stipulate the lowest serving term sentence of life imprisonment to ten to fifteen years. The essential condition of parole application mainly means a trend that the prisoners can adapt to the society through their act during the imprisonment term and other factors reflecting. The core of the essential condition of parole application is the judgment about the personal danger. We should use the experience of other countries for reference. This means that we should judge the personal danger effectively through the method of drawing up the scientific forecasting that stipulates exceptions about the condition of parole adaptation. But these exceptions are limited by the serving term sentence. We should abolish the exception stipulation of parole in our criminal law because it hasn't stipulate and limiting condition to the exception. There are few countries have the stipulation prohibiting about parole. We should comprehensively view and rationally analyze
the prohibiting stipulation which our criminal law stipulates. On the standpoint of countries and viewing from the meaning of struggling with the serve offenses in our country, the existence of prohibiting stipulation of parole is rational in some extent. But viewing from the extent of the world and analyzing from the historical trend of the penalty development, the existence of stipulation of parole is irrational. It should be abolished when the criminal law is revised in future. Because of different recognition about the character and attribution of parole power, there are three models about the deciding organizations of parole in abroad legislative stipulation that are the administrative organization deciding model, judicial organization deciding model, administrative officers and judges united deciding model. The parole power is an administrative power. We should use the experience of other countries for reference. That means to establish social correction administrative bureau in the judicial organization. The parole board which attributes to the social correction administrative bureau should hold the parole power. In modern countries of ruling by law, the importance of process has been as same as the entity and even has presented the trend of exceeding the entity. In abroad, many counties have stipulated very perfecting parole process. We should perfect our parole process. We should establish a good and mutual active restricting relationship about the parole right and power, establish pre-parole prisoners person investigation system, establish parole hearing process. The parole process should be stipulated unified by the criminal procedure law.The testing term of parole is a special penalty execution term. It is an inspecting term to test and verify if the personal danger of prisoners have really disappeared. It is the adaptation term of the prisoners returning to society . There are three legislative models about the stipulation of testing term of parole in each country that are the remaining term of sentence doctrine, testing term doctrine and eclecticism. The legislative model of eclecticism which combines the absolute remaining sentence term of fixed-term imprisonment and relative testing term doctrine of life imprisonment is rational. The supervision and protection of parole includes two aspects that are the supervising guide and guiding support. The two aspects combine mutually and supplement each other, constitute mutually the modern and integrate supervision and protection system of parole. We should perfect the stipulation of supervision and protection of parole that means to detail the supervision condition, supplement the stipulation about guiding support to parolee, endow with free adjudication power to the judge in some extent. In addition, it is irrational that the police office supervises the parolee. It should be perfected that the parole board take the duty of supervising and protecting the parolee. We should establish organization system of parolee supervision and
protection with three gradations. We should establish and perfect the protection society of distressed prisoners. The reason of parole revocation generally includes that repeat an offense new crimes during the parole testing term, discover unconvicted crimes and violate the parole condition during the parole testing term. It is irrational that stipulate the evading crimes as the reason of parole revocation. The stipulation about the parole revocation of violating parole condition in our criminal law is too loose. We should stipulate that revoke the parole when the prisoners violate the parole condition with severe details. The Supreme Court of American established the due process of parole revocation in the adjudication of Morrissey V. Brewer case. The process of parole revocation in our country exists irrationality in some extent. We should perfect the process of parole revocation according to the requirement of due process and right protection of parolee. The court revoke the parole according to the judicial process when the prisoners repeat an offense the new crimes or are found the evading crimes. The court should revoke the parole through organizing the hearing meeting when the parolee was accused of violating the law and stipulation by the parole supervision organization. The prisoners should be endowed with deserved right in parole revocation hearing. The process of parole revocation and the related right of prisoners should be stipulated definitely in the criminal procedure law.
引文
1、许崇德主编:《宪法》,中国人民大学出版社 1999年版。
2、高铭暄主编:《中国刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社 1989年版。
3、高铭暄编著:《中华人民共和国刑法的孕育和诞生》,法律出版社 1981年版。
4、高铭暄主编:《刑法学原理》(第三卷),中国人民大学出版社 1993年版。
5、高铭暄主编:《刑法学专论》(上编)、(下编),高等教育出版社 2002年版。
6、赵秉志主编:《刑法争议问题研究》(上卷),河南人民出版社 1996年版。
7、赵秉志主编:《犯罪总论问题探索》,法律出版社 2002年版。
8、赵秉志主编:《海峡两岸刑法总论比较研究》(下卷),中国人民大学出版社 2001年版。
9、马克昌主编:《刑法学全书》,上海科学技术文献出版社 1993年版。
10、陈兴良著:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 2000年修订版。
11、陈兴良著:《本体刑法学》,商务印书馆 2001年版。
12、陈兴良著:《刑法的启蒙》,法律出版社 1998年版。
13、张明楷著:《刑法的基本立场》,中国法律出版社 2002年版。
14、张明楷著:《刑法学》,法律出版社 2003年版。
15、曲新久著:《刑法的精神与范畴》,中国政法大学出版社 2000年版。
16、储槐植著:《刑事一体化与关系刑法论》,北京大学出版社 1993年版。
17、储槐植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 1996年版。
18、马克昌主编:《刑罚通论》,武汉大学出版社 1999年第2版。
19、赵秉志主编:《刑罚总论问题探索》,法律出版社 2002年版。
20、周振想著:《刑罚适用论》,法律出版社 1990年版。
21、邱兴隆、许章润著:《刑罚学》,中国政法大学出版社 1988年版。
22、邱兴隆著:《关于惩罚的哲学——刑罚根据论》,法律出版社 2000年版。
23、谢望原著:《刑罚价值论》,中国检察出版社 1999年版。
24、翟中东著:《刑罚个别化研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2001年版。
25、翟中东著:《刑法中的人格问题研究》,中国法制出版社 2003年版。
26、高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《刑法论丛》(第1卷),法律出版社 1998年版。
27、高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《刑法论丛》(第6卷),法律出版社 2002年版。
28、张绍彦著:《刑罚实现与行刑变革》,法律出版社 1999年版。
29、吴宗宪等著:《非监禁刑研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2003年版。
30、李贵方著:《自由刑比较研究》,吉林人民出版社 1992年版。
31、王顺安著:《刑事执行法学》,群众出版社 2001年版。
32、力康泰、韩玉胜著:《刑事执行法学原理》,中国人民大学出版社 1998年版。
33、高格编著:《比较刑法研究》,西南政法学院刑法教研室 1985年印。
34、金鉴主编:《监狱学总论》,法律出版社 1997年版。
35、吴宗宪著:《诬方犯罪学史》,警官教育出版社 1997年版。
36、王泰著:《现代监狱制度》,法律出版社 2003年版。
37、刘强编著:《美国刑事执法的理论与实践》,法律出版社 2000年版。
38、刘强编著:《美国社区矫正的理论与实务》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2003年版。
39、潘华仿主编:《外国监狱史》,社会科学文献出版社 1995年版。
40、张希坡编著:《中华人民共和国刑法史》,中国人民公安大学出版社 1998年版。
41、薛梅卿主编:《中国监狱史》,群众出版社 1986年版。
42、最高人民法院刑事审判第二庭编:《减刑、假释工作必备》,人民法院出版社 1992年版。
43、高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《新中国刑法立法文献资料总览》(上)、(中)、(下)中国人民公安大学出版社 1998年版。
44、马克昌主编:《近代西方刑法学说史略》,中国检察出版社 1997年版。
45、陈兴良著:《走向哲学的刑法学》,法律出版社 1999年版。
46、杨世云、窦希琨主编:《比较监狱学》,中国人民公安大学出版社 1997年版。
47、苏彩霞著:《累犯制度比较研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2002年版。
48、樊风林主编:《刑罚通论》,中国政法大学出版社 1994年版。
49、张宏生、谷春德主编:《西方法律思想史》,北京大学出版社 2000年版。
50、冯卫国著:《行刑社会化研究》,北京大学出版社 2003年版。
51、陈士涵著:《人格改造论》(下卷),学林出版社 2001年版。
52、夏宗素主编:《狱政法律问题研究》,法律出版社 1997年版。
53、刘豪兴、朱少华著:《人的社会化》,上海人民出版社 1993年版。
54、张明楷著:《刑法格言的展开》,法律出版社 1999年版。
55、赵秉志主编:《外国刑法原理》(大陆法系),中国人民大学出版社 2000年版。
56、甘雨沛著:《比较刑法学大全》(下册),北京大学出版社 1997年版。
57、韩玉胜著:《监狱学问题研究》,法律出版社 1998年版。
58、力康泰主编:《劳动改造法学研究综述》,中国人民大学出版社 1993年版。
59、邵名正主编:《中国劳改法学理论研究综述》,中国政法大学出版社 1992年版。
60、王利荣著:《行刑法律机能研究》,法律出版社 2001年版。
61、鲁加伦主编:《中国罪犯人权研究》,法律出版社 1998年版。
62、梁根林著:《刑罚结构论》,北京大学出版社 1998年版。
63、鲍圣庆编著:《减刑、假释的理论与实践》,吉林人民出版社 1992年版。
64、赵秉志主编:《新刑法教程》,中国人民大学出版社 1999年版。
65、陈兴良著:《刑法适用总论》(下卷),法律出版社 1999年版。
66、周道鸾等主编:《刑法修改与适用》,人民法院出版社 1997年版。
67、高西江主编:《刑法的修订与适用》,中国方正出版社 1997年版。
68、王增铎、[加]杨诚等主编:《中加矫正制度比较研究》,法律出版社 2001年版。
69、张根大著:《法律效力论》,法律出版社 1999年版。
70、甘雨沛、何鹏著:《外国刑法学》(上册),北京大学出版社 1984年版。
71、夏宗素主编:《出狱人保护》,四川大学出版社 1995年版。
72、孙长永著:《沉默权制度研究》,法律出版社 2001年版。
73、徐静村主编:《刑事诉讼法学》(修订本·上),法律出版社 1999年版。
74、张绍彦主编:《刑事执行法学》,中国人民公安大学出版社 1990年版。
75、苗有水著:《保安处分与中国刑法发展》,中国方正出版社 2001年版。
76、陈敏著:《减刑制度比较研究》,北京大学出版社 2001年版。
77、武延平主编:《中外监狱法比较研究》,中国政法大学出版社 1999年版。
78、赵秉志主编:《中国内地与澳门刑法之比较研究》,中国方正出版社 2000年版。
79、张文学主编:《刑罚执行变更理论与实务》,人民法院出版社 2000年版。
80、杨殿升主编:《监狱法学》,北京大学出版社 1997年版。
81、王泰主编:《监狱学概论》,中国政法大学出版社 1996年版。
82、于志刚主编:《刑罚制度适用中的疑难问题研究》,吉林人民出版社 2001年版。
83、劳改专业教材编辑部《中国劳改学研究》编写组:《中国劳改学研究》,社会科学文献出版社 1992年版。
84、郑学群、孙晓雳著:《劳改法学基本理论问题》,社会科学文献出版社 1992年版。
85、中华人民共和国司法部编:《外国监狱资料选编》(上册)、(下册),群众出版社 1988年版。
86、中华人民共和国司法部编:《外国监狱法规汇编》(一)、(二),社会科学文献出版社 1988年版。
87、中华人民共和国司法部编:《外国监狱法规汇编》,(三)、(四),社会科学文献出版社 1989年版。
88、中华人民共和国司法部编:《外国监狱法规条文分解》(上册)、(下册),社会科学文献出版社 1990年版。
89、萧榕主编:《世界著名法典选编》(刑法卷),中国民主法制出版社 1998年版。
90、陈忠林著:《意大利刑法纲要》,中国人民大学出版社 1999年版。
91、林纪东著:《监狱学》,台湾三民书局股份有限公司 1997年版(第9版)。
92、许福生编著:《刑事学讲义》,台湾国兴印刷厂 2001年版。
93、林纪东著:《刑事政策学》,台湾中正书局 1969年第4版。
94、《各国刑法汇编》(上册),台湾司法通讯社 1980年版。
95、杨建华著:《刑法总则之比较与检讨》,台湾三民书局股份有限公司 1998年版。
96、甘添贵等著:《刑法70年之回顾与展望纪念文集》(二),台湾元照出版公司 2001年版。
97、杨士隆、林健阳主编:《犯罪矫治——问题与对策》,台湾五南图书出版 1994年版。
98、张甘妹等著:《再犯预测研究》,台湾法务通讯社 1987年版。
99、翁岳生著:《法治国家之行政与司法》,台湾月旦出版公司 1994年版。
100、丁道源编著:《中外假释制度之比较研究》,台湾中央文物供应社 1987年版。
101、张甘妹著:《刑事政策》,台湾三民书局股份有限公司 1979年版。
102、林山田著:《刑罚学》,台湾商务印书馆股份有限公司 1992年修订版。
103、蔡墩铭主编:《刑法总则论文选辑》(下),台湾五南图书出版公司 1984年版。
104、[美]大卫·E·杜菲著:《美国矫正政策与实践》,吴宗宪等译,中国人民公安大学出版社 1992年版。
105、[美]理查德·霍金斯、杰弗里·P·阿尔珀特著:《美国监狱制度》,孙晓雳、林遐译,中国人民公安大学出版社 1991年版。
106、[法]安塞尔著:《新刑法理论》,卢建平译,香港天地图书有限公司 1990年版。
107、[美]马斯洛著:《动机与人格》,许金声等译,华夏出版社 1987年版。
108、[美]克莱门斯·巴特勒斯著:《罪犯矫正概述》,龙学群译,群众出版社 1987年版。
109、[德]黑格尔著:《法哲学原理》,范扬、张企泰译,商务印书馆 1996年版。
110、[意]贝卡利亚著:《论犯罪与刑罚》,黄风译,中国大百科全书出版社 1993年版。
111、[英]边沁著:《道德与立法原理导论》,时殷弘译,商务印书馆 2000年 版。
112、[意]恩里科·菲利著:《实证派犯罪学》,郭建安译,中国政法大学出版社 1987年版。
113、[苏]B·K·茨维尔布利等著:《犯罪学》(中译本),群众出版社 1986年版。
114、[意]加罗法洛著:《犯罪学》,耿伟译,中国大百科全书出版社 1996年版。
115、[苏]A·H·特拉伊宁著:《犯罪构成的一般学说》,王作富等译,中国人民大学出版社 1958年版。
116、[法]卡斯东·斯特法尼等著:《法国刑法总论精义》,罗结珍译,中国政法大学出版社 1998年版。
117、[意]杜里奥·帕多瓦尼著:《意大利刑法学原理》,陈忠林译,法律出版社 1998年版。
118、[英]哈特著:《惩罚与责任》,王勇、张志铭、方蕾译,华夏出版社 1989年版。
119、[日]福田平、大塚仁著:《日本刑法总论讲义》,李乔等译,辽宁人民出版社 1986年版。
120、[美]约翰·罗尔斯著:《正义论》,何怀宏、何包钢、廖申白译,中国社会科学出版社 1988年版。
121、[日]木村龟仁主编:《刑法学词典》,顾肖荣、郑树周译校,上海翻译出版公司 1991年版。
122、[德]弗里德里希·包尔生著:《伦理学体系》,何怀宏、廖申白译,中国社会科学出版社 1988年版。
123、[日]森下忠著:《犯罪者处遇》,白绿铉等译,中国纺织出版社 1994年版。
124、[俄]库兹涅佐娃、佳日科娃主编:《俄罗斯刑法教程》(总论·下卷),黄道秀译,中国法制出版社 2002年版。
125、[德]汉斯·海因里希·耶塞克、托马斯·魏根特著:《德国刑法教科书》,徐久生译,中国法制出版社 2001年版。
126、[美]毕汝楷著:《美国联邦监狱探秘》,中国检察出版社 2004年版。
127、[俄]俄罗斯联邦总检察院编:《俄罗斯刑法典释义》(上册),黄道秀译,中国政法大学出版社 2000年版。
128、[法]米歇尔·福轲著:《规训与惩罚》,刘北成、杨远婴译,生活·读书·新知三联书店 1997年版。
129、[意]恩里科·菲利著:《犯罪社会学》,郭建安译,中国人民公安大学出版社 1990年版。
130、[美]安德鲁·冯·赫希著:《己然之罪还是未然之罪》,邱兴隆、胡云腾译,中国检察出版社 2001年版。
131、[日]大谷实著:《刑事政策学》,黎宏译,法律出版社 2000年版。
132、[美]克莱门斯·巴特勒斯著:《矫正导论》,孙晓雳、张述元、吴培栋译,中国人民公安大学出版社 1991年版。
131、张明楷译:《日本刑法典》,法律出版社 1998年版。
132、黄道秀译:《俄罗斯联邦刑法典》,中国法制出版社 1996年版。
133、黄风译:《意大利刑法典》,中国政法大学出版社 1998年版。
134、[芬]柯瑞丝笛娜执笔:《欧美刑事司法撷萃》,王大伟等译,中国人民公安大学出版社 2000年版。
135、文英麟、刘晋棠译:《阿尔巴尼亚人民共和国刑事诉讼法典》,法律出版社 1956年版。
136、[韩]金永哲译:《韩国刑法典》,中国人民大学出版社 1996年版。
137、徐久生译:《德国刑法典》,中国法制出版社 2000年版。
138、徐久生译:《瑞士联邦刑法典》,中国法制出版社 1999年版。
139、郭建安译:《加拿大矫正与有条件释放法》,中国政法大学出版社 2001年版。
140、程味秋、[加]杨诚、杨宇冠编:《联合国人权公约和刑事司法文献汇编》,中国法制出版社 2000年版。
141、黄风译:《意大利刑事诉讼法典》,中国政法大学出版社 1994年版。
142、余叔通、谢朝华译:《法国刑事诉讼法典》,中国政法大学出版社 1997年版。
143、黄永魁译:《蒙古人民共和国刑事诉讼法典》,法律出版社 1957年版。
144、Hwoard Abadinsky, Probation and Parole, Theory and Practice, Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1991.
145、James A. Inciardi, Criminal Justice, Harcourt Brace & Company, 1993.
146、Sanford H. Kadish, Crime and Justice, The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc. 1983.
147、Charles H. Logan, Private Prisons, Oxford Universty Press, Inc. 1990.
148、Richard W. Snarr, Introduction to Corrections, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.1996.
2、高铭暄主编:《中国刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社 1989年版。
3、高铭暄编著:《中华人民共和国刑法的孕育和诞生》,法律出版社 1981年版。
4、高铭暄主编:《刑法学原理》(第三卷),中国人民大学出版社 1993年版。
5、高铭暄主编:《刑法学专论》(上编)、(下编),高等教育出版社 2002年版。
6、赵秉志主编:《刑法争议问题研究》(上卷),河南人民出版社 1996年版。
7、赵秉志主编:《犯罪总论问题探索》,法律出版社 2002年版。
8、赵秉志主编:《海峡两岸刑法总论比较研究》(下卷),中国人民大学出版社 2001年版。
9、马克昌主编:《刑法学全书》,上海科学技术文献出版社 1993年版。
10、陈兴良著:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 2000年修订版。
11、陈兴良著:《本体刑法学》,商务印书馆 2001年版。
12、陈兴良著:《刑法的启蒙》,法律出版社 1998年版。
13、张明楷著:《刑法的基本立场》,中国法律出版社 2002年版。
14、张明楷著:《刑法学》,法律出版社 2003年版。
15、曲新久著:《刑法的精神与范畴》,中国政法大学出版社 2000年版。
16、储槐植著:《刑事一体化与关系刑法论》,北京大学出版社 1993年版。
17、储槐植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 1996年版。
18、马克昌主编:《刑罚通论》,武汉大学出版社 1999年第2版。
19、赵秉志主编:《刑罚总论问题探索》,法律出版社 2002年版。
20、周振想著:《刑罚适用论》,法律出版社 1990年版。
21、邱兴隆、许章润著:《刑罚学》,中国政法大学出版社 1988年版。
22、邱兴隆著:《关于惩罚的哲学——刑罚根据论》,法律出版社 2000年版。
23、谢望原著:《刑罚价值论》,中国检察出版社 1999年版。
24、翟中东著:《刑罚个别化研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2001年版。
25、翟中东著:《刑法中的人格问题研究》,中国法制出版社 2003年版。
26、高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《刑法论丛》(第1卷),法律出版社 1998年版。
27、高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《刑法论丛》(第6卷),法律出版社 2002年版。
28、张绍彦著:《刑罚实现与行刑变革》,法律出版社 1999年版。
29、吴宗宪等著:《非监禁刑研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2003年版。
30、李贵方著:《自由刑比较研究》,吉林人民出版社 1992年版。
31、王顺安著:《刑事执行法学》,群众出版社 2001年版。
32、力康泰、韩玉胜著:《刑事执行法学原理》,中国人民大学出版社 1998年版。
33、高格编著:《比较刑法研究》,西南政法学院刑法教研室 1985年印。
34、金鉴主编:《监狱学总论》,法律出版社 1997年版。
35、吴宗宪著:《诬方犯罪学史》,警官教育出版社 1997年版。
36、王泰著:《现代监狱制度》,法律出版社 2003年版。
37、刘强编著:《美国刑事执法的理论与实践》,法律出版社 2000年版。
38、刘强编著:《美国社区矫正的理论与实务》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2003年版。
39、潘华仿主编:《外国监狱史》,社会科学文献出版社 1995年版。
40、张希坡编著:《中华人民共和国刑法史》,中国人民公安大学出版社 1998年版。
41、薛梅卿主编:《中国监狱史》,群众出版社 1986年版。
42、最高人民法院刑事审判第二庭编:《减刑、假释工作必备》,人民法院出版社 1992年版。
43、高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《新中国刑法立法文献资料总览》(上)、(中)、(下)中国人民公安大学出版社 1998年版。
44、马克昌主编:《近代西方刑法学说史略》,中国检察出版社 1997年版。
45、陈兴良著:《走向哲学的刑法学》,法律出版社 1999年版。
46、杨世云、窦希琨主编:《比较监狱学》,中国人民公安大学出版社 1997年版。
47、苏彩霞著:《累犯制度比较研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2002年版。
48、樊风林主编:《刑罚通论》,中国政法大学出版社 1994年版。
49、张宏生、谷春德主编:《西方法律思想史》,北京大学出版社 2000年版。
50、冯卫国著:《行刑社会化研究》,北京大学出版社 2003年版。
51、陈士涵著:《人格改造论》(下卷),学林出版社 2001年版。
52、夏宗素主编:《狱政法律问题研究》,法律出版社 1997年版。
53、刘豪兴、朱少华著:《人的社会化》,上海人民出版社 1993年版。
54、张明楷著:《刑法格言的展开》,法律出版社 1999年版。
55、赵秉志主编:《外国刑法原理》(大陆法系),中国人民大学出版社 2000年版。
56、甘雨沛著:《比较刑法学大全》(下册),北京大学出版社 1997年版。
57、韩玉胜著:《监狱学问题研究》,法律出版社 1998年版。
58、力康泰主编:《劳动改造法学研究综述》,中国人民大学出版社 1993年版。
59、邵名正主编:《中国劳改法学理论研究综述》,中国政法大学出版社 1992年版。
60、王利荣著:《行刑法律机能研究》,法律出版社 2001年版。
61、鲁加伦主编:《中国罪犯人权研究》,法律出版社 1998年版。
62、梁根林著:《刑罚结构论》,北京大学出版社 1998年版。
63、鲍圣庆编著:《减刑、假释的理论与实践》,吉林人民出版社 1992年版。
64、赵秉志主编:《新刑法教程》,中国人民大学出版社 1999年版。
65、陈兴良著:《刑法适用总论》(下卷),法律出版社 1999年版。
66、周道鸾等主编:《刑法修改与适用》,人民法院出版社 1997年版。
67、高西江主编:《刑法的修订与适用》,中国方正出版社 1997年版。
68、王增铎、[加]杨诚等主编:《中加矫正制度比较研究》,法律出版社 2001年版。
69、张根大著:《法律效力论》,法律出版社 1999年版。
70、甘雨沛、何鹏著:《外国刑法学》(上册),北京大学出版社 1984年版。
71、夏宗素主编:《出狱人保护》,四川大学出版社 1995年版。
72、孙长永著:《沉默权制度研究》,法律出版社 2001年版。
73、徐静村主编:《刑事诉讼法学》(修订本·上),法律出版社 1999年版。
74、张绍彦主编:《刑事执行法学》,中国人民公安大学出版社 1990年版。
75、苗有水著:《保安处分与中国刑法发展》,中国方正出版社 2001年版。
76、陈敏著:《减刑制度比较研究》,北京大学出版社 2001年版。
77、武延平主编:《中外监狱法比较研究》,中国政法大学出版社 1999年版。
78、赵秉志主编:《中国内地与澳门刑法之比较研究》,中国方正出版社 2000年版。
79、张文学主编:《刑罚执行变更理论与实务》,人民法院出版社 2000年版。
80、杨殿升主编:《监狱法学》,北京大学出版社 1997年版。
81、王泰主编:《监狱学概论》,中国政法大学出版社 1996年版。
82、于志刚主编:《刑罚制度适用中的疑难问题研究》,吉林人民出版社 2001年版。
83、劳改专业教材编辑部《中国劳改学研究》编写组:《中国劳改学研究》,社会科学文献出版社 1992年版。
84、郑学群、孙晓雳著:《劳改法学基本理论问题》,社会科学文献出版社 1992年版。
85、中华人民共和国司法部编:《外国监狱资料选编》(上册)、(下册),群众出版社 1988年版。
86、中华人民共和国司法部编:《外国监狱法规汇编》(一)、(二),社会科学文献出版社 1988年版。
87、中华人民共和国司法部编:《外国监狱法规汇编》,(三)、(四),社会科学文献出版社 1989年版。
88、中华人民共和国司法部编:《外国监狱法规条文分解》(上册)、(下册),社会科学文献出版社 1990年版。
89、萧榕主编:《世界著名法典选编》(刑法卷),中国民主法制出版社 1998年版。
90、陈忠林著:《意大利刑法纲要》,中国人民大学出版社 1999年版。
91、林纪东著:《监狱学》,台湾三民书局股份有限公司 1997年版(第9版)。
92、许福生编著:《刑事学讲义》,台湾国兴印刷厂 2001年版。
93、林纪东著:《刑事政策学》,台湾中正书局 1969年第4版。
94、《各国刑法汇编》(上册),台湾司法通讯社 1980年版。
95、杨建华著:《刑法总则之比较与检讨》,台湾三民书局股份有限公司 1998年版。
96、甘添贵等著:《刑法70年之回顾与展望纪念文集》(二),台湾元照出版公司 2001年版。
97、杨士隆、林健阳主编:《犯罪矫治——问题与对策》,台湾五南图书出版 1994年版。
98、张甘妹等著:《再犯预测研究》,台湾法务通讯社 1987年版。
99、翁岳生著:《法治国家之行政与司法》,台湾月旦出版公司 1994年版。
100、丁道源编著:《中外假释制度之比较研究》,台湾中央文物供应社 1987年版。
101、张甘妹著:《刑事政策》,台湾三民书局股份有限公司 1979年版。
102、林山田著:《刑罚学》,台湾商务印书馆股份有限公司 1992年修订版。
103、蔡墩铭主编:《刑法总则论文选辑》(下),台湾五南图书出版公司 1984年版。
104、[美]大卫·E·杜菲著:《美国矫正政策与实践》,吴宗宪等译,中国人民公安大学出版社 1992年版。
105、[美]理查德·霍金斯、杰弗里·P·阿尔珀特著:《美国监狱制度》,孙晓雳、林遐译,中国人民公安大学出版社 1991年版。
106、[法]安塞尔著:《新刑法理论》,卢建平译,香港天地图书有限公司 1990年版。
107、[美]马斯洛著:《动机与人格》,许金声等译,华夏出版社 1987年版。
108、[美]克莱门斯·巴特勒斯著:《罪犯矫正概述》,龙学群译,群众出版社 1987年版。
109、[德]黑格尔著:《法哲学原理》,范扬、张企泰译,商务印书馆 1996年版。
110、[意]贝卡利亚著:《论犯罪与刑罚》,黄风译,中国大百科全书出版社 1993年版。
111、[英]边沁著:《道德与立法原理导论》,时殷弘译,商务印书馆 2000年 版。
112、[意]恩里科·菲利著:《实证派犯罪学》,郭建安译,中国政法大学出版社 1987年版。
113、[苏]B·K·茨维尔布利等著:《犯罪学》(中译本),群众出版社 1986年版。
114、[意]加罗法洛著:《犯罪学》,耿伟译,中国大百科全书出版社 1996年版。
115、[苏]A·H·特拉伊宁著:《犯罪构成的一般学说》,王作富等译,中国人民大学出版社 1958年版。
116、[法]卡斯东·斯特法尼等著:《法国刑法总论精义》,罗结珍译,中国政法大学出版社 1998年版。
117、[意]杜里奥·帕多瓦尼著:《意大利刑法学原理》,陈忠林译,法律出版社 1998年版。
118、[英]哈特著:《惩罚与责任》,王勇、张志铭、方蕾译,华夏出版社 1989年版。
119、[日]福田平、大塚仁著:《日本刑法总论讲义》,李乔等译,辽宁人民出版社 1986年版。
120、[美]约翰·罗尔斯著:《正义论》,何怀宏、何包钢、廖申白译,中国社会科学出版社 1988年版。
121、[日]木村龟仁主编:《刑法学词典》,顾肖荣、郑树周译校,上海翻译出版公司 1991年版。
122、[德]弗里德里希·包尔生著:《伦理学体系》,何怀宏、廖申白译,中国社会科学出版社 1988年版。
123、[日]森下忠著:《犯罪者处遇》,白绿铉等译,中国纺织出版社 1994年版。
124、[俄]库兹涅佐娃、佳日科娃主编:《俄罗斯刑法教程》(总论·下卷),黄道秀译,中国法制出版社 2002年版。
125、[德]汉斯·海因里希·耶塞克、托马斯·魏根特著:《德国刑法教科书》,徐久生译,中国法制出版社 2001年版。
126、[美]毕汝楷著:《美国联邦监狱探秘》,中国检察出版社 2004年版。
127、[俄]俄罗斯联邦总检察院编:《俄罗斯刑法典释义》(上册),黄道秀译,中国政法大学出版社 2000年版。
128、[法]米歇尔·福轲著:《规训与惩罚》,刘北成、杨远婴译,生活·读书·新知三联书店 1997年版。
129、[意]恩里科·菲利著:《犯罪社会学》,郭建安译,中国人民公安大学出版社 1990年版。
130、[美]安德鲁·冯·赫希著:《己然之罪还是未然之罪》,邱兴隆、胡云腾译,中国检察出版社 2001年版。
131、[日]大谷实著:《刑事政策学》,黎宏译,法律出版社 2000年版。
132、[美]克莱门斯·巴特勒斯著:《矫正导论》,孙晓雳、张述元、吴培栋译,中国人民公安大学出版社 1991年版。
131、张明楷译:《日本刑法典》,法律出版社 1998年版。
132、黄道秀译:《俄罗斯联邦刑法典》,中国法制出版社 1996年版。
133、黄风译:《意大利刑法典》,中国政法大学出版社 1998年版。
134、[芬]柯瑞丝笛娜执笔:《欧美刑事司法撷萃》,王大伟等译,中国人民公安大学出版社 2000年版。
135、文英麟、刘晋棠译:《阿尔巴尼亚人民共和国刑事诉讼法典》,法律出版社 1956年版。
136、[韩]金永哲译:《韩国刑法典》,中国人民大学出版社 1996年版。
137、徐久生译:《德国刑法典》,中国法制出版社 2000年版。
138、徐久生译:《瑞士联邦刑法典》,中国法制出版社 1999年版。
139、郭建安译:《加拿大矫正与有条件释放法》,中国政法大学出版社 2001年版。
140、程味秋、[加]杨诚、杨宇冠编:《联合国人权公约和刑事司法文献汇编》,中国法制出版社 2000年版。
141、黄风译:《意大利刑事诉讼法典》,中国政法大学出版社 1994年版。
142、余叔通、谢朝华译:《法国刑事诉讼法典》,中国政法大学出版社 1997年版。
143、黄永魁译:《蒙古人民共和国刑事诉讼法典》,法律出版社 1957年版。
144、Hwoard Abadinsky, Probation and Parole, Theory and Practice, Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1991.
145、James A. Inciardi, Criminal Justice, Harcourt Brace & Company, 1993.
146、Sanford H. Kadish, Crime and Justice, The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc. 1983.
147、Charles H. Logan, Private Prisons, Oxford Universty Press, Inc. 1990.
148、Richard W. Snarr, Introduction to Corrections, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.1996.