盗窃罪的量刑规范化问题研究
摘要
盗窃犯罪作为刑法实践中较为常见和多发的一类犯罪,因其行为的复杂性不断攀升,以致对于盗窃罪的量刑已不再局限于原有的标准。特别是《刑法修正案(八)》中对于盗窃罪相关内容的更改,现行的《量刑指导意见》在量刑规定方面已出现明显缺陷。本文以一起多次入户盗窃案件中二被告人的量刑为依托,根据已颁行的《量刑指导意见》的相关规定,阐述现有法律规范及实践操作中存在的不足。同时依据《量刑指导意见》对于盗窃罪量刑的具体规定,并参照个别省份的《量刑实施细则》,在已有的理论和实践研究成果的基础之上,结合本案的量刑引发的思考和启示,尝试根据盗窃罪的固有属性及犯罪特征,对其量刑过程进行更为科学的理论完善和实践规范。
本文分为三个部分:
第一部分主要对所引述的案例进行简要介绍。通过对该案量刑过程的分析,归纳本案的争议焦点及对引发的问题进行限定说明。本案中对于两位被告人的量刑所反映的问题主要集中为:量刑起点的确定标准脱离实际及刑罚刑种确定的标准不一;基准刑的调节调节的标准固化及基准刑的调节尺度缺乏层次性;拟宣告刑的量刑情节的适用缺乏顺序性及量刑情节适用尺度的任意性。
第二部分对已提出的问题进行详细分析。此部分在现行法律规范的基础上,对盗窃罪量刑的各步骤逐一进行分析。笔者认为,现行的法律规范对于量刑起点的规定以数额作为绝对标准,以致于影响到基准刑的调节标准,最后将其他量刑情节退而求其次的规定和实践已明显违背立法本意。因此笔者在此部分占用很大篇幅对于盗窃罪量刑起点的选定及基准刑的调节理论规范中存在的不足及实践缺陷进行阐述,并对拟宣告刑的情节选定、适用顺序以及比例调试等问题逐一进行分析,试图在现有理论背景下对已存在的实践问题进一步进行明确和规范。
第三部分主要从理论方面对盗窃罪的规范化量刑提出建议。笔者通过对本案的量刑进行重新简析,明确盗窃罪量刑的具体步骤。并提出对于盗窃罪量刑从量刑起点的确定到基准刑的调节最后直至拟宣告刑的确立各个环节中存在问题提出针对性的见解及改进方案。笔者认为,针对现有法律对于盗窃罪应明确量刑起点的标准,统一量刑起点的刑种,并对基准刑的调节要与量刑起点的标准一致,且做到调节尺度层次分明,最后在拟宣告刑的确立方面要做到情节选择科学化、选择尺度全局把握,才能最终实现规范化量刑。
Practice as a criminal offense of theft is more common and a class of crime-prone, because the complexity of the rising acts, resulting in the sentencing for the theft is no longer limited to the original standard. Especially the "Criminal Law Amendment (h)" in the theft-related changes in the content, the existing "sentencing guidance" on sentencing provisions have significant defects. In this paper, along with several burglaries in the two cases rely on the defendant's sentencing, under the enactment of the "sentencing guidance," the relevant provisions of existing laws and regulations and explain the flaws in practical operation. At the same time based on "sentencing guidance" for the theft of specific sentencing provisions, and with reference to the individual provinces, "the implementation details of sentencing" in existing theory and practice based on research results, combined with the case of sentencing Reflections and inspiration, try based on the inherent attributes of theft and criminal sentencing process more of its characteristics of scientific theory and practice of improving standards. This paper is divided into three parts:
The first part of the main cases cited briefly. Sentencing process through the analysis of the case, summarized the focus of the case and the controversy caused by the problem of limited description. This case the defendant's sentencing for two issues mainly reflected as follows: starting point to determine the actual and penalties from the criminal standard criteria established by different kinds; benchmark sentence of regulation and adjustment of the standard cure the lack of base-level sentence adjustment scale sex; to be declared criminal lack of application of the sentencing order and sentencing of any of the applicable scale.
The second part of the problem have been put forward for detailed analysis. This part of the current legal framework, based on the sentencing of theft of the steps one by one analysis. The author believes that the existing legal norms for the sentencing provisions of the amount as a starting point of an absolute standard, which affect the baseline sentence in the regulation of standards, and finally the next best thing to the other sentencing provisions and practice have clearly contrary to legislative intent. So I take up much space in this part of the starting point for the theft and the benchmark sentence of selected theories and principles in the regulation of the shortcomings and defects described the practice, and to be declared criminal plot selected for the proportion of the order, and debugging analysis of problems one by one, trying to existing theories in the context of the existing clear and practical issues for further specification.
The third part of the main theoretical aspects of the theft from the standardization of sentencing recommendations. By the author of Analysis of the case re-sentencing, sentencing of specific steps to clearly theft. And proposed penalty for theft from a starting point to determine the baseline until the last sentence of the regulation be declared the establishment of criminal issues that exist in all aspects of insight and targeted improvement program. I believe that existing laws against the theft should be clear starting point for a standard, unified starting point of sentence types, and the regulation of the benchmark sentence with the starting point of the standards, and adjust the scale so structured, the last to be declared in The establishment of criminal choice in the circumstances to achieve scientific and choose a global scale to grasp in order to ultimately achieve the standardization of sentencing
本文分为三个部分:
第一部分主要对所引述的案例进行简要介绍。通过对该案量刑过程的分析,归纳本案的争议焦点及对引发的问题进行限定说明。本案中对于两位被告人的量刑所反映的问题主要集中为:量刑起点的确定标准脱离实际及刑罚刑种确定的标准不一;基准刑的调节调节的标准固化及基准刑的调节尺度缺乏层次性;拟宣告刑的量刑情节的适用缺乏顺序性及量刑情节适用尺度的任意性。
第二部分对已提出的问题进行详细分析。此部分在现行法律规范的基础上,对盗窃罪量刑的各步骤逐一进行分析。笔者认为,现行的法律规范对于量刑起点的规定以数额作为绝对标准,以致于影响到基准刑的调节标准,最后将其他量刑情节退而求其次的规定和实践已明显违背立法本意。因此笔者在此部分占用很大篇幅对于盗窃罪量刑起点的选定及基准刑的调节理论规范中存在的不足及实践缺陷进行阐述,并对拟宣告刑的情节选定、适用顺序以及比例调试等问题逐一进行分析,试图在现有理论背景下对已存在的实践问题进一步进行明确和规范。
第三部分主要从理论方面对盗窃罪的规范化量刑提出建议。笔者通过对本案的量刑进行重新简析,明确盗窃罪量刑的具体步骤。并提出对于盗窃罪量刑从量刑起点的确定到基准刑的调节最后直至拟宣告刑的确立各个环节中存在问题提出针对性的见解及改进方案。笔者认为,针对现有法律对于盗窃罪应明确量刑起点的标准,统一量刑起点的刑种,并对基准刑的调节要与量刑起点的标准一致,且做到调节尺度层次分明,最后在拟宣告刑的确立方面要做到情节选择科学化、选择尺度全局把握,才能最终实现规范化量刑。
Practice as a criminal offense of theft is more common and a class of crime-prone, because the complexity of the rising acts, resulting in the sentencing for the theft is no longer limited to the original standard. Especially the "Criminal Law Amendment (h)" in the theft-related changes in the content, the existing "sentencing guidance" on sentencing provisions have significant defects. In this paper, along with several burglaries in the two cases rely on the defendant's sentencing, under the enactment of the "sentencing guidance," the relevant provisions of existing laws and regulations and explain the flaws in practical operation. At the same time based on "sentencing guidance" for the theft of specific sentencing provisions, and with reference to the individual provinces, "the implementation details of sentencing" in existing theory and practice based on research results, combined with the case of sentencing Reflections and inspiration, try based on the inherent attributes of theft and criminal sentencing process more of its characteristics of scientific theory and practice of improving standards. This paper is divided into three parts:
The first part of the main cases cited briefly. Sentencing process through the analysis of the case, summarized the focus of the case and the controversy caused by the problem of limited description. This case the defendant's sentencing for two issues mainly reflected as follows: starting point to determine the actual and penalties from the criminal standard criteria established by different kinds; benchmark sentence of regulation and adjustment of the standard cure the lack of base-level sentence adjustment scale sex; to be declared criminal lack of application of the sentencing order and sentencing of any of the applicable scale.
The second part of the problem have been put forward for detailed analysis. This part of the current legal framework, based on the sentencing of theft of the steps one by one analysis. The author believes that the existing legal norms for the sentencing provisions of the amount as a starting point of an absolute standard, which affect the baseline sentence in the regulation of standards, and finally the next best thing to the other sentencing provisions and practice have clearly contrary to legislative intent. So I take up much space in this part of the starting point for the theft and the benchmark sentence of selected theories and principles in the regulation of the shortcomings and defects described the practice, and to be declared criminal plot selected for the proportion of the order, and debugging analysis of problems one by one, trying to existing theories in the context of the existing clear and practical issues for further specification.
The third part of the main theoretical aspects of the theft from the standardization of sentencing recommendations. By the author of Analysis of the case re-sentencing, sentencing of specific steps to clearly theft. And proposed penalty for theft from a starting point to determine the baseline until the last sentence of the regulation be declared the establishment of criminal issues that exist in all aspects of insight and targeted improvement program. I believe that existing laws against the theft should be clear starting point for a standard, unified starting point of sentence types, and the regulation of the benchmark sentence with the starting point of the standards, and adjust the scale so structured, the last to be declared in The establishment of criminal choice in the circumstances to achieve scientific and choose a global scale to grasp in order to ultimately achieve the standardization of sentencing
引文
1最高人民法院量刑规范化改革项目组编写,熊选国主编:《<人民法院量刑指导意见>与“两高三部”<关于量刑规范化程序若干问题的意见>理解与适用》,法律出版社2010年版,第295~299页。
4.最高人民法院:《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》,2009年10月1日。
6张明楷著:《<刑法修正案(八)>实施问题研究—盗窃罪的新课题》,载《政治与法律》2011年第8期,第2页。
7李洁著:《罪与刑立法规定模式》,北京大学出版社,2008年6月版,第281~282页。
8最高人民法院量刑规范化改革项目组编写,熊选国主编:《<人民法院量刑指导意见>与“两高三部”<关于量刑规范化程序若干问题的意见>理解与适用》,法律出版社2010年版,第286页。
1.熊选国.关于规范化量刑程序若干问题的意见的理解与适用[M].北京:法律出版社,2010.
2.赵秉志,彭新林.量刑情节与量刑方法专题整理[C].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2009.
3.李洁.罪与刑立法规定模式[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
4.赵秉志.刑法评论[C].北京:法律出版社,2008.
5.白建军.公正底线——刑事司法公正性实证研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
6.张明楷.外国刑法纲要(第二版)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2007.
7.马克昌.刑罚通论[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2006.
8.汪明亮.多维视野中的定罪量刑问题[M],北京:法律出版社,2006.
9.周维远,李晓林,张世琦.最新刑法罪名、犯罪数额与情节的认定[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2005.
10.赵秉志.中国刑法案例与学理研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
11.赵秉志.刑法评论(第五卷)[C].北京:法律出版社,2004.
12.张明楷.刑法分则的解释原理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
13.白建军.罪刑均衡实证研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
14.邱兴隆.比较法学[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004.
15.刘芳,单民,沈宏伟.刑法适用疑难问题及定罪量刑标准通解[M].法律出版社,2004.
16.张明楷.刑法学[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
17.[日]大谷实.黎宏译.刑法总论[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
18.张明楷.刑法的基本立场[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
19.王作富.刑法分则实务研究[M].北京:中国方正出版社,2001.
20.罗结珍.法国刑法典·刑事诉讼法典[M].北京:国际文化出版中心,1997.
21.陈兴良.刑法哲学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1997.
22.储槐植.美国刑法(第二版)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1996.
23.冯军.刑事责任论[M].北京:法律出版社,1996.
24.王世洲.美国量刑指南[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1995.
25.莫开勤.量刑导论[M].北京:中国方正出版社,2000.
1.张明楷.《刑法修正案(八)》实施问题研究——盗窃罪的新课题[J].政治与法律,2011(8).
2.张训,齐晓伶.最高人民法院量刑规范化试点文件之变化思路解读及启示[J].法律适用,2011(6).
3.白建军.裸刑均值的意义[J].法学研究,2010(6).
4.林维.论量刑情节的适用和基准刑的确定[J].法学家,2010(2).
5.陈磊.犯罪数额方式的问题与完善[J].中国刑法学杂志,2010(3).
6.赵廷光.法定刑中间线是量刑公正的生命线[J].中国刑法学杂志,2010(12).
7.周金刚.基准刑的理性分析[J].法律适用,2010(5).
8.徐嘎.犯罪行为与犯罪人:量刑根据的二元化[J].刑事法学,2010(11).
9.苏小聪.量刑庭审改革的价值定位与技术设计[J].法律适用,2010(5).
10.陈瑞华.论量刑信息的调查[J].诉讼法学·司法制度,2010(10).
11.肖世杰.中德(日)量刑基准之比较研究[J].刑事法学,2010(2).
12.汪贻飞.中国式“量刑指南”能走多远——以美国联邦量刑指南的命运为参照的分析[J].政法论坛,2010(11).
13.唐亚男.量刑规范化尚待规范的几个问题[J].法律适用,2010(11).
14.周光权.量刑程序改革的实体法支撑[J].法学家,2010(2).
15.王瑞军.量刑规范化面临的问题和对策构建[J].法学论坛,2010(1).
16.石金平,游涛.罪刑重复评价相关问题研究[J].中国刑事法杂志,2010(3).
17.山东省高级人民法院刑四庭.盗窃犯罪定罪量刑标准若干问题研究[],山东审判,2009(4).
18.王强.数额犯量刑的法定刑基准[J].政治与法律,2009(11).
19.王学文.盗窃罪中数额要素的作用新探[J].湖北警官学院学报,2009(5).
20.苏敏华,王永杰.盗窃罪定罪与量刑相关问题分析[J].中国刑事法杂志,2005(5).
21.李洁.定罪量刑情节若干问题研究[J].北华大学学报(社科版),2001(1).
22.储槐植,汪永乐.再论我过刑法中的犯罪概念的定量因素[J],法学研究,2000(2).
23.刘道明.对盗窃罪量刑时应掌握的量刑标准[J].政法论丛,1997(增刊).
1.山东省高级人民法院《关于印发人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)实施细则的通知》
2.甘肃省高级人民法院《关于印发人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)实施细则的通
3.辽宁省高级人民法院《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》实施细则
4.江苏省高级人民法院《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》实施细则
5.湖北省高级人民法院《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》实施细则
6.四川省高级人民法院《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》实施细则
7.福建省高级人民法院《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》实施细则
8.浙江省公安厅《关于贯彻执行新的盗窃罪数额认定标准有关事项的通知》
4.最高人民法院:《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》,2009年10月1日。
6张明楷著:《<刑法修正案(八)>实施问题研究—盗窃罪的新课题》,载《政治与法律》2011年第8期,第2页。
7李洁著:《罪与刑立法规定模式》,北京大学出版社,2008年6月版,第281~282页。
8最高人民法院量刑规范化改革项目组编写,熊选国主编:《<人民法院量刑指导意见>与“两高三部”<关于量刑规范化程序若干问题的意见>理解与适用》,法律出版社2010年版,第286页。
1.熊选国.关于规范化量刑程序若干问题的意见的理解与适用[M].北京:法律出版社,2010.
2.赵秉志,彭新林.量刑情节与量刑方法专题整理[C].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2009.
3.李洁.罪与刑立法规定模式[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
4.赵秉志.刑法评论[C].北京:法律出版社,2008.
5.白建军.公正底线——刑事司法公正性实证研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
6.张明楷.外国刑法纲要(第二版)[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2007.
7.马克昌.刑罚通论[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2006.
8.汪明亮.多维视野中的定罪量刑问题[M],北京:法律出版社,2006.
9.周维远,李晓林,张世琦.最新刑法罪名、犯罪数额与情节的认定[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2005.
10.赵秉志.中国刑法案例与学理研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
11.赵秉志.刑法评论(第五卷)[C].北京:法律出版社,2004.
12.张明楷.刑法分则的解释原理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
13.白建军.罪刑均衡实证研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
14.邱兴隆.比较法学[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2004.
15.刘芳,单民,沈宏伟.刑法适用疑难问题及定罪量刑标准通解[M].法律出版社,2004.
16.张明楷.刑法学[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
17.[日]大谷实.黎宏译.刑法总论[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
18.张明楷.刑法的基本立场[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
19.王作富.刑法分则实务研究[M].北京:中国方正出版社,2001.
20.罗结珍.法国刑法典·刑事诉讼法典[M].北京:国际文化出版中心,1997.
21.陈兴良.刑法哲学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1997.
22.储槐植.美国刑法(第二版)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1996.
23.冯军.刑事责任论[M].北京:法律出版社,1996.
24.王世洲.美国量刑指南[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1995.
25.莫开勤.量刑导论[M].北京:中国方正出版社,2000.
1.张明楷.《刑法修正案(八)》实施问题研究——盗窃罪的新课题[J].政治与法律,2011(8).
2.张训,齐晓伶.最高人民法院量刑规范化试点文件之变化思路解读及启示[J].法律适用,2011(6).
3.白建军.裸刑均值的意义[J].法学研究,2010(6).
4.林维.论量刑情节的适用和基准刑的确定[J].法学家,2010(2).
5.陈磊.犯罪数额方式的问题与完善[J].中国刑法学杂志,2010(3).
6.赵廷光.法定刑中间线是量刑公正的生命线[J].中国刑法学杂志,2010(12).
7.周金刚.基准刑的理性分析[J].法律适用,2010(5).
8.徐嘎.犯罪行为与犯罪人:量刑根据的二元化[J].刑事法学,2010(11).
9.苏小聪.量刑庭审改革的价值定位与技术设计[J].法律适用,2010(5).
10.陈瑞华.论量刑信息的调查[J].诉讼法学·司法制度,2010(10).
11.肖世杰.中德(日)量刑基准之比较研究[J].刑事法学,2010(2).
12.汪贻飞.中国式“量刑指南”能走多远——以美国联邦量刑指南的命运为参照的分析[J].政法论坛,2010(11).
13.唐亚男.量刑规范化尚待规范的几个问题[J].法律适用,2010(11).
14.周光权.量刑程序改革的实体法支撑[J].法学家,2010(2).
15.王瑞军.量刑规范化面临的问题和对策构建[J].法学论坛,2010(1).
16.石金平,游涛.罪刑重复评价相关问题研究[J].中国刑事法杂志,2010(3).
17.山东省高级人民法院刑四庭.盗窃犯罪定罪量刑标准若干问题研究[],山东审判,2009(4).
18.王强.数额犯量刑的法定刑基准[J].政治与法律,2009(11).
19.王学文.盗窃罪中数额要素的作用新探[J].湖北警官学院学报,2009(5).
20.苏敏华,王永杰.盗窃罪定罪与量刑相关问题分析[J].中国刑事法杂志,2005(5).
21.李洁.定罪量刑情节若干问题研究[J].北华大学学报(社科版),2001(1).
22.储槐植,汪永乐.再论我过刑法中的犯罪概念的定量因素[J],法学研究,2000(2).
23.刘道明.对盗窃罪量刑时应掌握的量刑标准[J].政法论丛,1997(增刊).
1.山东省高级人民法院《关于印发人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)实施细则的通知》
2.甘肃省高级人民法院《关于印发人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)实施细则的通
3.辽宁省高级人民法院《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》实施细则
4.江苏省高级人民法院《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》实施细则
5.湖北省高级人民法院《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》实施细则
6.四川省高级人民法院《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》实施细则
7.福建省高级人民法院《人民法院量刑指导意见(试行)》实施细则
8.浙江省公安厅《关于贯彻执行新的盗窃罪数额认定标准有关事项的通知》