论数罪并罚制度的立法完善
摘要
数罪并罚制度,是刑罚适用的基本制度之一,也是当代世界各国刑事法律制度的重要内容之一。数罪并罚制度包括数罪并罚的原则和方法。纵观各国刑事立法的规定,数罪并罚原则有四种,即:并科原则、吸收原则、限制加重原则和折衷原则,各种原则均有其利弊。单纯采用某一种原则的国家很少,采用并科原则和限制加重原则的相对较多。我国现行刑法采取了以限制加重原则为主,吸收原则和并科原则为补充的折衷原则以及“先并后减”和“先减后并”的并罚方法的数罪并罚制度。本文从理论方面分析了当前的数罪并罚制度存在的不足之处,并从实践方面指出了其缺乏操作性以及在适用过程中造成的量刑不公等现象,从而证明了对其进行立法完善的必要性。立法建议主要是从数罪并罚原则方面着手,论述不论主刑还是附加刑的并罚均采用以并科原则为主、吸收原则为辅的新的数罪并罚原则的必要性、可行性,以及对同种漏罪作一罪处罚的实践依据。同时完善相关法律条文方面的衔接。
Combined Punishment for Several Crimes ruled by 1997 Criminal Law of PRC,is quite scientific, generally goes with the fight against crimes, but with developing of the market economy, there are more and more kinds of crimes, as well as with the transformation of the people’s opinion about penalty, some imperfection such as unpractical and unreasonable exposed obviously in the legislation, and directly affected judicial practices .The author tried to analyze it from theoretical and practical level and proposed some corresponding legislative suggestions , it would be beneficial for the penalty system.
What’s the Combined Punishment for Several Crimes?The Combined Punishment for Several Crimes is one of penalty suitable basic systems, also is one of contemporary various countries criminal activity legal regime important contents. The Combined Punishment for Several Crimes origins from West's Roman law, including simultaneous punishment for several offenses principle and method.
There are doctrine of accumulation Punishments, the absorption principle, the limit aggravation principle and the compromised principle all over the world.As each principle has two sides,few countres’adopt only one and thus doctrine of accumulation Punishments and the limit aggravation principle become the vanious countries choice.
The legislation about Combined Punishment for Several Crimes in China .With emphasis elaborated the insufficiency which t The Combined Punishment for Several Crimes exists. Be to have adopting being condemned to death penalty or life imprisonment to absorb principle in several crimes, punishment adopts to the Principle of Limitative Aggravation to having expecting liberty , punishment adopts to join section principle to fine. There are two kinds of methods mainly about Combined Punishment for Several Crimes. One is "reduction after combined sentence" and the other is "reduction after combined sentence".
Defection of the Combined Punishment for Several Crimes.First, the heterogeneous punishment against freedom and combined punishment is chaotic, at present there are five viewpoints, and no one gets the advantage obviously, obtains the recognition, in reality procedure also is each does what he thinks is right, the damage law solemnity.
Second, the accessory punishment and punishes lacks of practicing. "Criminal law" Article 69 2 section stipulation, This stipulation quite is some general, how in the logarithm crime has punishes at the same time the accessory punishment and punishes also does not have to stipulate explicitly or the related judicial interpretation, also the procedure is different in reality.
Third, the same crime in Combined Punishment for Several Crimes is unfair. After court decision declares and befor carrying out the Punishment is finished newly puts the blame on and front crime adopt method "reduction after combined sentence" to join the combined punishment for several crimes. Either creates the misdemeanor heavy fine, either creates the grave offense to punish lightly.
Fourth, limit aggravation principle exists serions defections both in theory and practice: I Limit aggravation principle theoretically flaw.1st. Everybody equality constitution principle and the equality are suitable the criminal law with the law in front of the principle is not adaptive. 2nd, adapts the principle not symbol with the responsibility for an offense punishment.3th, against with the penalty’s function and goal.4th, compares with the accumulative offense system, the limit aggravation principle appears suitably lightly.II in limit aggravation principle practice insufficiency. 1st, Looked from the computational method, not only the limit aggravation principle has bargains back and forth the suspicion, but also entrusted with judge the oversized freedom to decide after deliberation the power, easy to multiply the judicature to be corrupt. 2nd,there are some different opinions bout the numb of“above”and“below”on Criminal law article 69; whether includes this number existence dispute.3rd, Because limit aggravation principle being suitable, will cause to leak the crime to discover sooner or later has the difference with the prison term, formed in fact is not equal, appeared the discretion of punishment unfair phenomenon which the same crime punished differently. Carries out front the penalty finished discovered leaks the crime to be suitable the simultaneous punishment for several offenses principle which aggravates with the limit, the sum total prison term is lower than two crimes to announce sum of the punishment; Carries out after the penalty finished discovered again leaks the crime, only makes the number crime to process, but not and punishes, the sum total prison term was equal to two crimes announce sum of the punishment.
Reform and some advises .Based on the limit aggravation principle existence insufficiency, proposed carries on the legislation consummation and the suggestion to the current simultaneous punishment for several offenses system. And has proven this legislation suggestion reason.
1st, uses to the principal penalty and the accessory punishment take and the branch principle primarily, the absorption principle as the auxiliary simultaneous punishment for several offenses principle.2nd, after decides the announcement to solve homogeneously leaks the crime, does not make the simultaneous punishment for several offenses, makes a crime to punish severely. Also no matter penalty whether carries out finished, will abolish the original decision, around two times will solve the delinquent account unification will make the new decision as the discretion of punishment basis, in the prison term which and will decide front which already carried out the prison term anew decides to deduct. Front 3rd, carries out to the penalty finished again intentionally the crime, must compare the accumulative offense severely to punish again.
Reason: First, necessity and practicability. Misdemeanors would be punished lightly, felonies would be punished severely. 1st, it is necessary for preventing and punishing crimes to adopt the branch principle in the penalty, a criminal who make several crimes is more dangerous than others, whose subjective malignant is deeper than normal person, the possibility of anti-social action is big, it is difficult to transform. 2nd, it is suitable and the branch principle implements the need which the crime punishment adapts. Second, it is feasible to use the branch principle. 1st, uses and the branch principle and the current advocate width strict aid the criminal judicature policy to echo. 2nd, it is feasible in the penalty execution, because has commutes a sentence, the parole system may let it release ahead of time. 3rd compares with the foreign present penalty has the feasibility, conforms to the international environment. Not only Anglo-American law system uses the branch principle about combined punishment for several crimes, in some country of Romano-Germanic family used it too. Second, elaborated from four aspects to homogeneous has leaked the crime simultaneous punishment for several offenses the insufficiency and makes the rationality which a crime punished severely.
Some questions about correlation between laws. The article complies with the life imprisonment carrying out a death sentence , the fixed-term imprisonment term of imprisonment , reduce the penalty sentence by, the conditional release waits for penalty system applying , the angles such as punishing and applying to minor crime must imprison punishment committing a crime again during carrying out a death sentence to have assumed that the synchronism that other relevance law knows revises and improves and perfects.After combined punishment for several offenses system revision, in order to realize the law and the penalty engagement and the coordinated unification, needs to carry on the synchronized revision and the consummation to the correlation law. Carries out the life imprisonment criminal offender to the simultaneous punishment for several offenses to be suitable strictly commutes a sentence, the parole condition. When necessity may attach decides it’s lifelong not to have to commute a sentence or the parole system. The set term of imprisonment lowest beginning prison term is invariable; the highest prison term enhancement is 20 years. The reduction commutes a sentence; increase parole being suitable, and suitable extension parole test time. Because commutes a sentence violates the rate of recidivism is higher than the ticket-of-leave man. Carries out to the penalty finished again intentionally the crime, must punish severely according to the accumulative offense. Is suitable the non-imprisonment punishment massively to the subjective malignant not big misdemeanor.
Combined Punishment for Several Crimes ruled by 1997 Criminal Law of PRC,is quite scientific, generally goes with the fight against crimes, but with developing of the market economy, there are more and more kinds of crimes, as well as with the transformation of the people’s opinion about penalty, some imperfection such as unpractical and unreasonable exposed obviously in the legislation, and directly affected judicial practices .The author tried to analyze it from theoretical and practical level and proposed some corresponding legislative suggestions , it would be beneficial for the penalty system.
What’s the Combined Punishment for Several Crimes?The Combined Punishment for Several Crimes is one of penalty suitable basic systems, also is one of contemporary various countries criminal activity legal regime important contents. The Combined Punishment for Several Crimes origins from West's Roman law, including simultaneous punishment for several offenses principle and method.
There are doctrine of accumulation Punishments, the absorption principle, the limit aggravation principle and the compromised principle all over the world.As each principle has two sides,few countres’adopt only one and thus doctrine of accumulation Punishments and the limit aggravation principle become the vanious countries choice.
The legislation about Combined Punishment for Several Crimes in China .With emphasis elaborated the insufficiency which t The Combined Punishment for Several Crimes exists. Be to have adopting being condemned to death penalty or life imprisonment to absorb principle in several crimes, punishment adopts to the Principle of Limitative Aggravation to having expecting liberty , punishment adopts to join section principle to fine. There are two kinds of methods mainly about Combined Punishment for Several Crimes. One is "reduction after combined sentence" and the other is "reduction after combined sentence".
Defection of the Combined Punishment for Several Crimes.First, the heterogeneous punishment against freedom and combined punishment is chaotic, at present there are five viewpoints, and no one gets the advantage obviously, obtains the recognition, in reality procedure also is each does what he thinks is right, the damage law solemnity.
Second, the accessory punishment and punishes lacks of practicing. "Criminal law" Article 69 2 section stipulation, This stipulation quite is some general, how in the logarithm crime has punishes at the same time the accessory punishment and punishes also does not have to stipulate explicitly or the related judicial interpretation, also the procedure is different in reality.
Third, the same crime in Combined Punishment for Several Crimes is unfair. After court decision declares and befor carrying out the Punishment is finished newly puts the blame on and front crime adopt method "reduction after combined sentence" to join the combined punishment for several crimes. Either creates the misdemeanor heavy fine, either creates the grave offense to punish lightly.
Fourth, limit aggravation principle exists serions defections both in theory and practice: I Limit aggravation principle theoretically flaw.1st. Everybody equality constitution principle and the equality are suitable the criminal law with the law in front of the principle is not adaptive. 2nd, adapts the principle not symbol with the responsibility for an offense punishment.3th, against with the penalty’s function and goal.4th, compares with the accumulative offense system, the limit aggravation principle appears suitably lightly.II in limit aggravation principle practice insufficiency. 1st, Looked from the computational method, not only the limit aggravation principle has bargains back and forth the suspicion, but also entrusted with judge the oversized freedom to decide after deliberation the power, easy to multiply the judicature to be corrupt. 2nd,there are some different opinions bout the numb of“above”and“below”on Criminal law article 69; whether includes this number existence dispute.3rd, Because limit aggravation principle being suitable, will cause to leak the crime to discover sooner or later has the difference with the prison term, formed in fact is not equal, appeared the discretion of punishment unfair phenomenon which the same crime punished differently. Carries out front the penalty finished discovered leaks the crime to be suitable the simultaneous punishment for several offenses principle which aggravates with the limit, the sum total prison term is lower than two crimes to announce sum of the punishment; Carries out after the penalty finished discovered again leaks the crime, only makes the number crime to process, but not and punishes, the sum total prison term was equal to two crimes announce sum of the punishment.
Reform and some advises .Based on the limit aggravation principle existence insufficiency, proposed carries on the legislation consummation and the suggestion to the current simultaneous punishment for several offenses system. And has proven this legislation suggestion reason.
1st, uses to the principal penalty and the accessory punishment take and the branch principle primarily, the absorption principle as the auxiliary simultaneous punishment for several offenses principle.2nd, after decides the announcement to solve homogeneously leaks the crime, does not make the simultaneous punishment for several offenses, makes a crime to punish severely. Also no matter penalty whether carries out finished, will abolish the original decision, around two times will solve the delinquent account unification will make the new decision as the discretion of punishment basis, in the prison term which and will decide front which already carried out the prison term anew decides to deduct. Front 3rd, carries out to the penalty finished again intentionally the crime, must compare the accumulative offense severely to punish again.
Reason: First, necessity and practicability. Misdemeanors would be punished lightly, felonies would be punished severely. 1st, it is necessary for preventing and punishing crimes to adopt the branch principle in the penalty, a criminal who make several crimes is more dangerous than others, whose subjective malignant is deeper than normal person, the possibility of anti-social action is big, it is difficult to transform. 2nd, it is suitable and the branch principle implements the need which the crime punishment adapts. Second, it is feasible to use the branch principle. 1st, uses and the branch principle and the current advocate width strict aid the criminal judicature policy to echo. 2nd, it is feasible in the penalty execution, because has commutes a sentence, the parole system may let it release ahead of time. 3rd compares with the foreign present penalty has the feasibility, conforms to the international environment. Not only Anglo-American law system uses the branch principle about combined punishment for several crimes, in some country of Romano-Germanic family used it too. Second, elaborated from four aspects to homogeneous has leaked the crime simultaneous punishment for several offenses the insufficiency and makes the rationality which a crime punished severely.
Some questions about correlation between laws. The article complies with the life imprisonment carrying out a death sentence , the fixed-term imprisonment term of imprisonment , reduce the penalty sentence by, the conditional release waits for penalty system applying , the angles such as punishing and applying to minor crime must imprison punishment committing a crime again during carrying out a death sentence to have assumed that the synchronism that other relevance law knows revises and improves and perfects.After combined punishment for several offenses system revision, in order to realize the law and the penalty engagement and the coordinated unification, needs to carry on the synchronized revision and the consummation to the correlation law. Carries out the life imprisonment criminal offender to the simultaneous punishment for several offenses to be suitable strictly commutes a sentence, the parole condition. When necessity may attach decides it’s lifelong not to have to commute a sentence or the parole system. The set term of imprisonment lowest beginning prison term is invariable; the highest prison term enhancement is 20 years. The reduction commutes a sentence; increase parole being suitable, and suitable extension parole test time. Because commutes a sentence violates the rate of recidivism is higher than the ticket-of-leave man. Carries out to the penalty finished again intentionally the crime, must punish severely according to the accumulative offense. Is suitable the non-imprisonment punishment massively to the subjective malignant not big misdemeanor.
引文
[1]陈顾远:《中国法制史》,商务印书馆 1982 版,第 295 页。
[2]程宗璋:《数罪并罚原则的比较研究》,《晋东南师范专科学校学报》2001 年第 2 期,第 8 页。
[3]程宗璋:《数罪并罚原则的比较研究》,《晋东南师范专科学校学报》2001 年第 2 期,第 8 页。
[4]蒋少宁、张燕:《外国法律趣闻》,中国人民公安大学出版社 1988 年版,第 35 页。
[5]马克昌等:《刑法学全书》,上海科学技术文献出版社 1993 年版,第220 页。
[6]樊凤林:《刑罚通论》,中国政法大学出版社 1994 年版,第 448 页。
[7]高铭暄:《刑法学》(新编本),北京大学出版社 1998 年版,第 208 页。
[8]高铭暄主编:《刑法学原理》第三卷,中国人民大学出版社 1994 年版,第 385 页。
[9]孟庆华:《数罪并罚原则适用评析》,《河南大学学报》2001 年第 4 期,第 69 页。
[10][日]中山研一:《刑法总论》,成文堂 1989 年版,第 542 页。
[11]程宗璋:《数罪并罚原则的比较研究》,《承德民族职业技术学院学报》2001 年第 1 期,第 26 页。
[12]张明楷:《刑法学》(第二版),法律出版社 2003 年版,第 460 页。
[13]张希波:《中华人民共和国刑法史》,人民公安出版社 1998 年版,第426 页。
[14]马克昌主编:《刑罚通论》,武汉大学出版社 1999 年版,第 482 页。
[15]吴平:《应当完善我国刑法关于数罪并罚的规定》,《江西法学》1990年第 4 期,第 9 页。
[16]马克昌主编:《刑罚通论》,武汉大学出版社 1999 年版,第 488 页。
[17]林准主编:《中国刑法教程》(修订本),人民法院出版社 1994 年版,第 196 页;甘雨沛主编:《刑法学专论》,北京大学出版社 1989 年版,第 460 页;顾肖荣著:《刑法中的一罪与数罪问题》,学林出版社 1986年版,第 139 页;杨春洗等主编:《中国刑法论》,北京大学出版社1994 年版第 241 页。
[18]《附加刑数罪并罚之我见》,http://www.xs.gd.cn/x/s/23096.html2007 年 8 月 6 日。
[19]高铭暄、王作富主编:《新中国刑法的理论与实践》,河北人民出版社 1988 年版,第 466 页;姜伟:《犯罪形态通论》,法律出版社 1994 年版第 494 页;喻伟主编:《量刑通论》,武汉大学出版社 1993 年版,第 163 页;周振想:《刑罚适用论》,法律出版社 1990 年版,第326 页。
[20]刘红新:《数罪并罚制度中关于“漏罪”的两个疏漏》,www.jcrb.com/n1/jcrb1414/ca635752.htm。(2007 年 09 月 11 日)
[21]陈兴良:《刑法的人性基础》,中国方正出版社 1996 年版,第 365 页。
[22]陈兴良:《宽严相济刑事政策研究》,《法学杂志》2006 年第 1 期,第 17 页。
[23]汪平:《论罪刑相适应原则》,《四川三峡学院学报》1999 年增刊,第 27 页。
[24]陈兴良:《宽严相济刑事政策研究》,《法学杂志》2006 年第 1 期,第 17 页。
[25]蔡墩铭:《数罪并罚立法之变迁》,《刑事法杂志》第 5 卷第 6 期,第22 页。
[26][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,第 3 页。
[27]黄荣坚主持:《刑法第五十条至第五十六条之评释研究》,中国台湾地区“行政院国家科学委员会”专题研究计划成果报告 1996 年版,第 13-14、78 页。
[28]时延安:《数罪并罚制度之比较研究》,www.criminallawbnu.cn/criminal/Info/showpage.asp?showhead=&pkID=28 京师刑事法治网。
[29]引自北京政法学院刑法教研室译:《苏俄刑法典》1980 年版,第 117 页。
[30]引自西南政法学院刑法教研室译:《蒙古刑法典》1985 年版,第 96页。
[31]高铭暄主编:《刑法学原理》(第三卷),中国人民大学出版社 1994年版,第 380 页。
[32]程宗璋:《数罪并罚原则的比较研究》,《承德民族职业技术学院学报》2001 年第 1 期,第 24 页。
[33]许璐璐、颜茂苏:《同种漏罪处罚立法之不足》,《淮北煤师院学报》2002 年第 4 期,第 63 页。
[34]王宇声:《有关数罪并罚的几个问题》,www.fslawyer.net/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=797。(2005 年 12 月 27 日)
[35]王汉斌(时任全国人大常委会副委员长)1997 年 3 月 6 日在第八届全国人民代表大会第五次会议上《关于〈中华人民共和国刑法〉(修订草案)的说明》。
[36]高铭暄主编:《刑法学原理》第三卷,中国人民大学出版社 1994 年版,第 392 页。
[37]钟闻东:《试论严格限制死刑适用下的我国刑罚制度的修改问题》,www.gzlawyer.org/topic.php?action=news&channelID=7&topicID=21&newsID=10005770 ,广州市律师协会。(2007 年 4 月 5 日)
[38]《2003 年人类发展报告》,中国经济出版社 2003 年版,第 97 页。
[39]钟闻东:《试论严格限制死刑适用下的我国刑罚制度的修改问题》,www.gzlawyer.org/topic.php?action=news&channelID=7&topicID=21&newsID=10005770。(2007 年 4 月 5 日)
[40]田文昌、颜九红:《简论中国刑罚制度改革》,《法学杂志》2006 年第 1 期,第 26 页。
[41]佴澎:《刑罚执行完毕前再犯新罪处罚探析》,《甘肃行政学院学报》2003 年第 4 期,第 78-79 页。
[42]《何为社会服务》(ent.sina.com.cn)(2002 年 10 月 16 日)。
1.明廷强:《唐律数罪并罚制度探析》,《齐鲁学刊》1996 年第 2 期。
2.何立荣:《论限制加重原则的适用范围与合并刑的载量》,《当代法学》2003 年第 9 期。
3.王志辉、周骏如:《论附加刑并罚的若干问题》,《法商研究》2002 年第 1 期。
4.石红卫:《非同种主刑数罪并罚初探》,《当代法学》2000 年第 3 期。
5.卢小毛:《罚金刑的立法发展与缺陷》,《江苏警官学院学报》2003 年第 2 期。
6.熊立荣:《同种数罪处罚原则新说》,《广西政法管理干部学院学报》2003 年第 4 期。
7.刘昆岭:《试论数罪并罚的原则》,《中州大学学报》1999 年第 2 期。
8.孙春雨:《中美量刑机制比较研究》,《时代法学》2005 年第 2 期。
9.陈兴良:《宽严相济刑事政策研究》,《法学杂志》2006 年第 1 期。
10.赵炳寿、田宏杰:《论我国数罪并罚制度的完善》,《现代法学》1995年第 6 期。
11.李瑞生:《量刑的科学与正确—关于法院量刑的思考》,《广东法学》2006 年第 1 期。
12.黄祥青:《论罪行相当原则》,高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《刑法论丛》第
3 卷,1999 年版。
13.陈志军:《短期自由刑若干问题比较研究》,高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《刑法论丛》第 6 卷,2002 年版。
14.黄京平:《罪数与并罚制度研究》,《刑事法专论》,中国方正出版社1998 年版。
15.齐涛:《同种漏罪不应数罪并罚》,《焦作工学院学报》2003 年第 4期。
1.高格:《比较刑法学》,长春出版社 1991 年版。
2.李贵方:《自由刑比较研究》,吉林人民出版社 1992 年版。
3.高铭暄主编:《刑法学原理》,中国人民大学出版社 1994 年版。
4.马克昌主编:《刑罚通论》,武汉大学出版社 1999 年版。
5.樊凤林:《刑罚通论》,中国政法大学出版社 1994 年版。
6.陈兴良:《刑法的启蒙》,法律出版社 1998 年版。
7.黄风:《贝卡利亚及其刑法思想》,中国政法大学出版社 1987 年版。
8.董淑君:《刑罚的要义》,人民出版社 2004 年版。
9.马克昌主编:《近代西方刑法学说史略》,中国检察出版社 2004 年版。
10.杨春洗等著:《刑事法学大辞书》,南京大学出版社 1990 年版。
11.[德]黑格尔:《法哲学原理》,范扬、张企泰译,商务印书馆 1961 年版。
12.黄村力:《刑法总则比较研究》,台北三民书局 1995 年版。
13.[日]野村稔:《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社 2001 年版。
14.张明楷:《外国刑法纲要》,清华大学出版社 1999 年版。
15.甘雨沛、何鹏:《外国刑法学》上册,北京大学出版 1984 年版。
16.[意]贝卡利亚:《论犯罪与刑罚》,黄风译,中国大百科全书出版社1993 年版
17.[法]孟德斯鸠:《波斯人信札》,罗大冈译,人民文学出版社 2000 年版。
18.张文显:《法哲学范畴研究》,中国政法大学出版社 2001 年版。
[2]程宗璋:《数罪并罚原则的比较研究》,《晋东南师范专科学校学报》2001 年第 2 期,第 8 页。
[3]程宗璋:《数罪并罚原则的比较研究》,《晋东南师范专科学校学报》2001 年第 2 期,第 8 页。
[4]蒋少宁、张燕:《外国法律趣闻》,中国人民公安大学出版社 1988 年版,第 35 页。
[5]马克昌等:《刑法学全书》,上海科学技术文献出版社 1993 年版,第220 页。
[6]樊凤林:《刑罚通论》,中国政法大学出版社 1994 年版,第 448 页。
[7]高铭暄:《刑法学》(新编本),北京大学出版社 1998 年版,第 208 页。
[8]高铭暄主编:《刑法学原理》第三卷,中国人民大学出版社 1994 年版,第 385 页。
[9]孟庆华:《数罪并罚原则适用评析》,《河南大学学报》2001 年第 4 期,第 69 页。
[10][日]中山研一:《刑法总论》,成文堂 1989 年版,第 542 页。
[11]程宗璋:《数罪并罚原则的比较研究》,《承德民族职业技术学院学报》2001 年第 1 期,第 26 页。
[12]张明楷:《刑法学》(第二版),法律出版社 2003 年版,第 460 页。
[13]张希波:《中华人民共和国刑法史》,人民公安出版社 1998 年版,第426 页。
[14]马克昌主编:《刑罚通论》,武汉大学出版社 1999 年版,第 482 页。
[15]吴平:《应当完善我国刑法关于数罪并罚的规定》,《江西法学》1990年第 4 期,第 9 页。
[16]马克昌主编:《刑罚通论》,武汉大学出版社 1999 年版,第 488 页。
[17]林准主编:《中国刑法教程》(修订本),人民法院出版社 1994 年版,第 196 页;甘雨沛主编:《刑法学专论》,北京大学出版社 1989 年版,第 460 页;顾肖荣著:《刑法中的一罪与数罪问题》,学林出版社 1986年版,第 139 页;杨春洗等主编:《中国刑法论》,北京大学出版社1994 年版第 241 页。
[18]《附加刑数罪并罚之我见》,http://www.xs.gd.cn/x/s/23096.html2007 年 8 月 6 日。
[19]高铭暄、王作富主编:《新中国刑法的理论与实践》,河北人民出版社 1988 年版,第 466 页;姜伟:《犯罪形态通论》,法律出版社 1994 年版第 494 页;喻伟主编:《量刑通论》,武汉大学出版社 1993 年版,第 163 页;周振想:《刑罚适用论》,法律出版社 1990 年版,第326 页。
[20]刘红新:《数罪并罚制度中关于“漏罪”的两个疏漏》,www.jcrb.com/n1/jcrb1414/ca635752.htm。(2007 年 09 月 11 日)
[21]陈兴良:《刑法的人性基础》,中国方正出版社 1996 年版,第 365 页。
[22]陈兴良:《宽严相济刑事政策研究》,《法学杂志》2006 年第 1 期,第 17 页。
[23]汪平:《论罪刑相适应原则》,《四川三峡学院学报》1999 年增刊,第 27 页。
[24]陈兴良:《宽严相济刑事政策研究》,《法学杂志》2006 年第 1 期,第 17 页。
[25]蔡墩铭:《数罪并罚立法之变迁》,《刑事法杂志》第 5 卷第 6 期,第22 页。
[26][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,第 3 页。
[27]黄荣坚主持:《刑法第五十条至第五十六条之评释研究》,中国台湾地区“行政院国家科学委员会”专题研究计划成果报告 1996 年版,第 13-14、78 页。
[28]时延安:《数罪并罚制度之比较研究》,www.criminallawbnu.cn/criminal/Info/showpage.asp?showhead=&pkID=28 京师刑事法治网。
[29]引自北京政法学院刑法教研室译:《苏俄刑法典》1980 年版,第 117 页。
[30]引自西南政法学院刑法教研室译:《蒙古刑法典》1985 年版,第 96页。
[31]高铭暄主编:《刑法学原理》(第三卷),中国人民大学出版社 1994年版,第 380 页。
[32]程宗璋:《数罪并罚原则的比较研究》,《承德民族职业技术学院学报》2001 年第 1 期,第 24 页。
[33]许璐璐、颜茂苏:《同种漏罪处罚立法之不足》,《淮北煤师院学报》2002 年第 4 期,第 63 页。
[34]王宇声:《有关数罪并罚的几个问题》,www.fslawyer.net/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=797。(2005 年 12 月 27 日)
[35]王汉斌(时任全国人大常委会副委员长)1997 年 3 月 6 日在第八届全国人民代表大会第五次会议上《关于〈中华人民共和国刑法〉(修订草案)的说明》。
[36]高铭暄主编:《刑法学原理》第三卷,中国人民大学出版社 1994 年版,第 392 页。
[37]钟闻东:《试论严格限制死刑适用下的我国刑罚制度的修改问题》,www.gzlawyer.org/topic.php?action=news&channelID=7&topicID=21&newsID=10005770 ,广州市律师协会。(2007 年 4 月 5 日)
[38]《2003 年人类发展报告》,中国经济出版社 2003 年版,第 97 页。
[39]钟闻东:《试论严格限制死刑适用下的我国刑罚制度的修改问题》,www.gzlawyer.org/topic.php?action=news&channelID=7&topicID=21&newsID=10005770。(2007 年 4 月 5 日)
[40]田文昌、颜九红:《简论中国刑罚制度改革》,《法学杂志》2006 年第 1 期,第 26 页。
[41]佴澎:《刑罚执行完毕前再犯新罪处罚探析》,《甘肃行政学院学报》2003 年第 4 期,第 78-79 页。
[42]《何为社会服务》(ent.sina.com.cn)(2002 年 10 月 16 日)。
1.明廷强:《唐律数罪并罚制度探析》,《齐鲁学刊》1996 年第 2 期。
2.何立荣:《论限制加重原则的适用范围与合并刑的载量》,《当代法学》2003 年第 9 期。
3.王志辉、周骏如:《论附加刑并罚的若干问题》,《法商研究》2002 年第 1 期。
4.石红卫:《非同种主刑数罪并罚初探》,《当代法学》2000 年第 3 期。
5.卢小毛:《罚金刑的立法发展与缺陷》,《江苏警官学院学报》2003 年第 2 期。
6.熊立荣:《同种数罪处罚原则新说》,《广西政法管理干部学院学报》2003 年第 4 期。
7.刘昆岭:《试论数罪并罚的原则》,《中州大学学报》1999 年第 2 期。
8.孙春雨:《中美量刑机制比较研究》,《时代法学》2005 年第 2 期。
9.陈兴良:《宽严相济刑事政策研究》,《法学杂志》2006 年第 1 期。
10.赵炳寿、田宏杰:《论我国数罪并罚制度的完善》,《现代法学》1995年第 6 期。
11.李瑞生:《量刑的科学与正确—关于法院量刑的思考》,《广东法学》2006 年第 1 期。
12.黄祥青:《论罪行相当原则》,高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《刑法论丛》第
3 卷,1999 年版。
13.陈志军:《短期自由刑若干问题比较研究》,高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《刑法论丛》第 6 卷,2002 年版。
14.黄京平:《罪数与并罚制度研究》,《刑事法专论》,中国方正出版社1998 年版。
15.齐涛:《同种漏罪不应数罪并罚》,《焦作工学院学报》2003 年第 4期。
1.高格:《比较刑法学》,长春出版社 1991 年版。
2.李贵方:《自由刑比较研究》,吉林人民出版社 1992 年版。
3.高铭暄主编:《刑法学原理》,中国人民大学出版社 1994 年版。
4.马克昌主编:《刑罚通论》,武汉大学出版社 1999 年版。
5.樊凤林:《刑罚通论》,中国政法大学出版社 1994 年版。
6.陈兴良:《刑法的启蒙》,法律出版社 1998 年版。
7.黄风:《贝卡利亚及其刑法思想》,中国政法大学出版社 1987 年版。
8.董淑君:《刑罚的要义》,人民出版社 2004 年版。
9.马克昌主编:《近代西方刑法学说史略》,中国检察出版社 2004 年版。
10.杨春洗等著:《刑事法学大辞书》,南京大学出版社 1990 年版。
11.[德]黑格尔:《法哲学原理》,范扬、张企泰译,商务印书馆 1961 年版。
12.黄村力:《刑法总则比较研究》,台北三民书局 1995 年版。
13.[日]野村稔:《刑法总论》,全理其、何力译,法律出版社 2001 年版。
14.张明楷:《外国刑法纲要》,清华大学出版社 1999 年版。
15.甘雨沛、何鹏:《外国刑法学》上册,北京大学出版 1984 年版。
16.[意]贝卡利亚:《论犯罪与刑罚》,黄风译,中国大百科全书出版社1993 年版
17.[法]孟德斯鸠:《波斯人信札》,罗大冈译,人民文学出版社 2000 年版。
18.张文显:《法哲学范畴研究》,中国政法大学出版社 2001 年版。