关于我国劳动教养制度的若干思考
摘要
1987年,劳动教养立法就列入我国的“七五”立法规划,1991年和1995年又分别被列入我国的“八五”立法规划和“九五”立法规划。但劳动教养立法20年的实践已经证明,劳动教养立法最为缺乏的是有力的理论支撑。
作者结合自己多年在基层从事劳动教养管理工作的实践经验,对我国劳动教养制度的若干问题进行了探讨。文章对我国劳动教养制度的历史回溯;分析了劳动教养制度存在的合理性;也从实体法和程序法两个方面探讨了劳动教养制度的缺陷;并重点论述了劳动教养制度改革的前瞻性问题,强调了劳动教养法治化过程中的价值取向问题、非刑罚化、司法化、一体化以及完善回归社会的保障机制。笔者希望通过立法来进一步明确劳动教养的相关规范,增强在实践中的可操作性,使劳动教养这一具有中国特色的法律制度更加趋于完善、科学。
Starting from stabilizing politics to meeting the needs of public security, reeducation system of our own characteristic has passed more than 50 years. Long time practice has proved that the system has its value basis to exist. While because of careless omission in legislate stipulation, especially lack in procedure norm, there still exist many problems in the implementation of reeducation system through labor, whose legality, reasonability and validity have been questioning continuously.
We have developing legislation work of reeducation through labor for about 20 years, but until now it is still not passed. Seeing from the surface, during the draft of reeducation through lab law, the main and most troublesome problem ever met is the distribution and coordination of power and benefit among relevant departments. However, it is in nature the lack of scientific theory of reeducation through labor legislation to be based and guided. This article tries to explore some reform subjects of reeducation system through labor by the research and analysis on reeducation through labor in the hope of make the law system of reeducation through labor with Chinese own characteristic more consummate and scientific.
This article is divided into four sections in all.
The first section is to retrospect reeducation system through labor in our country. From that we could see that the uncertainty of reeducation system through labor in nature has its own historical and realistic reason. At its birth, the nature is definite. That is it has two natures as compulsive education and reformation and arranging employment. After that, social employment pressure will become increase, thus reeducation through labor has lost it nature of arranging employment. Under the need of public security, reeducation through labor is gradually regarded as a mean to punish crimes.
The second section is the analysis on reasonability of reeducation system through labor in our country. During 50 years when reeducation system through labor has been implemented, more than 300 million criminals with various kinds of illegal crimes and complying with conditions of reeducation through labor have been educated and reformed, which has made an outstanding service on the prevention of crimes and maintaining social order. Its reasonability shows: it has reasonability on maintaining social order; it will make up structure lack of criminal law in our country and tighten the need of criminal law; reeducation through labor is an important defense mean; the natural goal of reeducation through labor has its validity in nature.
The third section has analyzed defects existing in the reeducation system through labor in our country from the aspect of entity law and procedure law in detail. Although the present reeducation system through labor has played an important role in maintaining social public security, stabilizing social order, preventing and decreasing crimes, educating and saving criminals with light crimes, it is now gradually showing problems and corrupt practice not corresponding to some modern lawful rules and social development. From public law point of view, reeducation through labor deviates“legal principle”,“pro rata principle”and“form justice principle”which must be followed at the time when public authority expropriates person right. On the other hand, reeducation through labor will also deviate from procedure lawful rule principle of“right and freedom of anyone without public and fair trial hearing should not be deprived”. In aspect of applicable procedure of reeducation through labor, innocence understanding, open trial and debate system could not be implemented, and even those reeducated will be deprived of their chance of trial hearing by neutral judicial authority, to say nothing of effective judicial rescue afterwards. Therefore, reformation of reeducation through labor is quite urgent.
The fourth section has provided forward-looking thoughts for reformation of reeducation through labor in our country. This is the stressing point in this article. First, value orientation in reeducation lawful rule should be made definite. Personal right and freedom value of civil citizen should be put in the first rank, emphasizing“human standard”legal sense of worth of“regarding human as the standard”, giving prominence to fairness which is prior to utility, further weakening social control and reinforcing right protection. Second, it has proved that reeducation through labor in our country is not a punishment avoiding expansion of crimes. The necessity of reeducation through labor is mainly shown in the rise of non punishment all through the world, complying with principle of economical execution caused by corrupt practice of short term free punishment and determined by the limitations of punishment functions and conflict of punishment system in our country; feasibility of non punishment of reeducation through labor is mainly lies in the sameness between applicable conditions of reeducation through labor in our country and the one of on punishment method, besides the above, applicable objects of non punishment method in foreign legislation and the one in reeducation through labor of our country also have some similarities. Once again, unbreakable deadline in the legislation of reeducation through labor—judicature should be made definite. One should clearly and definitely transform determination by executive authority into determination by judicial authority and establish judicial principle and implement more convenient way of case handling and trying. The fourth, relevant system and countermeasures should be solved together in legislation. Present systems as reeducation through labor, penitentiary education, penitentiary cultivation and compulsive rehabilitation should be simplified and fitted into on system. By utilizing reeducation system through labor having formed some kind of scale, mechanism management should be unified and present execution and management way should be changed, which will be made applicable to double needs of crime prevention and right protection. The fifth, improve guarantee mechanism of society return of those reeducated through labor and finally implement and realize natural goal of reeducation through labor—make those reeducated return back to society again.
作者结合自己多年在基层从事劳动教养管理工作的实践经验,对我国劳动教养制度的若干问题进行了探讨。文章对我国劳动教养制度的历史回溯;分析了劳动教养制度存在的合理性;也从实体法和程序法两个方面探讨了劳动教养制度的缺陷;并重点论述了劳动教养制度改革的前瞻性问题,强调了劳动教养法治化过程中的价值取向问题、非刑罚化、司法化、一体化以及完善回归社会的保障机制。笔者希望通过立法来进一步明确劳动教养的相关规范,增强在实践中的可操作性,使劳动教养这一具有中国特色的法律制度更加趋于完善、科学。
Starting from stabilizing politics to meeting the needs of public security, reeducation system of our own characteristic has passed more than 50 years. Long time practice has proved that the system has its value basis to exist. While because of careless omission in legislate stipulation, especially lack in procedure norm, there still exist many problems in the implementation of reeducation system through labor, whose legality, reasonability and validity have been questioning continuously.
We have developing legislation work of reeducation through labor for about 20 years, but until now it is still not passed. Seeing from the surface, during the draft of reeducation through lab law, the main and most troublesome problem ever met is the distribution and coordination of power and benefit among relevant departments. However, it is in nature the lack of scientific theory of reeducation through labor legislation to be based and guided. This article tries to explore some reform subjects of reeducation system through labor by the research and analysis on reeducation through labor in the hope of make the law system of reeducation through labor with Chinese own characteristic more consummate and scientific.
This article is divided into four sections in all.
The first section is to retrospect reeducation system through labor in our country. From that we could see that the uncertainty of reeducation system through labor in nature has its own historical and realistic reason. At its birth, the nature is definite. That is it has two natures as compulsive education and reformation and arranging employment. After that, social employment pressure will become increase, thus reeducation through labor has lost it nature of arranging employment. Under the need of public security, reeducation through labor is gradually regarded as a mean to punish crimes.
The second section is the analysis on reasonability of reeducation system through labor in our country. During 50 years when reeducation system through labor has been implemented, more than 300 million criminals with various kinds of illegal crimes and complying with conditions of reeducation through labor have been educated and reformed, which has made an outstanding service on the prevention of crimes and maintaining social order. Its reasonability shows: it has reasonability on maintaining social order; it will make up structure lack of criminal law in our country and tighten the need of criminal law; reeducation through labor is an important defense mean; the natural goal of reeducation through labor has its validity in nature.
The third section has analyzed defects existing in the reeducation system through labor in our country from the aspect of entity law and procedure law in detail. Although the present reeducation system through labor has played an important role in maintaining social public security, stabilizing social order, preventing and decreasing crimes, educating and saving criminals with light crimes, it is now gradually showing problems and corrupt practice not corresponding to some modern lawful rules and social development. From public law point of view, reeducation through labor deviates“legal principle”,“pro rata principle”and“form justice principle”which must be followed at the time when public authority expropriates person right. On the other hand, reeducation through labor will also deviate from procedure lawful rule principle of“right and freedom of anyone without public and fair trial hearing should not be deprived”. In aspect of applicable procedure of reeducation through labor, innocence understanding, open trial and debate system could not be implemented, and even those reeducated will be deprived of their chance of trial hearing by neutral judicial authority, to say nothing of effective judicial rescue afterwards. Therefore, reformation of reeducation through labor is quite urgent.
The fourth section has provided forward-looking thoughts for reformation of reeducation through labor in our country. This is the stressing point in this article. First, value orientation in reeducation lawful rule should be made definite. Personal right and freedom value of civil citizen should be put in the first rank, emphasizing“human standard”legal sense of worth of“regarding human as the standard”, giving prominence to fairness which is prior to utility, further weakening social control and reinforcing right protection. Second, it has proved that reeducation through labor in our country is not a punishment avoiding expansion of crimes. The necessity of reeducation through labor is mainly shown in the rise of non punishment all through the world, complying with principle of economical execution caused by corrupt practice of short term free punishment and determined by the limitations of punishment functions and conflict of punishment system in our country; feasibility of non punishment of reeducation through labor is mainly lies in the sameness between applicable conditions of reeducation through labor in our country and the one of on punishment method, besides the above, applicable objects of non punishment method in foreign legislation and the one in reeducation through labor of our country also have some similarities. Once again, unbreakable deadline in the legislation of reeducation through labor—judicature should be made definite. One should clearly and definitely transform determination by executive authority into determination by judicial authority and establish judicial principle and implement more convenient way of case handling and trying. The fourth, relevant system and countermeasures should be solved together in legislation. Present systems as reeducation through labor, penitentiary education, penitentiary cultivation and compulsive rehabilitation should be simplified and fitted into on system. By utilizing reeducation system through labor having formed some kind of scale, mechanism management should be unified and present execution and management way should be changed, which will be made applicable to double needs of crime prevention and right protection. The fifth, improve guarantee mechanism of society return of those reeducated through labor and finally implement and realize natural goal of reeducation through labor—make those reeducated return back to society again.
引文
[1]中共中央批准中央十人小组:“关于肃反运动的当前情况和 1957 年的工作向中央的报告”,载司法部劳教局编:《劳动教养工作文件汇编》(一),第 30-31 页。
[2]转引自王素莉、刘志光:“《反右派斗研究综述》,载《当代中国史研究》1997 年第 6 期。
[3]转引自司法部劳教局:《劳动教养工作文件汇编(一)》。
[4]参见赵杜民:《关于反右派斗争严重扩大化内容的再探讨》,载《党史研究与教学》1996 年第 6 期。
[5]刘少奇:“对政法工作报告的指示”(节录),载司法部劳教局编:《劳动教养工作文件汇编》(一),第 225 页。
[6]公安部十一局编:“关于解除劳动教养控制比例的通知”,载司法部劳教局编:《劳动教养工作文件汇编》(一),第 168 页。
[7]1981 年 8 月 7 日,公安部副部长凌云同志在改进改造工作座谈会上的讲话。
[8]转引自司法部劳教局:《劳动教养工作文件汇编(一)》。
[9]“公安部关于做好劳动教养工作的报告”,载司法部劳教局编:《劳动教养工作文件汇编》(二),第 89-93 页。
[10]储槐植:《刑事一体化与关系刑法论》,北京大学出版社 1997 年 1 月版,第 476 页。
[11]张绍彦:《劳动教养立法的实体法律问题》,载《犯罪与改造研究》2002 年第 2 期,第 29-31 页。
[12]刘中发:“劳动教养制度的当代命运”,载北大法律信息网, http://chinalawinfo.com。
[13]刘中发:“劳动教养制度的当代命运”,载北大法律信息网, http://chinalawinfo.com。
[14]刘中发:“劳动教养制度的改革出路”,载《中外法学》2001 年第 6期。
[15]储槐植:“再论劳动教养制度的合理性”,载《中外法学》2001 年第6 期。
[16]薛晓蔚:《劳动教养制度研究》,中国文联出版社 2000 年版,第 216页。
[17]谢晖:《价值重建与规范选择---中国法制现代化沉思》,山东人民出版社 1998 年版,第 2 页。
[18]王牧:“中国犯罪预防战略研究”,载 http//www.dastu.com/2004/9-8。
[19]钟安惠:《当今欧美刑事政策思想导致刑罚作用的变化》,载《中外法学》1993 年第 6 期,第 75 页。
[20]郭建安:《论开放式处遇制度》,载《中国监狱学刊》2000 年第 4 期,第 67 页。
[21]陈兴良主编:《刑种通论》,人民法院出版社 1993 年版,第 579 页。
[22]刘中发:《劳动教养制度的改革出路》,载储槐植等主编《理性与秩序——中国劳动教养制度研究》,法律出版社 2002 年版,第 271 页。
[23]刘中发:《劳动教养制度的改革出路》,载储槐植等主编《理性与秩序——中国劳动教养制度研究》,法律出版社 2002 年版,第 272 页。
[24]刘艳红:《新刑法调控范围之理性思考与启示》,载《法律科学》1999年第 3 期,第 60 页。
[25]夏宗素、张劲松主编:《劳动教养理论基础》,中国人民公安大学出版社 1997 年版,第 92——93 页。
[26]夏宗素、张劲松主编:《劳动教养理论基础》,中国人民公安大学出版社 1997 年版,第 56 页以下。
[27]张建伟:“司法权的独占性与劳动教养制度的废除”,载《河南政法管理干部学院学报》2002 年第 3 期。
[28]陈卫东:“劳动教养的立法完善”,载储槐植、陈兴良、张绍彦主编:《理性与秩序》,法律出版社 2002 年版,第 231 页。
[29]陈兴良主编:《刑事法评论》,中国政法大学出版社 2000 年 6 月版,第 218——219 页。
1.储槐植著:《刑事一体化》,法律出版社 2004 年版。
2.储槐植、陈兴良、张绍彦主编:《理性与秩序——中国劳动教养制度研究》,法律出版社 2002 年版。
3.刘仁文著:《刑事政策初步》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年版。
4.卢建平著:《刑事政策与刑法》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年版。
5.张旭著:《犯罪学要论》,法律出版社 2003 年版。
6.赵宝成著:《犯罪学专论》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2005 年版。
7.梁根林著:《刑事法网:扩张与限缩》,法律出版社 2005 年 1 月版。
8.陈兴良著:《刑法的价值构造》,中国人民大学出版社 1998 年版。
9.许发民著:《刑法的社会文化分析》,武汉大学出版社 2004 年版。
10.卢建平著:《社会防卫思想》,载高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《刑法论从》,法律出版社 1998 年版。
11.王牧主编:《犯罪学论从》(第一卷),中国检察出版社 2003 年版。
12.何秉松主编:《刑事政策学》,群众出版社 2002 年版。
13.赵秉志主编:《刑罚总论问题探索》,法律出版社 2002 年版。
14.张明楷著:《外国刑法纲要》,清华大学出版社 1999 年版。
15.司法部劳教局、中国劳动教养学会组编:《劳动教养执行制度研究》,法律出版社 2005 年版。
16.郭建安、郑霞泽主编:《限制对人身自由的限制》,法律出版社 2005年 6 月版。
17.杨春洗主编:《刑事政策论》,北京大学出版社 1994 年版。
18.马克昌主编:《中国刑事学》,武汉大学出版社 1992 年版。
19.肖扬主编:《中国刑事政策和策略问题》,法律出版社 1996 年版。
20. 何显兵著:《社区刑罚研究》,群众出版社 2005 年 11 月版。
21. 梁根林著:《刑事制裁:方式与选择》,法律出版社 2006 年 5 月版。
22. 陈兴良著:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 2000 年第 2 版。
23. 李均仁主编:《中国重新犯罪研究》,法律出版社 1992 年第 1 版。
24.陈兴良:《刑事政策视野中的刑罚结构调整》,载《法学研究》,1998年第 6 期。
[2]转引自王素莉、刘志光:“《反右派斗研究综述》,载《当代中国史研究》1997 年第 6 期。
[3]转引自司法部劳教局:《劳动教养工作文件汇编(一)》。
[4]参见赵杜民:《关于反右派斗争严重扩大化内容的再探讨》,载《党史研究与教学》1996 年第 6 期。
[5]刘少奇:“对政法工作报告的指示”(节录),载司法部劳教局编:《劳动教养工作文件汇编》(一),第 225 页。
[6]公安部十一局编:“关于解除劳动教养控制比例的通知”,载司法部劳教局编:《劳动教养工作文件汇编》(一),第 168 页。
[7]1981 年 8 月 7 日,公安部副部长凌云同志在改进改造工作座谈会上的讲话。
[8]转引自司法部劳教局:《劳动教养工作文件汇编(一)》。
[9]“公安部关于做好劳动教养工作的报告”,载司法部劳教局编:《劳动教养工作文件汇编》(二),第 89-93 页。
[10]储槐植:《刑事一体化与关系刑法论》,北京大学出版社 1997 年 1 月版,第 476 页。
[11]张绍彦:《劳动教养立法的实体法律问题》,载《犯罪与改造研究》2002 年第 2 期,第 29-31 页。
[12]刘中发:“劳动教养制度的当代命运”,载北大法律信息网, http://chinalawinfo.com。
[13]刘中发:“劳动教养制度的当代命运”,载北大法律信息网, http://chinalawinfo.com。
[14]刘中发:“劳动教养制度的改革出路”,载《中外法学》2001 年第 6期。
[15]储槐植:“再论劳动教养制度的合理性”,载《中外法学》2001 年第6 期。
[16]薛晓蔚:《劳动教养制度研究》,中国文联出版社 2000 年版,第 216页。
[17]谢晖:《价值重建与规范选择---中国法制现代化沉思》,山东人民出版社 1998 年版,第 2 页。
[18]王牧:“中国犯罪预防战略研究”,载 http//www.dastu.com/2004/9-8。
[19]钟安惠:《当今欧美刑事政策思想导致刑罚作用的变化》,载《中外法学》1993 年第 6 期,第 75 页。
[20]郭建安:《论开放式处遇制度》,载《中国监狱学刊》2000 年第 4 期,第 67 页。
[21]陈兴良主编:《刑种通论》,人民法院出版社 1993 年版,第 579 页。
[22]刘中发:《劳动教养制度的改革出路》,载储槐植等主编《理性与秩序——中国劳动教养制度研究》,法律出版社 2002 年版,第 271 页。
[23]刘中发:《劳动教养制度的改革出路》,载储槐植等主编《理性与秩序——中国劳动教养制度研究》,法律出版社 2002 年版,第 272 页。
[24]刘艳红:《新刑法调控范围之理性思考与启示》,载《法律科学》1999年第 3 期,第 60 页。
[25]夏宗素、张劲松主编:《劳动教养理论基础》,中国人民公安大学出版社 1997 年版,第 92——93 页。
[26]夏宗素、张劲松主编:《劳动教养理论基础》,中国人民公安大学出版社 1997 年版,第 56 页以下。
[27]张建伟:“司法权的独占性与劳动教养制度的废除”,载《河南政法管理干部学院学报》2002 年第 3 期。
[28]陈卫东:“劳动教养的立法完善”,载储槐植、陈兴良、张绍彦主编:《理性与秩序》,法律出版社 2002 年版,第 231 页。
[29]陈兴良主编:《刑事法评论》,中国政法大学出版社 2000 年 6 月版,第 218——219 页。
1.储槐植著:《刑事一体化》,法律出版社 2004 年版。
2.储槐植、陈兴良、张绍彦主编:《理性与秩序——中国劳动教养制度研究》,法律出版社 2002 年版。
3.刘仁文著:《刑事政策初步》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年版。
4.卢建平著:《刑事政策与刑法》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年版。
5.张旭著:《犯罪学要论》,法律出版社 2003 年版。
6.赵宝成著:《犯罪学专论》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2005 年版。
7.梁根林著:《刑事法网:扩张与限缩》,法律出版社 2005 年 1 月版。
8.陈兴良著:《刑法的价值构造》,中国人民大学出版社 1998 年版。
9.许发民著:《刑法的社会文化分析》,武汉大学出版社 2004 年版。
10.卢建平著:《社会防卫思想》,载高铭暄、赵秉志主编:《刑法论从》,法律出版社 1998 年版。
11.王牧主编:《犯罪学论从》(第一卷),中国检察出版社 2003 年版。
12.何秉松主编:《刑事政策学》,群众出版社 2002 年版。
13.赵秉志主编:《刑罚总论问题探索》,法律出版社 2002 年版。
14.张明楷著:《外国刑法纲要》,清华大学出版社 1999 年版。
15.司法部劳教局、中国劳动教养学会组编:《劳动教养执行制度研究》,法律出版社 2005 年版。
16.郭建安、郑霞泽主编:《限制对人身自由的限制》,法律出版社 2005年 6 月版。
17.杨春洗主编:《刑事政策论》,北京大学出版社 1994 年版。
18.马克昌主编:《中国刑事学》,武汉大学出版社 1992 年版。
19.肖扬主编:《中国刑事政策和策略问题》,法律出版社 1996 年版。
20. 何显兵著:《社区刑罚研究》,群众出版社 2005 年 11 月版。
21. 梁根林著:《刑事制裁:方式与选择》,法律出版社 2006 年 5 月版。
22. 陈兴良著:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 2000 年第 2 版。
23. 李均仁主编:《中国重新犯罪研究》,法律出版社 1992 年第 1 版。
24.陈兴良:《刑事政策视野中的刑罚结构调整》,载《法学研究》,1998年第 6 期。