[color=#ff0036]Death penalty 同主题讨论

乒乓球爱上九月UID: 162925

相应Alanwong和斑竹号召 讨论一下？

http://www.law-lib.com/lw/lw_view.asp?no=2804

死刑存废论之我见

王文婷


死刑存废之争，自贝卡利亚《论犯罪与刑罚》问世以来，已历经200多年。死刑存废之争已由一个法律问题上升到了伦理学、哲学的高度。面对前人浩瀚的学术成果和精辟入理的论证，我方才知道自己有如井底之蛙。我只能靠着满腔的热诚，用最浅显的文字写下最真实的看法。

一
毫无疑问，废除死刑已成为当今世界的共同趋势。截止到2000年10月，全世界彻底废除死刑的国家达78个，事实上废除死刑的国家达37个，仅对普通犯罪废除死刑的国家也有10个。与之相比，目前仅71个国家仍保留死刑①。但同时，我们不得不承认，废除死刑的道路也充满了曲折和坎坷：前苏联三次废除死刑又三次恢复，菲律宾、意大利、瑞士等均出现了死刑反复存废的问题。死刑存废的反复暗示着“死刑保留论”顽强的生命力。可以说，废除死刑任重而道远。

死刑存废论的分歧，实质是传统刑罚报应论和预防论与人道主义、人文关怀冲突的结果。我国作为保留死刑的国家之一，大多数学者提出折衷的“死刑限制论”，作为我国刑罚发展的目标。“死刑限制论”以我国刑法对死刑对象的限制，死刑复核程序等为内容，基于死刑保留论的一系列观点，强调中国目前无法全面废除死刑。
“死刑限制论”一直以来是我国刑法学界的通说观点，“废除论”目前似乎还没有得到大范围的认可。中国几千年封建历史的积淀，以及目前东西部经济发展不平衡的现状，决定了中国目前无法全面废除死刑。但“不能废除”不等于“不应废除”，前者强调实然性，后者强调应然性。如果将“死刑限制论”作为死刑发展的最高境界，那是人道主义的悲哀，更是文明社会进步的障碍。

二
死刑保留论的理论基础是刑罚“报应论”。笔者认为随着社会文明的发展，以“报应论”作为死刑保留的最大理由已明显不合时宜。诚然，从奴隶社会野蛮的同态复仇，直至今日我们宣扬的“法网恢恢，疏而不漏”，刑罚已从“报复”转向“报应”为目的。前者强调对违法者个人的制裁，是“刑罚与犯罪在损害形态上的等同与对称”②；后者强调对社会大众的预防监督，是“刑罚的轻重与犯罪的轻重的等比对称③”。报应论已成为死刑保留论最重要的理论基础之一。“报应可谓社会对于犯罪人为恶的反应，以刑罚来报应犯罪，因刑罚的痛苦来平衡犯罪的恶害，一方面可以实现正义的心理，另一方面则可以增强伦理的力量，以建立社会赖以生存的法的秩序。④”但是，无论报应论多么完美，只能说明刑罚的正当性，而非死刑的正当性。因为目的正当并不一定表示手段的正当。况且报应犯罪的途径不只死刑一种，无期徒刑同样可以达到报应犯罪的目的。对犯罪分子处以刑罚是必须的，符合报应论，但死刑犹如“过犹不及”，除了满足受害人的私愤外毫无意义。

当然，有些学者强调报应的“等价性”，即犯罪者失去的利益应不小于所侵害的利益，以此论证“杀人偿命，天经地义”的合理性。笔者认为是不可取的。如若以此为据，一味强调报应的“等价”，那么现在的自由刑似乎只使用于非法拘禁他人的行为。强奸犯是否必须处以宫刑？诈骗犯是否只需交纳罚金？很明显，与同态复仇相比，等价报应论确实进步了许多，但在一个文明与人道的社会中，“杀人偿命”仍是落后与野蛮的标志。无论在人们的观念中，还是在司法实践中，“等价报应”所提倡的“不小于”常被理解为“大于”而非“等于”。我国对经济类犯罪仍保留死刑就是最好的例证。退一步来说，对一些诸如杀人罪的自然犯而言，死刑似乎是等价的报应，但其实质是以一个家庭的痛苦来换取另一个家庭的不幸，结果是两个家庭的悲哀。这里的“等价”是心理痛苦程度的等价，而非刑罚轻重的等价。其结果往往是两个家庭的悲剧——这就是我们自豪的文明社会？

黑格尔从社会契约论角度进一步阐述了“等价报应论”。他说：“犯人行动中所包含的不仅是犯罪的概念，即犯罪自在自为的理性方面——这一方面国家应主张其有效，不问个人有没有表示同意，——而且是形式的合理性，即单个人的希求。刑罚既被包含着犯人自己的法，所以处罚他正是尊重他的理性的存在。⑤”按照他的说法，死刑是犯罪者自己的意愿，所有的痛苦是犯罪者自己选择所得。从逻辑上看，这样的推论是完美的。但从现实上看，很少有犯罪者完成犯罪行为后等待就擒，绝大部分都尽其所能逃脱执法人员的追捕。也就是说，犯罪者即便知道自己将受到法律的制裁，但犯罪时无一不寄希望于逃脱这种制裁。因为时效制度的存在，只要脱逃成功，到时便可逍遥法外。刑罚的不必然性，成为犯罪分子的赌注。他的“理性的存在”就是钻法律的空子，而非甘愿接受刑罚的处罚。由此，黑格尔的说法仅是破案率为100%的理想社会的推论，只要刑罚存在不必然性或不及时性，逃脱法律制裁永远是犯罪者的自由意志。刑罚的不必然性越高，刑罚的严厉程度就越大——即刑罚的严厉程度与刑法到达的必然性成反比，而后者与执法机关的尽职与否有直接联系。因此可以推论：犯罪分子所接受刑罚的严厉程度，实际上取决于执法机关破案率的高低。这样的结论显然是荒谬的，但不可否认，在一些破案率低的地区，一旦抓获犯罪分子，便希望通过最严厉的刑罚达到“杀一儆百”的效果。同样的犯罪行为，同样的社会危害性，却可能因当地破案率的不同遭受“生”与“死”的差别待遇。犯罪者的生命成为树立司法权威的代价，这种“代价”违背社会契约论的平等与自由，违背罪刑相适应原则，更违背法律正义的终极价值。

在报应论的基础上，以史蒂芬、加洛法罗为代表的死刑保留论者提出“预防论”作为保留死刑的最大理由。笔者认为预防论同样是站不住脚的。一般情况下，人对于死亡的恐惧远远高于对其他事物的恐惧。对生的渴望和对死的逃避，是人类的本能与天性。因为恐惧程度看似与威慑力成正比，因此得出结论：死刑具有最大的威慑功能。暂且不论这样的三段论推理是否必然成立，事实告诉我们：“严打”以来，适用死刑的人数增多，执行死刑的人数也增多，而重大刑事犯罪仍呈有增无减的趋势；历史告诉我们：明太祖朱元璋“欲杀尽天下之贪官，奈何朝杀而暮犯！”。死刑所谓的“最大威慑力”只是学者的推论，在事实面前，这种威慑力不断弱化。对于那些义愤杀人，或为信仰而犯罪的人而言，死刑的威慑力毫无价值可言。退一步来讲，200多年来无数学者为了回答死刑与无期徒刑相比，威慑力孰轻孰重的问题，耗费了大量的时间和精力。但直至今日，仍没有权威机构能够给予肯定或否定的答案。既然我们无法证明死刑具有最大威慑力，那么死刑的存在无合理性可言。同时，死刑的威慑力一旦没能起到抑制犯罪的作用，这种威慑力往往成为其他犯罪行。为的诱因。犯罪者实施犯罪行为后，因惧怕死刑杀人灭口的例子不在少数——这是死刑无法推卸的责任。从某种意义上说，死刑成为犯罪分子杀人的帮凶。

“死刑限制论”相比“死刑保留论”而言，在一定程度上反映了社会民主文明的进步，但它仍然有悖于人道主义、人文关怀的精神。死刑是野蛮之刑，是践踏人权之刑。其野蛮与残酷不仅体现在行刑的一刹那，恐惧与绝望从判决开始便在死刑犯心中扎下了根，悲哀与无奈从判决开始便与死刑犯的家庭如影相随，更可怕的是，它们不会随着行刑的结束而消失。死刑对于心灵与精神上的折磨远比加在肉体上的痛苦来的大。肉体的痛苦是暂时的，只须一人承受，而精神的折磨却须由无辜的家属来承受，并且永生难以磨灭。死刑以剥夺他人的生命权为手段，使犯罪者完全丧失了人格权，即完全否认了他人为人的权利。而无期徒刑至少保留了犯罪分子的人格权。因为死刑本身就是不人道的刑罚，所以无论“死刑限制论”限制的多么严密，都始终违背人道主义的原则。“罪刑相当原则”作为我国刑法基本原则之一，强调“犯罪危害性之大小，是决定刑罚轻重的重要依据，犯多大的罪就处多重的刑，做到重罪重罚、轻罪轻罚，罪刑相当、罚当其罪。⑥”在大多数人的观念里，严重的犯罪行为如果不判处死刑，就是违背了“罪刑相当原则”。其实不然。罪刑相当原则要求的是“罪”与“刑”在惩罚程度上阶梯形的对应，对于最严重的犯罪只要处以最严厉的刑罚就符合该原则的要求。一旦废除了死刑，无期徒刑就成为最严厉的刑罚，将最严厉的刑罚分配于最严重的犯罪，完全符合罪刑相当原则，更符合“分配的正义”这一法的最终理念。

三
综上，笔者认为死刑的废除是历史发展的必然。因为实际废除死刑，无期徒刑成为最严厉的刑罚，笔者认为应当严格限制从无期徒刑减刑至有期徒刑20年的条件，适当提高无期徒刑的威慑力。我国虽然有无期徒刑这一档刑罚，但在实际操作过程中，无期徒刑“有期化”已成为相当现实的问题。大部分群众无法接受那些罪大恶极的犯罪分子经历了十几年的有期徒刑后活跃于社会中的事实。本着既保护犯罪者的利益，又要适当考虑人民群众的感情的原则，笔者认为严格限制无期徒刑减刑的条件是完全必要的。当然，一些学者从经济利益的角度指出：无期徒刑消耗的国家财政远比执行死刑的成本高出许多，以此论证死刑是最“经济”，最“实惠”的刑罚。笔者认为这样的观点有失偏颇。社会已步入二十一世纪，将人的价值与经济利益权衡的观念早已为人道主义所摒弃。人的生命的价值重于整个地球的价值。国家如果出于纯经济利益的目的，从肉体上消灭犯罪者，这样的社会是极不负责任的。

中国的几千年的历史发展表明，长期的封建主义意识形态从未给人道主义提供萌芽的机会，人文关怀在中国的历史上从未得到重视。可喜的是，改革开放以来，随着部分地区经济的迅速发展，人道主义、人文关怀逐渐受到大家的关注。在这样一个良好的社会氛围中，我们应当抓住机遇，从小部分经济发展较快的地区入手，在部分地区尝试从实践中不执行死刑，这种尝试从经济犯罪领域内开始最为合适。我国目前无法完全废除死刑，不仅因为经济的原因，笔者认为更重要的是社会精神文明发展滞后，对人类理性和良知的思考明显少于对市场经济规律的探讨。中国废除死刑之路，到了迈出坚定的第一步的时候了。

参考文献：
①参见杨春洗、张庆方：《世界范围内的死刑存废现状和中国的死刑问题》。
②参见胡云腾著：《存与废：死刑基本理论研究》，中国检察出版社2000年版，第155页。
③参见胡云腾著：《存与废：死刑基本理论研究》，中国检察出版社2000年版，第155页。
④参见杨世云、窦希琨著：《比较监狱学》，中国人民公安大学出版社1991年版，第63页。
⑤参见（德）黑格尔著：《法哲学原理》，商务印书馆1996年版第156页-157页
⑥参见苏惠渔主编：《刑法学》，法律出版社2001年版第38页。

乒乓球爱上九月UID: 162925

http://www.topstudy.com.cn/net/lg/xuexiyuandi5.asp

雅思议论文欣赏


Death penalty/sentence, also known as the capital punishment, has existed in human society for hundreds of, or maybe thousands of years. When a member of the society has committed a severe crime that terminated another individuals life or inflicting disabling sufferings or pains on others, this individual's life is also physically terminated. Different opinions have existed on the two sides of this controversial issue. Some think executing highly evil and dangerous animals is one of the best ways to curb the crime rate, while others argue it actually does very little to discourage would-be criminals from committing a life-threatening crime in the future. As I see it, under certain circumstances, death penalty is still quite necessary and effective, especially in countries like China.

First of all, the fundamental purpose in implementing death penalty is to hinder people from committing severe crime, not to kill people. We can imagine that when more people are discouraged from committing life-threatening crimes, more lives can actually be saved. What's also true is that every individual has his basic rights for living. Once this right is deprived, justice needs to be done in some form. It goes without saying that we don't need to be too humane to those who are not humane to others at al. At the same time, our society can not afford to keep these highly dangerous criminals alive in prisons.

Secondly, different countries have different situations and what may be acceptable in Western countries such as the United States might not be acceptable here in China. As a matter of fact, many people have attributed the prevalence of high crime rate to the lenient laws to the criminals. But in China, which is the most populous nation, penalizing the most dangerous criminals by inflicting dealth sentence is rather justifiable. At least it is so in my eyes.

To conclude, there's no perfect solution to the eradication of severe crime. We have to adapt these measures to the real situation of the concerned country.

乒乓球爱上九月UID: 162925

实在太巧了，昨天刚刚看了 Tom Hanks 主演的The Green Miile 讲的就是死刑的问题。

imongUID: 140258

Q1：作为群体..剥夺个体生命权的权利从何而来？

真生UID: 161074

Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished   By Lawrence C. Marshall

The racism that is inherent in the modern application of the death penalty in the United States has a long historical pedigree. For example, in the 19th century, Virginia had five capital crimes for whites and 70 capital crimes for blacks. Rape was a capital crime for blacks but was not for whites. Study after study shows that although the system is not as openly racist as it once was, the racial characteristics of the defendant and the victim continue to play a dominant role in determining whether a defendant will be given a sentence of death. As United States Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun declared in the Court¡¯s 1994 decision in Callins v. Collins, ¡°race continues to play a major role in determining who shall live and who shall die.¡±

The issue of race infects the death penalty system at two major junctures. First, the local prosecutor has very broad discretion in deciding whether to seek the death penalty in any murder case. Second, if the prosecutor chooses to seek the death penalty and secures a conviction against the defendant, a jury or judge is required to evaluate all of the details of the defendant¡¯s life, including the facts of the murder, to determine whether the defendant shall live or die. The role that race plays in both of these decisions is unmistakable. In cases where a defendant is charged with killing a white victim, prosecutors are far more likely to seek the death penalty, and juries and judges are far more likely to impose it, than in cases where a defendant is charged with killing a member of a minority group. In a sophisticated study of 2,400 Georgia cases, published in 1983, University of Iowa law professor David Baldus determined that after controlling for the many variables that make some cases worse than others, defendants who were convicted of killing white victims were 4.3 times more likely to be condemned to death than similarly situated defendants whose victims were not white.

Similarly, a number of studies have shown that all other things being equal, prosecutors are much more prone to seek and secure the death penalty against a black defendant than against a white defendant. For example, in 1998 Baldus published a study of death penalty cases in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 1983 to 1993, showing that even after controlling for all other differences in the nature of individual cases, black defendants were 3.9 times more likely to receive the death penalty than other defendants. In 1989 the General Accounting Office of the United States, in a report titled ¡°Death and Discrimination: Racial Disparities in Capital Sentencing,¡± concluded that findings such as these are ¡°remarkably consistent across data sets, states, data collection methods, and analytic techniques.¡±

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, in Washington, D.C., statistics show that ¡°race is more likely to affect death sentencing than smoking affects the likelihood of dying from heart disease.¡± In a country that is supposed to be committed to ¡°equal justice under the law,¡± it should be unthinkable to perpetuate a system in which defendants are being killed on the basis of race.

Those familiar with the real workings of capital punishment have been known to comment that if you don¡¯t have the ¡°capital,¡± you get the ¡°punishment.¡± This biting observation reflects a cruel reality of America¡¯s death penalty: It is imposed almost exclusively on very poor people who are without the resources to defend themselves adequately. Stephen Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights, in Atlanta, Georgia, has written that ¡°it is not the facts of the crime, but the quality of legal representation, that distinguishes¡± between cases where the death penalty is imposed and similar cases where it is not. There are countless stories of defense lawyers who slept though death penalty hearings, were drunk throughout the trial, failed to conduct even a rudimentary investigation into the background of the defendant, and even used racial epithets to describe their own clients during trial. The common denominator in these cases is that the defendant is too poor to hire competent counsel who can mount a fair fight for the defendant¡¯s life.

Even though the courts have tried to reduce the arbitrariness of deciding who will be executed, arbitrariness remains pervasive. Some poor people receive wonderful representation from public defenders or lawyers willing to represent them for no fee. Many others, however, never stand a chance because the lawyers who are appointed to represent them are overworked, underfunded, inexperienced, and in some cases simply incompetent. Some states pay only $1,000 or $2,000 to lawyers whose ability to thoroughly investigate a case and a defendant¡¯s background often determines whether the defendant lives or dies. This means that a lawyer who chooses to spend the number of hours required to provide adequate representation is often paid less than minimum wage.

In a 1992 survey conducted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, the very officials in charge of the system reported that they would not want to be represented in traffic court by many of the lawyers upon whom capital defendants are forced to depend. Of course, the prosecution is not hampered by any such limitations and generally has unlimited access to investigators, experts, lawyers, and other resources with which to pursue its case. It is unreasonable to expect justice to prevail when there is such a gross disparity of power between the parties to the trial.