摘要
犯罪竞合论的核心是如何准确实现充分但不重复的刑法评价。我国现有刑法理论对于想象竞合犯的处理既未能顾及是否充分评价问题,也未结合责任刑理论对是否妥当量刑问题展开研究。对想象竞合犯不宜继续“择一重罪处罚”,而应转变为“择一重罪从重处断”,在重罪责任刑幅度内,将轻罪的不法和责任作为从重处罚情节,同时考虑轻罪刑罚的封锁效果,贯彻罪刑相适应的刑法基本原则。对于轻罪和重罪的比较,应当以法定刑为标准,严格区分刑法总则和分则的加减情节。当法定刑相同时,应根据法益侵害程度选择罪名,以实现积极的一般预防。在打击错误的场合,应根据具体符合说定罪,并在处罚时“择一重罪从重处断”。
The core of the joiner of offenses theory is how to correctly realize sufficient but not repeated evaluation of the criminal law.China’s current law theories have failed to fully accommodate to and assess problems existing in the handling of imaginative joiner of offenses.Nor have China’s current law theories combined the sentencing theories to examine specific applications of sentencing criteria.The practice of“choosing one serious offense”should be changed to“choosing one serious offense and giving heavy punishments”,so that the illegality and liability of the minor offense can be regarded as the circumstances of giving a severer punishment within the scope of the major offense liability punishment.At the same time,the blocking effect of punishment for the minor offense should also be considered.Comparison between major offenses and minor offenses should stick to the criterion of statutory sentence.But it is necessary to distinguish the circumstances for tightening and lightening punishments in Specific Provisions of Criminal Law and General Provisions of Criminal Law.When the statutory sentence is the same,the decrease of infringement of behaviors should be taken into consideration to decide the final crime so as to realize active general prevention.The aberratio ictus joiner of offenses should adopt the theory of concrete consistency and“choosing one serious offense and giving heavy punishments”.
作者
孟红艳
Meng Hongyan(Law School of Tsinghua University;China Judicial Research Center of Tsinghua University)
出处
《国家检察官学院学报》
CSSCI
北大核心
2023年第4期111-128,共18页
Journal of National Prosecutors College
关键词
想象竞合犯
择一重罪从重处断
量刑原则
责任刑
打击错误
Imaginative Joiner of Offenses
Choosing One Serious Offense and Giving Heavy Punishments
Criteria for Sentencing
Liability Punishment
Aberratio Ictus
