张智辉
论文题目：刑法理性论
作者简介：张智辉
，男,1954年10月出生，1999年09月师从于中国人民大学高铭暄教授，于2002年06月获博士学位。
摘
要
刑法是人类在运用公共权力对付危害社会的行为时，依靠理性的力量不断控制原始本能的报复情结而形成的关于犯罪与刑罚的规范性设定。刑法的发展史，是伴随着人类对犯罪认识的深化和人类文明的发展而不断寻找更有效的制裁手段的过程，也是人类对刑法目的的执著追求和对报复情感的自觉节制的理性化过程。因此，深入研究刑法的理性，对于深刻认识和把握刑法的本质，对于刑法立法和刑事司法，都具有重大的理论价值和重要的实践意义。
本文分六个部分，从历史、理论和现实的不同方面论述了刑法理性的基本理论，并运用刑法理性的基本原理对刑法立法和刑事司法中的非理性表现进行了全面的评析，在此基础上指出了刑法改革的价值取向。
第一部分：导言
通过对刑法发展过程中有代表性的制度设定的科学分析，论证了刑法的每一步发展都标志着人类从本能的报复走向理智的制裁的进化，都意味着人类在对犯罪设定和追究刑事责任的过程中更加理智的控制人类感情，更加理智地选择实现目的的手段的历史事实，指出刑法的发展，无论是在实体方面还是在程序方面，都呈现出理智的成份不断增多，本能的因素逐渐减少的理性化过程。
第二部分：理性的一般考察
通过对理性概念的全面考察，分析了理性一词的基本内涵及其不同种类，指出了理性的一般特征。
作者认为，理性是人们在行为时以自己对事物的本质及其规律性的认识为基础，为自己设定合理的目的，并选择最适合目的实现的手段，自觉控制和排除与目的相悖的冲动的干扰，以实现自己目的的行为特性。
理性本身包含着一些必不可少的要素。这些要素是：
（1）对对象的理性认识；
（2）基于价值判断的目的确定和目标设定；
（3）手段选择；
（4）行为节制。
这些要素，既是理性存在的标志，同时也是评价一个行为或一种制度是否具有理性的依据。
理性具有正确地选择手段并节制与目的相悖的冲动的实践功能。
刑法之所以需要理性，是因为，第一，法律要对人类社会作出事先安排，并且这种安排的目标是使社会生存环境更好，它就必须建立在对人类社会发展规律的理性认识的基础之上，并且必须使人们的欲望在一定程度上加以克制。第二，刑罚的“双刃性”需要理性的制约。第三，刑法适用的多样性使刑法不得不依赖于人类理性。
第三部分：刑法理性的基本内涵
通过对刑法理性内涵的深入分析和全面论证，指出刑法理性就是国家在制定和适用刑法时所表现出来的深思熟虑、自我克制的特性。刑法理性表现为以对刑法基本范畴的理性认识为基础，根据所处社会公认的基本价值准则，确定刑法的目的，并使刑法的制度设定和具体适用自觉地服从刑法目的的要求，以追求刑法目的最大限度地实现。刑法理性是指贯穿于刑法始终并保障刑法合理性的根本原则。
刑法理性集中表现为：
（1）刑法的目的性；
（2）刑法的合理性；
（3）刑法的节制性。
第四部分：刑法立法中的非理性评析
运用刑法理性的原理对我国刑法立法中在立法思想、立法过程、立法结果方面存在的非理性因素进行了具体的分析，指出充分认识刑法理性在刑法立法中的要求，深刻揭示唯意志论的冲动和非理性的思维对于刑法立法的危害性，使刑法立法最大限度地符合它的目的性，是非常必要的。
从刑法立法思想上看，我国刑法比较充分地反映了我国社会现实发展的客观需要。特别是借鉴近代刑法发展的文明成果，明确规定了罪刑法定、刑法面前人人平等、罪责刑相适应三大原则，充分体现了刑法精神的理性化，也满足了人民群众对刑法价值的要求。但是，我国刑法在立法思想上也还存在着某些非理性的成分。这主要表现在三个方面：一是罪刑法定原则没有在刑法中以一贯之；二是没有充分反映市场经济的要求；三是重刑主义残余依然存在，以致刑法中出现了一些不合理的多余的规定。
从刑法立法过程上看，我国刑法立法实践中存在着一些非理性的因素。如刑法立法动意的随意性：立法过程的短促性；法条设定的轻率性。这与刑法理性对刑法立法的要求即立法动意的谨慎性、立法过程的民主性、立法活动的程序性，是格格不入的。
从刑法立法结果上看，我国刑法立法有意识地消除单行刑事法律与1979年刑法不相协调的部分，力求保持刑法规范的内在统一和协调发展，有效地促进了刑法规范设计的科学化。这与刑法理性的要求是完全一致的。但是，就刑法修订的结果而言，1997年刑法在规范设计上，还存在着某些不尽人意的地方，如某些条文的规定违反刑法的精神；某些条文的设计不科学；某些条文的规定不合理；某些条文的用语不规范。这些方面的问题，在一定程度上要反映了刑法立法中的非理性。
第五部分：刑事司法中的非理性评析
理性司法对现实刑事司法公正具有极端重要的意义。理性司法是通过司法理念、司法政策、司法制度和司法过程表现出来的。
刑事司法理念是在把法律的规定适用于具体案件的过程中指导司法主体适用法律的理论基础和价值观念。从历史上看，中国的司法在国家权力架构中长期没有独立的地位，始终没有形成系统完备的关于司法的理论，以致指导司法的制度设计和实际运作的思想基础是对客观现实的本能反映以及某些零粹的思考。这种状况突出地表现在以下三个方面：一是工具论，把刑事司法作为专政的工具，为任意行使司法权提供了理论根据。二是遏制论，认为刑事司法的根本任务就是有效的打击犯罪、遏制犯罪的增长，片面强调刑事司法的打击功能，导致重刑主义思潮在刑事司法实践中到处蔓延和对人权保障的忽视。三是被告有罪论，认为被司法机关逮捕的一定是坏人；不交代就是不认罪；翻供就是抵赖；有前科劣迹的人就是有罪的人。四是极端的实体正义论与程序优先论。
刑事司法政策是国家根据犯罪情况的变化，运用刑事法律同犯罪作斗争，以期实现遏制和预防犯罪目的的策略、方针、措施和原则的总和。刑事司法政策对于刑事司法系统运用刑事法律的活动具有直接的指导意义。刑事司法政策中的非理性，必然导致刑事司法活动的非理性。回顾我国20多年来的刑事司法政策，可以从中感悟到理性的力量，但是同时也可以看到某些非理性的成分，如搞运动的策略、“严打”的常态化等。
刑事司法制度对于保障刑事司法的客观性、公正性和稳定性，具有极为重要的意义，是司法理性的制度性保障。我国现行的司法制度，虽然具有适应我国根本政治制度和社会主义初级阶段实际情况、保持我国法律文化传统等特点，但是也存在着某些不符合建设社会主义法治国家需要的、不合理的非理性成分。这种不符合建设社会主义法治国家需要的非理性成分，主要表现在司法人员的大众化、司法管理的行政化和司法权的地方化三个方面。这使刑事司法体系在运行中失去了独立公正严格地适用法律的制度保障，使刑法的精神和目的在具体适用中无法始终如一地贯彻和实现。
刑事司法的过程包括了从立案、侦查、起诉、审判到执行刑罚等适用刑法各种环节的一系列活动。刑事司法的功能和意义最终是通过这些活动实现的。而这些活动中的非理性都可能导致司法不公的、背离刑法目的的结果。刑事司法活动中缺乏理性的表现，都是与刑法的目的追求背道而驰的做法。其结果必然妨碍刑法功能的有效发挥和刑法目的的实现，导致刑法适用的不合理性和无节制性。这些现象也表明，在刑事司法活动中强调理性原则十分必要。
第六部分：刑法改革的价值取向
本文通过对刑法理性的论述和对刑法立法和刑事司法中非理性因素的评析，试图说明人类应当理智地对待犯罪与刑罚；刑法应当向着更加理性的方向发展。因此本文的结束语“刑法改革的价值取向”，着重指出：我国刑法改革的价值取向是在刑法的运用中淡化对刑罚威慑功能的崇尚、重视刑法导引功能的发挥。
在刑法理念上，树立刑法的导引功能比威慑功能更重要的思想，摈弃重刑主义的思维定式，破除对重刑在遏制犯罪中的作用的迷信；在刑法的规范设置和实际适用上，把改革的重心放在法网的严密性上而不是刑罚的残酷性方面，用刑罚较轻但是疏而不漏的法网来取代刑罚较重但是又疏又漏的法网。未来的刑法改革应当致力于革除重刑主义的刑法思想，更多的通过刑法的导引功能来预防犯罪，而淡化通过重罚所产生的威慑力量来遏制犯罪的做法。
按照这种思路，作者认为，刑法本身的改革，应当重点解决四个方面的问题：
（1）刑法的严密性问题；
（2）轻刑化及其相关问题；
（3）严格执法问题；
（4）刑罚执行方式的改革。
Criminal
law is the regulations upon crime and penalty. Based on their belief of
rationality, the human beings have been consistently trying to control their
motivation of revenge when they are figuring out ways to combat crime. The
evolution of criminal law is the process for the human beings to pursue more
effective ways to punish crime, which is made possible with people’s deep
understanding of crime and the continuous development of human civilization.
Therefore, it is very important to further study the rationality of criminal
law, which will not only benefit our realization of the function of the criminal
law, but also the practice of criminal legislation and criminal justice.
This article is divided into six sections, which
introduce and discuss the basic theory of the rationality of the criminal law
from the respects of history, theory and reality, and analyze the none-rational
factors existing in criminal legislation and criminal judicature from the
theoretical perspective. In conclusion, it points out the values orientation of
the reform of criminal law.
Section One: Preface
The Author analyses several typical systems of
criminal law, demonstrating that every development of criminal law is an
evolution from instinct revenge to rational sanction. Human beings, with the
development of their rational thinking, try to control their feeling when
criminalizing a behavior and regulating its criminal responsibility. Based on
the historical facts that human beings tend to choose more and more rational
means to realize their purpose, the author draws a conclusion that the
development of criminal law, both in its substantive and procedural respects, is
a process of rationalization of the criminal law with its rational ingredients
increasing and the instinctive elements decreasing.
Section Two: The
Concept of Rationality
The author analyses the concept of rationality,
its classifications, and its characteristics. The author states that rationality
is a human behavior, based on their understanding of the nature and its
principle, to set a rational goal, choose the best suitable means to fulfill it
and deliberately avoid it being disturbed by any impulse not complying with the
purpose.
The
required elements of rationality are as the following:
1.
Rational understanding of its goal.
2.
Determination and setting of the goal based upon rational judgment.
3.
Choice of measures to realize the goal.
4.
Limitation of behaviors to realize the goal.
The above-mentioned elements are signs of rationality. Meanwhile they are
criteria to evaluate whether a behavior or a regulation is rational.
Criminal
law is in need of rationality, because firstly, every law is to deal with
community’s activities. So it needs to be based on the rational understanding
about the rule of human society’s development. Secondly, criminal penalty is a
double-edged knife. It may hurt any innocent person if not used appropriately.
Thirdly, the multiformity in the application of the criminal law needs to be
considered rationally.
Section Three: Connotation of Rationality
of the Criminal Law
In this part, the author conducts a deep
analysis and a thorough discussion on the connotation of rationality of the
criminal law. In the author’s opinion, the rationality of criminal law is a
characteristic on the part of the state to practice deep consideration and
self-discipline in the process of the legislating, administering, and enforcing
of the criminal law. The rationality of criminal law is such that it, based on a
rational understanding of the basic realm of criminal law, sets up its goals in
accord with the value standard recognized by the community and makes the
regulations and applications of the criminal law fit with the requirements of
the goals so as to have them realized to the utmost. The rationality of the
criminal law is consistent and it is essential to ensure the rationalization of
the criminal law.
The
rationality of criminal law is composed of three aspects.
1.
The purpose of criminal law.
2.
The rationalization of criminal law.
3.
The limitation of criminal law.
Section
Four: Analysis on the
None-Rationalistic
Elements in the Legislation of Criminal Law
The author points out that it is necessary to guide the
legislation of criminal law with rationality, which will make the legislation
conform to its purpose at large. Otherwise, the self-willed impulse and
none-rationalistic thinking will produce dangers.
The author makes a detailed analysis on the whole process of Chinese legislation
of criminal law. In the author’s opinion, the provisions in the updated
Chinese criminal law bear strong rational characteristics. But some irrational
elements still exist in the legislature of China’s criminal law. In the
thesis, the author points out these none-rational factors existing in
legislation, for example, random legislation, and over-simplified lawmaking
process. Some unreasonable provisions in the updated Chinese criminal law are
discussed in this section.
Section
Five: None-Rational Elements in the Application of Criminal Law
In this section, the author emphasizes that it is of utmost importance to
implement the criminal law with rationality. And the author discusses the
standards and requirements of rational judicature in the process of applying
criminal law.
Using the rationale of criminal law, the author mainly analyses the
none-rational factors in the judicial concepts, the criminal policy,
administrative system for criminal judicature and the criminal judicial process.
Criticisms are provided against the view that law is a tool for governing; the
purpose of applying criminal law just is to deter crime, and that every
defendant must be a guilty person.
In
the administrative system for criminal judicature, there are some irrational
ingredients which do not meet the requirements of our socialist construction,
for example, the popularization of the judicial workers, the administration
system of judicature and the localization of the judicial power, which bar the
implementation and realization of the independent justice of the criminal
judicature system.
Section Six: The Values Orientation of
the Reform of Criminal Law
The Author points out that the reform of criminal law
should take the orientation of emphasizing the guiding function of criminal law,
while weakening its deterrent function. In order to realize the aim, the author
has the following suggestions: (1) strengthening the strictness of criminal law;
(2) lightening penalty; (3) strictly executing the criminal law; (4) extending
the applicable of probation.
