论文标题:类推在刑事司法与民事司法中的不同
The Differences of Analogy between Criminal Justice and Civil Justice
论文作者
论文导师 李琦,论文学位 硕士,论文专业 诉讼法学
论文单位 厦门大学,点击次数 82,论文页数 52页File Size580K
2006-05-01论文网 http://www.lw23.com/lunwen_1011353987/
Analogy; The Principle of Crime and Penalty by Law; Judicial Legitimacy
自清末变法以来,我国借鉴西方大陆法系的法律制度,建立起以成文法为特征的法律体系。成文法具有内容明确、使用方便、稳定的特点,但同时也存在内容僵化、不周延等局限。为了克服法律的不周延性,弥补制定法的漏洞,司法者在司法过程中采取了多种方法,包括解释、类推和法律续造等。然而,作为填补法律漏洞重要方法之一的类推,自近代以来,在民事司法与刑事司法两个领域的命运却截然不同。在民事司法领域,法官不得拒绝裁判成了一项铁则,为了满足解决纠纷的需要,各国采取或明示或默许的方式,允许类推的使用。而在刑事司法领域,由于受到罪刑法定原则的限制,类推,尤其是不利于被告人的类推却被严格禁止。本文拟在对类推进行辨析的基础上,通过分析刑事司法与民事司法的不同特点,来分析这种现象产生的原因。全文由引言、正文、结语三部分组成。第一章对类推进行分析,界定本文所讨论类推之内涵。首先分析类推的使用场合,认为严格意义上的类推只存在于司法领域,不存在立法类推。然后从四个方面对类推的涵义进行分析。在此基础上提出本文中类推的定义:在成文法国家,法律存在漏洞,对系争案件无明文规定可予适用时,司法者为了填补法律的漏洞,基于系争案件与相关法律规定预设的行为模式的相似性,运用类比推理的方法将类似规定适用于系争案件的活动。 第二章展现了类推在刑事司法与民事司法中的不同。该章从历史的角度对近代以来刑事司法与民事司法中类推的不同发展情况做了简要的介绍。同时也对类推在新中国的存在状况也做了简单的梳理。认为自近代以来,刑事司法领域禁止类推,尤其是严格禁止不利于被告人的类推;而在民事司法领域,不管是概念法学占统治地位的法典化时代,还是现当代,类推都始终在发挥着法律漏洞补充的作用。 第三章分析了类推在刑事司法与民事司法中有所不同的原因。首先从历史的角度,近代刑法是资产阶级在反对封建罪刑擅断的过程中逐渐形成的,提出罪刑法定,反对类推是为了保护公民的权利和自由,防止国家的公权力对公民的侵害。而民法由于其私人性,没有处于政治冲突的漩涡中心,从而使类推可以继续发挥
Since the end of the Qing Dynasty, our country used Western civil law legal system for reference, and set up our own legal system characterized by statutory. Law is clear, user-friendly and stable, but also the existence of some limitations, such as rigid, illogic, and so on. To overcome legal illogic nature compensate for law loopholes, judicial persons take a variety of methods, including interpretation, analogy and continued legal creates in the judicial process. However, as one of the important means to fill loopholes in the law, the fate of application by analogy in the field of civil justice and criminal justice was very different since the beginning of modern times. In the field of civil justice, the judge can’t refuse decisions is one strict rule. In order to meet the settlement needs of the conflicts, States take explicit or tacit manner, allowing the use of analogy. In the field of criminal justice, as the principle of crime and penalty by law restricts analogy, especially detrimental to the accused by analogy strictly prohibited. This article intends to conduct discriminate on the basis of analogy, analysis of criminal justice and civil justice through different characteristics to analyze the causes of this phenomenon. The article includes the introduction, body and conclusion. The first chapter through the analysis of analogy, defined this analogy discussed in the contents. First analysis of the use of analogy occasions that the strict sense analogy only exist in the area of justice, legislation does not exist analogy. Then from four aspects to analyze the meaning of analogy. On this basis, make this analogy to the definition : there are loopholes in the law, for cases of a non-specified may be applicable, judicial persons to fill loopholes in the law, for cases of disputes with the relevant legal provisions set patterns of behavior similarities, the use of analogy reasoning approach would be similar to provisions applicable to the case of an activity. Chapter II presents the differences of analogy between criminal justice and civil justice. The chapter has historical perspective of the modern criminal justice and civil justice analogy of different developments made brief presentations. Also analogy to the situation exists in the new China made simple ideas. That since the beginning of modern times, criminal justice ban analogy, especially strict prohibition against the
|
