重刑轻刑研究刑罚轻重从定性到定量的推进 中英文摘要,刑法论文

重刑轻刑研究刑罚轻重从定性到定量的推进中英文内容摘要,刑法论文论文内容摘要：法定刑的交集，是指法定刑内部同一档次的诸刑种之间，或者法定刑内部的刑种与法定刑外部的刑罚执行制度之间，必定存在轻重区别，但这些区别又不像阶梯型刑种排列那样轻重分明的一种现象。刑罚之间的交集是客观存在的普遍现象，隐藏在刑种交集背后的轻重难辨也是无法回避的普遍难题。法官在法定刑的范围内推敲判罚时，既要具体表现出轻重有别，却又不知轻重何在，势必夹杂或多或少的随意性和盲目性。本文致力于破解交集难题，进而为法官推敲判罚提供尽可能精细和严谨的根据。还要强调的是，上述这种法定刑内部的交集现象，并不仅仅存在于各刑种之间，而且也存在于刑种与刑罚执行制度之间。考虑到法定刑的交集是客观存在的普遍现象，也考虑到法官在推敲判罚时必定要遭遇交集问题，还考虑到法官必须在交集中作出选择，表示清楚对交集现象的研究，不仅具有填补空白性质的理论价值，而且具有指导司法实践的重大意义。本文就是以这些存在交集的刑罚比拟作为突破口，找到刑罚之间的差异不同，并试图从这些差异不同中确定影响刑罚轻重的因素，并尽可能全面、具体地例举并分析这些刑罚的轻重差异不同究竟有几何。这也是本文确立以重刑轻刑研究为论题的基本出发点。坦白地讲，迄今为止法官面对交集时最终作出的选择，并没有把握充分的、合理的根据，带有程度不等的盲目性和随意性。通常情况是，知道刑种有轻重，但不知轻重何在，或者知道有轻重，但不知轻重有几何。笔者以为，法官在作出判罚时，仅仅仅是感觉到刑罚轻重有别是远远不够的。更何况在面临某些交集时，甚至连感觉也未曾找到。假使刑罚之间果真不具有可比性，那么立法者就不可能把两个浑身不搭界的刑种放在同一个法定刑区间中给法官选择。既然立法者有意设置这样的规定形式，就讲明这些刑罚之间定是存在共性的，即使两者可能存在的轻重差异不同非常小，至少也应当在两者的区别中归纳出哪些罪犯合适判哪个刑罚。既然法官在判罚时必定要在交集中作出选择，本文的任务就是给法官的选择提供比拟全面客观的根据，将关于交集现象的研究成果，提供应法官参考，进而避免随心所欲或者灵机一动就决定了如何的判决。这便是我们对于刑罚轻重研究的初级目的，我们的终极目的当然是很精到准确地衡量每一个刑罚的轻重，但这是一个很宏大的命题，光靠笔者一个人的能力和精神是不可能完成的。因而，本文致力于追求这样一个初级目的的实现：对于凡在刑法分则中的存在交集的刑罚，我们首先将把这些刑罚的交集形式做类型化的归纳整理，在这里基础上，粗略分析两个或更多个存在交集的刑种之间的差异。最后，在这些差异中寻找主要具体表现出刑罚轻重的因素。本文研究的重点是刑，是对刑的量做估测，并非对罪犯的量刑。文章主要分为五个方面的内容进行论证。第一部分对刑的范围进行界定，阐述刑罚量的概念。出于阐述需要，本文中所谓的刑是在特定语境下所作出的广义概念，不仅包括刑罚体系中所规定的所有刑种，还包括刑罚的执行方式，如管制、拘役、有期徒刑、无期徒刑、死刑、罚金刑、剥夺政治权利、没收财产、缓刑、死缓。本文所谓的刑罚体系，就是上述刑的总和。本文语境下所指的刑罚量是具特定含义的术语，是表示刑罚严厉程度的一个读数。严厉程度是一种模糊、粗略的概念，只要将刑罚中隐含的影响轻重的因素逐一列出，分别做比拟考察才能更直观、更准确。每个刑罚的严厉程度是不一样的。严厉程度由轻到重的不同刑罚组合在一起，构成了一条渐进的线，那就是一个完好的刑罚体系。第二部分至第四部分为对存在交集的刑罚之间所做的详细比拟研究。既然每种刑罚都有相应的刑罚量，那么这种刑罚量的大小则应该会由各种衡量轻重的因素决定，而这些因素就隐藏在刑罚之间的区别之中。在任何一种交集内部的各选项之间，都必定包含无数区别，比方刑罚的个别化差异、刑罚的改造功能差异等，轻重不过是华而不实的区别之一。但本文单独抽出选项中的轻重因素加以比拟，而对其他区别则予以排除。换言之，本文研究的重点始终落在交集内部的轻重差异不同。这就是本文的论题：重刑与轻刑。笔者的研究对象是轻重，但研究范围却要覆盖到能够挖掘出来的所有区别。理由是，轻重区别与其他区别，两者并非是泾渭分明的关系。除了刑法规定内容上的差异，同一刑种也会因执行方式的不同，而使其刑罚量中的构成因素产生差异，进而影响刑罚的严厉程度。像缓刑或者死刑缓期两年执行，在刑罚量构成因素中除了有刑罚本身对罪犯的约束因素，还有其他刑种所不具有的，刑罚对罪犯的威慑因素。这也应当在做刑罚量化比拟时一并衡量进去。因而，我们要修正前文的表述。前面我们将轻重区别与其他区别对立起来，事实上，并不存在一个或几个独立的轻重因素，而是在所有区别中，或多或少都蕴含轻重因素。本文的研究途径是：第一步，尽可能挖掘出所有的区别；第二步，尽可能挖掘出这些区别中的轻重因素；第三步，尽可能对这些轻重因素做精细的、量化的权衡。在比拟轻重经过中，模糊数学的理论与社会各界人士的刑罚观念，为本文提供了经历体验事实根据与理论信息量化描绘叙述之间的互相验证与检验。虽讲本文是将刑罚比拟做定量研究，但所谓定量并非一定要精到准确到详细数值。有时候我们甚至会尽可能避免给出准确的数值。由于笔者意识到，光靠笔者一人之力尚不具备给出精到准确刑罚量数值或计算公式的能力。在没有系统、充分地借助社会学、统计学等理论的反复计算、全面论证之前，任何对社会科学对象给予精到准确的数字赋值都是经不起质疑的。我们至多只能针对刑罚量中的某一个因素给出相对的一个区间，使得刑罚轻重的研究往量化方向发展。刑罚根据刑法总则分为主刑与附加刑，根据类型又分为自由刑、生命刑、财产刑和资格刑。笔者首先选取的是主刑之间的交集比拟，之后是附加刑之间或附加刑与主刑之间的交集比拟。其次，笔者再选取同一种类型的刑罚之间作比拟，比方同是自由刑的拘役与有期徒刑、同是财产刑的罚金和没收财产。本文中最大的突破就是建立不同种类型刑罚间的轻重换算，比方缓刑和实刑的比拟，有期徒刑实刑与缓刑固然都属于有期徒刑，但执行方式上却有着天壤的区别，一个属于监禁刑，一个却属于社区矫正的对象。有期徒刑一年和有期徒刑三年缓期三年执行到底哪个判决重哪个判决轻？我们也希望通过研究有助于这个问题的解决。至于无期徒刑与死缓的比拟则界于同种类型刑罚与不同类型的刑罚之间，一个属于自由刑，一个则是生命刑。但死缓考验期满后一般并不会被核准执行死刑而剥夺罪犯生命。本文第二章是对拘役和有期徒刑的刑罚量比拟，笔者通过对法条的归纳，着重比拟了拘役与有期徒刑在刑罚量上最主要的四个差异不同因素：服刑场所、强迫劳动、赏罚待遇、累犯构成可能性。通过笔者对几个看守所的实地考察数据结合法条规定比拟发现，在拘役的规定中就近执行、回家权等有十分规定的因素，在实践中却基本没有落实；而拘役在强迫劳动中的劳动条件、劳动工种、劳动时间以及累犯构成可能性方面确实较有期徒刑轻缓。除此之外，笔者还结合拘役与有期徒刑的服刑待遇与监舍条件等做了考察与比拟，最终得出拘役较有期徒刑轻的结论。这一结论与刑法第44条先行羁押中拘役与有期徒刑的折抵比例相悖。而带入各种考量因素后，笔者初步估量而得拘役的刑罚量应当略小于有期徒刑。第三章是无期徒刑与死缓的刑罚量比拟。这是一组特殊的主刑内部的交集形式。本来在刑法分则中规定的是无期徒刑与死刑的交集形式，生命的价值远大于自由，因而从轻重角度来讲，死刑肯定是远远重于无期徒刑的。这个是显而易见，无需论证的，皮之不存毛将焉附。但死刑除了立即执行外还有缓期两年执行这个执行方式。而死缓考验期满后能否会执行死刑又是不确定的。因而准确地讲应该是死刑立即执行肯定远远重于无期徒刑。那么死缓在刑罚量坐标上的位置就显得非常暗昧了。死缓即使不是一个法定刑种，都不可否认死缓有独特的刑罚量。且能够确定的是死缓的刑罚量是界于无期徒刑与死刑之间的，但它在刑罚标尺上的刻度究竟是靠近无期徒刑还是靠近死刑立即执行，就是需要经过仔细考察后才能得出的结论。笔者将死缓与无期徒刑的刑罚量区别因素分为两类：一类是只要死缓有，而无期徒刑没有的规定，比方无期徒刑没有限制减刑的规定，也没有设置死缓考验期；第二类就是死缓与无期徒刑均有规定，但规定的内容却不同，比方前文所述的减刑与重大立功规定。经过考察论证，死缓在改判无期后的执行、重大立功、对累犯以及八类严重暴力犯罪限制减刑、死缓考验期这四个方面均有差异不同，但差异不同却非常有限。笔者对死缓的各种情形分别逐一讨论刑罚量，发现排除死缓考验期内的威慑因素不管，不同情况下的死缓之间实际服刑差距可达10年或更长，而死缓作为一个整体与无期徒刑之间的刑罚量差距可能仅为2年死缓考验期的刑罚量。与其讲(刑法修正案〔八〕〕拉大了死缓与无期徒刑之间的刑罚量差距，不如讲其拉大了不同性质的死缓服刑罪犯之间的刑罚量差距。第四章是罚金与没收财产的刑罚量比拟。笔者一是对两者的适用形式进行比拟，发现没收财产在适用时，都必须与主刑一起适用，且是与较重的主刑一起适用。而罚金不仅能够并处还能够单处。单处理惩罚金的情形一般出如今情节较轻的法定刑档次内，最多也是与5年有期徒刑选择适用。因而相比于罚金，没收财产一般只用于比拟严重的犯罪中。但这一现象本身却并不能得出同为附加刑，罚金比没收财产要轻的结论。二是对两者的对象与数额进行比拟，从字面理解似乎罚金以罪犯向国家缴纳一定金钱为对象，而没收财产既能够以金钱为对象又能够以财产性物品为对象。但实际上在执行的时候，若被判处没收财产的罪犯被执行的是详细财物或知识产权等财产性权利，也是需要将拍卖等程序转换为金钱后才能缴纳国库。而对于被判处理惩罚金的罪犯，可以以对其财物或知识产权、股权等进行拍卖转为金钱后缴纳国库。因而两者对象上并无区别。在数额确定方面，刑法分则并没有规定罚金有明确的上限，尤其是当罪犯碰到天价罚金的时候，实际履行就比拟困难。这也是导致罚金与没收财产执行率低的主要原因。三是对两者执行方式进行比拟。罚金的执行期限也是无限长的，甚至能够与罪犯的余生同期。而没收财产即使是没收全部财产也以保存罪犯及其抚养家属必需的生活费用为限。因而，在很多情况下没收财产是轻于罚金的。但这个结论也不是完全成立，当罪犯非常富有的情况下，罚金还是可能轻于没收财产的。第五章是管制与剥夺政治权利的刑罚量比拟。这组交集属于主刑与附加刑之间的比照，同时也是自由刑与资格性之间的交集。经过对管制与剥夺政治权利的考察比对之后，笔者发现剥夺政治权利的单处适用范围远大于附加适用的范围。其单独适用的比例丝毫不亚于主刑中管制与拘役的适用范围。单独适用剥夺政治权利的描绘叙述与其他主刑也并无差异不同，且最高能够与5年有期徒刑选择适用。固然刑法总则规定了剥夺政治权利作为附加刑的形式，但分则中的详细规定完全好像主刑的适用，这就让剥夺政治权利与管制有了一个更具可比性的平台。笔者再深切进入分析，管制的刑罚量非常有限，管制的规定缺乏刑罚应有的惩罚性。经过分析估算，管制的执行内容与剥夺政治权利有部分一样，在司法实践中，管制与剥夺政治权利主要都由社区矫正机关执行即使立法上对两者执行机关的规定略有不同。被判处管制与剥夺政治权利对罪犯的权利影响均很少。经论证，笔者以为剥夺政治权利固然较管制更轻，但两者轻重差异不同非常有限。第六章是缓刑与实刑的刑罚量比拟。根据缓刑的性质和特点，缓刑的刑罚量应该包括两方面：一是缓刑执行本身对罪犯产生的刑罚负担，即缓刑本身对罪犯的约束因素；二是缓刑中原判刑罚被执行的可能性对罪犯的威慑，即缓刑对罪犯的威慑因素。缓刑的刑罚量就是约束因素和威慑因素的集合。笔者通过对缓刑约束因素的考量，发现缓刑的刑罚量与管制的刑罚量相当甚至更少，而缓刑威慑因素所代表的刑罚量始终是一种虚拟的心理压制，并非实际权利的剥夺，在刑罚量上始终比剥夺实际权利少。因而，若要令缓刑符合罪刑相当的原则，则应当加强缓刑的刑罚量。遗憾的是相关社区矫正的法条和实际操作中却未见针对缓刑和管制在确切刑罚量上的区别对待。对交集现象的研究，是一个系统性的宏大工程，是一个从定性到定量的漫长经过。面对法定刑的交集现象，我们既缺乏法律条文的根据，也缺乏法学理论的引导，因而，我们所做的研究，是一项创始性的、填补空白的探寻求索。我们设想并尝试的研究途径是首先细细梳理刑法条文，从字里行间挖掘出有价值的内容，并据此搭建研究的框架。然后兵分两路，一路将触角伸展到其他门类的法律，如刑事诉讼法、行政法、监狱法等；一路将手段增加到实证的方式方法，案例分析和归纳的方式方法，对法官和罪犯访谈的方式方法，多学科融汇的方式方法等。本文是刑罚轻重研究这个宏大工程的第一步，是笔者长远目的的一个阶段性的最低目的。当然刑罚轻重这一课题的研究绝不仅仅存在于有交集的刑罚之间，把分则中规定的所有刑罚按照轻重关系精到准确地串连起来，对每一种刑罚的轻重做精到准确衡量是这项重刑轻刑研究的终极目的，但本人不可能独立完成如此重大复杂的课题。故本文只能以交集作为研究的突破口，将存在交集作为本文研究的基本前提，至于不存在交集的刑罚之间的轻重比拟本文暂不作研究。[本文关键词语]刑罚交集刑罚量轻重比拟刑罚执行刑罚阶尺AbstractIntersectionoflegalpunishmentkindsisaphenomenonthatexistsbetweenthelegalpunishmentsorbetweenthekindsofpunishmentsandpenaltiesenforcementwithinthesamegradeoflegalpunishments:theymusthaveseverityofdistinctions,butthesedifferencesarenotsoobviouslikealadder-typepunishmentphenomenonthatcanbetoldatoneglance.Intersectionoflegalpunishmentkindsisacommonphenomenon.Theseverityofonepunishmenthiddeninthebackoftheintersectiondifficileisauniversalproblemcannotbeavoided.Judgesdiscretionwithinthescopeoflegalpenalties,theyneedtoreflecttheseverityofthepunisheddeeds,yetjudgesdonotknowtheseverityofeachpunishmentisboundtomoreorlessmixwithrandomnessandblindness.ThisarticleiscommittedtocracktheIngmaroftheintersectionoflegalpunishmentkinds,soastoprovidethepossiblerigorouscredentialbasistojudges.Itshouldbeemphasizedthattheabove-mentionedintersectionoflegalpunishmentkindsphenomenon,notonlyexistinallkindsofpunishment,butalsoexistsinthepenaltyenforcementsystem.Sinceintersectionoflegalpunishmentkindsisanobjectiveuniversalphenomenon,andthejudgemustconsiderthepenaltytobefacedwithintersectionproblems,alsotakeintoaccountthejudgemustmakeachoiceintheintersection,theseeventsshowthatresearchontheintersectionofthephenomenon,notonlyhasthetheoreticalvaluetofillthegaps,butalsohasgreatsignificanceofbeingjudicialpracticeguidance.Thisarticletakestheintersectionoflegalpunishmentkindsasabreakthroughinthepenaltycomparison,findthedifferencebetweenpunishmentandtryingtodeterminetheimpactofthesedifferencesintheseverityofthepenaltyfactors,andexemplifiedindetailandanalyzedifferencesintheseverityofthesepenaltiesascomprehensiveaspossible.Thisishowthebasicstartingpointofthisarticlecomingout.Frankly,byfarjudgesseemsdidnothaveaccesstoadequateandreasonablebasis,evenmightbewithvaryingdegreesofblindnessandrandomness,whentheyfacedwithchoicesofpunishments.Usually,judgesareawareoftheseverityofpunishmentsvaries,butdonotknowwherethedifferencesofseveritypresents,orhowtheseverityofpunishmentsdiffers.Theauthorbelievesthatthejudgeinmakingthepenalty,justhavesomefeelingsofthedifferenceofpunishmentisfarnotenough.Moreover,whenjudgesareinfaceofsomecertainpunishmentintersectiondifficile,evenaslightestfeelingsaidabovewouldnotbeenfound.Ifthepenaltiesarereallynotcomparable,thenitisimpossibleforthelegislatorstomakethejudgesselectagivenpunishmentinthespecificprovisionsofcriminallaw.Sincethelegislatorsintendtosetupsuchapunishmentintersectiondifficileprovision,thesepenaltiesaredeemedtohavesomecommonalities,eventheseverityofdifferencesthatmayexistbetweenthosetwopunishmentsisverysmall.Atleastinthedifferencebetweenthetwopunishmentsshouldalsobesummarizedwhichisappropriatepenaltiestotheoffendersinasentence.Sincethejudgewillhavetomakeachoiceintheintersectionoflegalpunishmentkinds,thetaskofthisarticleistoprovidemorecomprehensiveandobjectivebasistothejudges,theresultsofthisresearchontheintersectionoflegalpunishmentkinds,providingreferencetothejudgesinordertoavoidarbitraryondecisionsofwhatkindofsentencetheymake.Thisismyprimarygoalofthisresearchontheseverityofindicatorsofpenalties.Ofcourse,myultimategoalistoaccuratelymeasurestheseverityofeachpenalty,whichisaveryambitiouspropositionthattheauthoralonecannotbeaccomplished.Therefore,thisarticleiscommittedtothepursuitofsuchaprimarygoal:firstIfindouttheintersectionoflegalpunishmentkindsfromthecriminalstatutoryprovisions,anddoatypedformcollate.Basedonthis,Imakeroughanalysisthedifferencesbetweenthetwoormorekindsofpunishmentkinds.Finally,Iturnedtolookingatthesedifferencesthatmainlyreflecttheseverityofindicatorsofpenalties.Thefocusofthisstudyispenalty.Thisarticleturnstodoestimatesaboutthequantityoftheseverityofpenalties,notforcriminalssentencing.Thisarticleisdividedintofiveaspectstodemonstrate.Thefirstpartofthearticlegivesthedefinitionofpenaltiesandexplainstheconceptoftheseverityofindicatorsofpenalties.Needfordiscussioninthisarticlecalledpunishmentismadeinaparticularcontextbroadconcept,includingnotonlyasspecifiedinthepenalsystem,allkindsofpunishment,butalsotheexecutionofthepenaltymethods,suchassurveillance,detention,imprisonment,lifeimprisonment,thedeathpenalty,finepenalty,deprivationofpoliticalrights,confiscationofproperty,probation,reprieveandetc..Thisso-calledpenaltysystemcombinedallthesepunishmentlistedabove.Thecontextmeaningofpenaltyseverityreadingisatermwithaspecificmeaning.Itisareadingoftheseverityofeachpenalty.Severityisavague,roughconcept.Onlybylistingthefactorsthatimpacttheseverityofthepenalty,andinvestigatedthesefactorscloselywillinterprettheseverityofeachpenaltymoreintuitiveandmoreaccurate.Theseverityofpenaltiesisnotthesame.Penaltieslinedbytheseveritydifferentfromlighttoheavytogether,constituteaprogressiveline,thusisacompletesystemofpenalties.Thesecondparttothefourthpartfocusesontheintersectionoflegalpunishmentkinds.Sinceeverysentencehasacorrespondingpenaltyseverityreading,thenthiswillbedeterminedbyvarietyoffactorstomeasuretheseverity,whicharehiddeninthedifferencebetweenthepenalties.Inanykindsofintersectionpenalties,thereareboundtocontainnumerousdifferences,suchasdifferencesinindividualizationofpunishment,thepenaltyfunctionofdifferencesinthetransformation,theseveritydifferenceisoneofthem.Butthisarticlesingledoutoptiontocomparetheseverityfactors,whiletheotherdifferencesfactorswillbeexcluded.Inotherwords,thefocusofthisstudyalwaysfallsintheinternalseveritydifferencesamongintersectionoflegalpunishmentkinds.Thisisthetopicofthisarticle:heavyandlightpenalty.Theobjectofstudyistheseverityofpenalties,buttheauthorhastocoverthescopeofthestudytobeabletodigoutallofthedifferencesamongpenalties.Thereasonisthattheseveritydifferencesandotherdifferencesarenotdistinctlyseparate.Inadditiontothepenaltyprovisionsdifferences,thesamekindofpunishmentwillbedifferinseverityfactorsinresultofthedifferentwaysofimplementation,thusaffectingtheseverityofpenalties.Takeprobationanddeathsentencewithatwo-yearreprieveforexample,theamountofpenaltyseverityreadinginadditiontotheconstituentelementsofcriminalpenaltiesitselfconstraints,thereareotherkindsofcriminalpenaltiesoncriminalsdonothave:thedeterrentfactors.Thesefactorsalsoshouldbemeasuredatthetimeofdoingresearch.Therefore,wehavetoamendtheforegoingstatements.Wedistinguishedtheseveritydifferenceswithotherdifferencesfactorspreviously,infact,oneorseveralindependentseverityfactorsdoesnotexist,severityfactorsinherentinallthedifference,themoreorless.Theresearchapproachis:first,todigoutallthedifferencesasfaraspossible;Second,todigouttheseverityofthefactorsthesedifferencesinasfaraspossible;Third,todofine,quantitativetrade-offstotheseseverityfactorsofpenalties.Intheprocessofcomparingtheseverityofpenalties,fuzzymaththeoryandsocialattitudestowardspenaltiesprovidesempiricalandtheoreticalevidence-basedinformationonquantitativedescriptionoftheinteractionbetweenverificationandinspection.Althoughthispaperistocomparethepenaltiesforquantitativeresearch,butso-calledquantitativeisnotnecessarilyaccuratetospecificvalues.Sometimesweeventrytoavoidgiveaccuratevalues.BecauseIrealizedthatIdonotyethavethecapabilitiestogiveprecisevaluesorformulasamountofpenaltyseverityreading.Intheabsenceofthesystematic,adequate,repeatedcalculationswiththetheoriesofsociology,statisticsandetc.,comprehensivedemonstrationpriortoanyobjectinthesocialsciencestogiveprecisefiguresarenotwithstandquestioningassignment.Themosttheauthorcandoistogiveanapproximatereadingtoonepenaltyseverityfactorrelativetoagiveninterval,sothattheresearchoftheseverityofindicatorsofpenaltieswillgothroughqualitativetoquantitativepropulsion.Penaltiescanbedividedintoprincipalpenaltyandsupplementarypenaltyaccordingtothecriminallaw.PunishmentsbytypecanbedividedintoFreiheitsstrafe,lifepunishment,propertypunishmentandqualificationspunishment.Theauthorfirstselectedprincipalpenaltytocompare,thenselectedthesametypeofpenaltiestocompare,i.e.Freiheitsstrafeasdetentionandimprisonment,propertypunishmentasfineandconfiscation.Thebiggestbreakthroughinthisarticleistocreatecomparabilitybetweendifferenttypesofpenalties,suchascomparisonofprobationandprisonpunishment,botharetwodifferentimplementationmodalitiesofimprisonment,onebelongingtoasentenceofimprisonment,theotherbelongingtoacommunitycorrectionobjects.Oneyearinprisonandthreeyearsimprisonmentandthreeyearsprobation,whichjudgmentislesssevere?Ialsohopethatthroughthisresearchwillhelpsolvetheproblem.Asforthecomparisonofdeathsentencewithreprieveandlifeimprisonmentisbetweendifferenttypesofpenalties,onebeingafreepenalty,anotherbeingalifepunishment.However,aftertheexpiryofthereprieve,therewillnotbeanactuallydeathsentence.Thissecondchapterisacomparisonstudyondetentionandimprisonmentpenalties.Theauthorfocusedonfourmajordifferencesofdetentionandimprisonmentthroughthemethodofinduction:theprisonpremises,forcedlabor,incentiveandpunishmenttreatment,likelihoodofrecidivism.Theauthorvisitsseveralsitesofdetentioncenter,anddidacomparativelawstipulatesresearch,foundthat:thespecialprovisionsindetentionsuchasnearexecution,homeauthority,arebasicallynotimplemented;whiletheforcedlaborfactor,suchaslaborconditions,laborjobs,workinghoursandthepossibilityofrecidivismindetention,isindeedconstitutemitigationthanimprisonment.Inaddition,theauthoralsocombinedthetreatmentofprisonersandtheprisonsdormitoryconditions,withinspectionandcomparison,andgivesthefinaldrawconclusionsthatdetentionislessseverethanimprisonment.Thisconclusionisalittleagainsttheproportionoffixed-termimprisonmentcontraryaccordingtothesection44incriminallaw.Andbringavarietyofconsiderations;theauthorobtainedapreliminaryestimatethepenaltyseverityreadingamountofdetentionshouldbeslightlylessthanthepenaltyofimprisonment.Thethirdchapterisacomparisonstudyonsuspendeddeathpenaltyandlifeimprisonment.Originallytheauthorshouldcomparedeathpenaltyandlifeimprisonment,butthevalueoflifeisfargreaterthanfreedom,sofromthispointofviewtheseverityofthedeathpenaltyiscertainlyfarheavierthanlifeimprisonment.Thisisobvious,withoutargument.Butdeathpenaltyhastwodifferentwaysofimplementation,Inadditiontoimmediateimplementationofthedeathpenalty,thereisdeathwithatwo-yearreprieve.Itisuncertainthatwhetherdeathwillactuallybeexecuted.Thenexactly,itisveryambiguousthedeathpenaltywithimmediateexecutionisheavierthanalifetimeimprisonment,butthedeathsentencewithareprieveonthecoordinatepositionofpenaltysystemisambiguous.Ifnotalegalpunishmentspecies,reprieveundeniablyholdsauniquepenaltyseverityamount.Anddeathpenaltywithreprieveisboundedinbetweentheimmediateimplementationofthedeathpenaltyandthelifetimeimprisonment.Butwhichofthetwoisclosertoreprovespenaltyseverityreadingamount,itwillneedtotakesomeeffortstodemonstrate.Theauthordividedthedifferentiatingfactorsofthedeathpenaltywithreprieveandlifeimprisonmentintotwocategories:onecategoryisonlyareprievecontents,andlifeimprisonmentdoesntaccordingtotheprovisions,suchaslifeimprisonmenthasnoprovisionscommutedtolimitation,nortosetreprieveperiod;secondcategoryisreprieveandlifeimprisonmenthasbothprovisionsbutthecontentisdifferent,suchastheforegoingprovisionsofcommutationandsignificantmeritoriousservices.Afterinvestigationandevaluation,afteradeathsentencewithreprieveincommutedtolifeimprisonment,theprovisionsofexecution,significantmeritoriousservice,recidivistsandtightseriousviolentcrimepenalty,reprieveperiod,allthesefouraspectsofdifferswiththeoriginallifeimprisonmentduringexecuting,alsothedifferenceislimited.Afterdetailedstudy,theauthorfoundthatexcludethedeterrentfactorsofreprieveperiod,theactualprisontermdiffersofdifferentkindsofdeathpenaltywithreprievehasagapofupto10yearsorlonger,whilethedeathpenaltyasawholeonlyhasagapof2yearsbetweenthelifeimprisonment.InsteadofsayingCriminalLawAmendment(Eight)wideningtheimprisonmentdisparitybetweendeathpenaltyandlifeimprisonment,itisrathertosaythattheAmendmentwidenedtheprisontermgapbetweendifferenttypesofthedeathpenaltywithreprieve.Thefourthchapterisacomparisonstudyonfineandconfiscationofpropertypenalty.First,theauthorfocusedontheapplicationformofthebothpenalty,andfound:confiscationofpropertyistobeappliedtogetherwiththeprincipalpenalty,andalwaysgotogetherwiththeheavierprincipalpenalty,whilefinecanbeimposedalongandaswellaswithprincipalpenalty.Punishedwithfinesalonggenerallyappearinthecaseoflessseriouspunishment,leavethejudgetochoosefromamaximumoffiveyearsinprison.Socomparedtofines,confiscationofpropertygenerallyonlyapplyinthecasesofmoreseriouscrimes.Butthephenomenonitselfcannotprovefineislessseverethanconfiscationpenaltyasanadditionalpunishment.Secondly,theauthorfocusedontheobjectandunitofmeasureofproperty.Fromliteralmeaning,itseemsthatfineistoaskthecriminaltopayacertainamountofmoney,whileforfeitureofpropertycanbetargetedeitherinmoneyorpropertyobjects.Butinfactwhenexecuted,ifacriminalissentencedtoconfiscationofpropertyistobeexecutedbyforfeituretherealpropertyorintellectualpropertyrightsetc.,thesepropertyrightsorrealpropertyshallbeconvertedintomoneythroughauctionorotherprocessbeforeturnedtothestatetreasury.Forcriminalswhoweresentencedtoafine,theycanalsogottheintellectualproperty,stockequity,omoneybyauctionandpaythesemoneyintotreasury.Therefore,thereisnodifferencebetweenthetwopenaltiesexecutionobject.Indeterminingthepropertyamount,thecriminallawdidnotformaspecifiedlimittothefine,consideringtheactualaffordabilityofcriminalsitismoredifficulttoaccomplishwhenitcomestoafinecostsky-highprice.Italsocontributedthemainreasonofthelowimplementationrateoffinesandconfiscationofproperty.Third,theimplementationofbothpenaltieswascompared.Finesimplementationperiodisinfinitelylong,evenuptothecriminalsrestlife.Andeventheconfiscationofallpropertyalsokeepscriminalsandtheirnecessarydependentslivingexpensesextent.Therefore,inmanycases,finesareheavierthantheconfiscationofproperty.Ofcourse,thisconclusionisnotentirelytruewheninthecaseofverywealthycriminals,finesorstillmaybelighterthanconfiscationofproperty.ChapterVisacomparisonstudyonsurveillanceanddeprivationofpoliticalrights.Thisisastudybetweenprincipalpenaltyandadditionalpunishment,andintersectionofpunishmentkindsbetweenFreiheitsstrafeandqualificationpenalty.Afterresearch,theauthorfoundthatdeprivationofpoliticalrightsusedasasinglepunishmentatthescopeismuchlargerthananadditionalscopethereof.Itsnolessthantheproportioninthescopeofsurveillanceanddetention.Deprivationofpoliticalrightsusedaloneisnodifferentwithotherprincipalpunishments,andthemaximumcanchoosetoapplywithcanbeuptofiveyearsinprison.Althoughthegeneralprovisionsofthecriminallawformdeprivationofpoliticalrightsanadditionalpunishment,butthespecificprovisionsofsub-ruleintheapplicationisexactlyasprincipalpenalty,whichoffersthedeprivationofpoliticalrightsandsurveillanceacomparableplatform.Theauthoranalysisfurtherin-depth,surveillanceislackofpunitivefactors.Afterestimationandanalysis,somepartsoftheimplementationofthesurveillanceconsistwithdeprivationofpoliticalrights.Injudicialpractice,surveillanceanddeprivationofpoliticalrightsmainlyperformbycommunitycorrectionsagencies-evenifboththeexecutivebodiesonlegislativerequirementsareslightlydifferent.Surveillanceanddeprivationofpoliticalrightstakerarelyanyrightsfromcriminals.Therefore,Ibelievethatdeprivationofpoliticalrightslighterthanthesurveillance,butthedifferenceofthetwoisverylimited.Thesixthchapterisacomparisonstudyonpenaltieswithandwithoutprobation.Accor