罚金刑的基底性批判——罚金刑执行难的另一种解读  

Thorough Animadversion to the Penal Fine

作　　者：高永明[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学刑事司法学院,北京100088

出　　处：《河北法学》2014年第10期73-80,共8页Hebei Law Science

基　　金：中国博士后科学基金资助项目;江苏省社会科学基金<基于民事赔偿的刑事责任研究>(13FXB006)的阶段成果

摘　　要：罚金执行难在我国是个公认的难题,尝试解决的方法较多但似乎效果都不佳。实际上,罚金执行难很大程度上是因罚金理念和其规定方式导致的。因而对罚金的基底性批判成为必要。我国罚金的设定方式以及无限额罚金的比例体现着从重处罚的倾向,罚金刑设定的逻辑简化为犯罪数额的有无以及财产的数量。罚金判决重走自由刑之"堆估"的老路,无法精准化计算数额的判决缺少了说服和执行力度。国外罚金的扩大适用是和受害之国家救助责任以及观念上财产权利从法权到人权的转变联系在一起的。从契约论的角度看,国家没有尽到保护公民的应有责任即不应从自己的不当行为中获利,罚金收取的正义性值得怀疑。从我国罚金的理念及现状来看,罚金完全脱离了其初始的补偿意义,补偿功能无从体现,罚金理应具有民事赔偿和刑事惩罚的双重功能。The penal fine enforcement is difficult all over the world. There are many ways to solve it but effect is little. Maybe the cause is the ideal and the setting way of the fine. So the criticism to fine is necessary. The setting way of fine and the proportion of unlimited fine reflect the tendency of heavier punishment. The logic of fines setting is the exist of the crinimal amount and the criminal quantity. The sencencement is short of persuasion because of lacking inaccurate count. The fines sentencement is on the way of evalution by heap again. The expansile application of the fine is related to the salvation liability of the country, and related to the conception from the rights of law to the human rights. From the view of contract theory, the country ought not to profit because the country doesn ＇t fulfil its responsibility, so the legitimacy is worth disbelieving. The penal fine has deviated its initial meaning from its reason and actuality,so the function of reparation can＇t be reflected, its function ought to be diploid with the function of civil amends and criminal punishment.

关 键 词：罚金刑 执行难 设定逻辑 国家补偿 国家责任 

分 类 号：DF612[政治法律—刑法学]