论被害人事后承诺的法律效力  

On the Legal Effect of the Victim’s Subsequent Promise

作　　者：李蓉[1] 黄小龙 LI Rong;HUANG Xiao-long(School of Law,Xiangtan University,Xiangtan 411105,China)

机构地区：[1]湘潭大学法学院,湖南湘潭411105

出　　处：《西南政法大学学报》2021年第1期115-125,共11页Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重点项目“反腐败立法与科学的权力结构和运行机制研究”(14AZD013);湖南省研究生创新项目“我国监察法学学科构建的价值理念研究”(CX20200588);湘潭大学社科基金资助项目“刑事辩护40年被告人辩护权保障回顾与展望”(XDCX2020B041)。

摘　　要：刑法学界普遍认为被害人事后承诺无效,但这一观点在理论上和实践中都面临诸多挑战:在理论上存在被害人承诺效力时间界分科学性质疑、证成理由充分性质疑以及论域合理性质疑,在实践层面则存在与刑事立法规范、刑事政策精神和司法改革实际相违背的问题。承认被害人事后承诺的法律效力具有理论上的正当性,同时还具有化解矛盾、矫正社会治理过度刑罚化、优化司法资源配置、完善刑责解决机制等多重价值。在司法实践中,被害人事后承诺主要以犯罪阻却事由和刑罚从宽事由的形式产生相应的法律效果。In the criminal law field,it is generally believed that the victim’s post-commitment is invalid,but this viewpoint is faced with many challenges in theory and practice.In theory,the validity of the victim’s commitment can be divided into scientificity,reasonableness and justifiability.In practice,it deviates from the norms of criminal legislation,the spirit of criminal policy and the practice of judicial reform.While it has theoretical legitimacy to acknowledge the legal effect of the victim’s commitment after the event,which also has multiple values such as resolving conflicts,correcting the excessive punishment of social governance,optimizing the allocation of judicial resources,and perfecting the resolution mechanism of punishment responsibility.In judicial practice,the victim’s promise after the fact mainly produces the corresponding legal effect in the form of the obstruction for crime and leniency of punishment.

关 键 词：被害人承诺 事后承诺 犯罪阻却事由 刑罚从宽事由 

分 类 号：DF613[政治法律—刑法学]