未决羁押折抵刑期的判断标准重构——基于实质关联性的立场  

On Judgment Criterion of Deducting Pretrial Detention from Term of Penalty:The Standpoint of Substantive Relevance

作　　者：张平寿 Zhang Pingshou

机构地区：[1]杭州师范大学沈钧儒法学院

出　　处：《复印报刊资料（刑事法学）》2022年第3期78-89,共12页criminal law

摘　　要：对于未决羁押折抵刑期的判断标准,当前理论与实践中主要存在程序关联说、事实关联说、综合关联说等路径主张。程序关联性折抵对于羁押条件的非限制性易造成实践中羁押权的滥用,有悖于刑期折抵的理论基础与实践,其所蕴含的权利事后救济理念亦与刑事法自由保障观相冲突。事实关联说则因判断标准模糊易引发刑期折抵的司法操作混乱,且可能导致刑事责任的不当加重,造成犯罪人无辜承担司法过错的不利后果。综合关联判断路径则对程序关联说和事实关联说的弊端兼而有之。对于未决羁押可否折抵刑期的判断,必须在厘清刑期折抵性质定位的基础上,秉持司法限缩与人权保障之立场,以定罪处刑事由与未决羁押是否存在因果实质关联为根据,既而得出妥当结论。About the judgment criterion of deducting pretrial detention from term of penalty,there are mainly some propositions such as theory of procedural relevance,theory of factual relevance and theory of comprehensive relevance in current theory and practice.The non-restriction of theory of procedural relevance to the conditions of detention easily leads to abuse of detention power in practice,and is contrary to the theoretical basis and practice of penalty deduction.The concept of right remedy in theory of procedural relevance also conflicts with the concept of freedom guarantee in criminal law.Theory of factual relevance is easy to cause judicial operation confusion of deduction of term of penalty because of the vague judgment standard,and may lead to the improper aggravation of criminal responsibility and cause the criminal to bear the adverse consequences of judicial fault innocently.The theory of comprehensive relevance has the disadvantages of both theory of procedural relevance and theory of factual relevance.The judgment on whether pretrial detention can be deducted from term of penalty must uphold the position of judicial restriction and human rights protection on the basis of defining the nature of deducting pretrial detention from term of penalty,and must be based on whether there is substantial causal relationship between cause of conviction and pretrial detention.

关 键 词：未决羁押 刑期折抵 程序关联 事实关联 实质关联 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]