论犯罪附随后果的限缩适用  

On the Limited Application of Collateral Consequences of Crime

作　　者：张恒飞 谷永超[1] ZHANG Heng-fei;GU Yong-chao(School of Law,Henan University,Kaifeng,Henan 475001)

机构地区：[1]河南大学法学院,河南开封475001

出　　处：《汕头大学学报(人文社会科学版)》2024年第11期23-31,94,共10页Journal of Shantou University(Humanities and Social Sciences Edition)

基　　金：河南省社科联项目“轻罪时代的犯罪附随性后果治理研究”(SKL—2024—250);四川省多元文化研究中心科研项目“法学视域下民族地区教育治理现代化及路径”(DYWHYJZX2422)。

摘　　要：基于犯罪附随后果的内容严厉性、功能惩罚性转向、深远不良影响以及与我国轻罪治理进程的不兼容,应当限缩其适用范围。犯罪记录作为犯罪附随后果适用的形式标准,是犯罪事实的客观记载、刑法规则的发动基础与刑事犯罪与治理研究的样本来源,不应也不能被消除,人身危险性作为犯罪附随后果适用的实质标准和社会防御的根据,人民法院应当依照犯罪分子的人身危险性大小,决定是否对其通过封存犯罪记录并配套犯罪记录有限查询制度来限缩犯罪附随后果的适用,以实现犯罪附随后果制度的价值复位和社会复归人员权利的保障。In light of the excessive severity of collateral consequences of crime,the punitive functional shift,profound adverse societal impacts,and incompatibility with China’s governance framework for minor offenses,their application should be restrictively narrowed.Criminal records,as the formal criterion for imposing collateral consequences,serve as objective documentation of criminal conduct,the legal basis for invoking criminal sanctions,and a critical sample source for criminological research.These records must not be expunged.Meanwhile,personal dangerousness constitutes the substantive criterion for applying collateral consequences and the foundation for social defense.Judicial authorities should determine whether to seal criminal records and implement a restricted query mechanism based on the personal dangerousness of offenders.This dual approach—preserving records as an institutional necessity while tailoring their accessibility to risk levels—enables the recalibration of collateral consequence regimes to align with their normative purpose of societal reintegration and rights protection for rehabilitated individuals.The proposed paradigm seeks to balance public security imperatives with the restoration of offenders'civil capacities through differentiated procedural safeguards.

关 键 词：犯罪附随后果 限缩适用 人身危险性 犯罪记录 无犯罪记录证明 

分 类 号：D914[政治法律—刑法学]