论中国的死刑缓期执行制度 作者：未知     时间：2018-01-19    来源：互联网

论中国的死刑缓期执行制度

OntheChinesePracticeofDeathSentence

WithASuspensionofExecution

Abstract

Toeliminatedeathsentencehasbecomeanirrevocablecourseintheworldtoday.Duetothetremendousimpactandproclamationbyhumanrightactivistsandorganizations,greateffortshavebeendedicatedtorestrictorreducethedeathsentencesintheregionswheresuchpracticeyetstillexists.Asoneofthecountriesthatstillfollowthepracticeofdeathsentence,China’scriminallawprovidesforathispunishment,wherebythepracticalsentencingandexecutionhavebeenlegallyreduced.InconsiderationofthelegalpracticeofChina,whichisquitenoteworthytotherelevantauthorities,thisarticleisdedicatedtoextensivestudiesofthehistoricalcauses,legalnatureofasuspendedexecution,moralstatusaswellasthepracticalapplicabilityofChina’spracticeofdeathsentence.Thefollowingconclusionsareobservedasaresult:deathsentencewithasuspendedexecutionisapracticeofcriminalpunishmentthathasbeenuniquelyinitiatedbyChina.Suchtypeofpunishmentwillpracticallyreduceandcontrolthecasesofexecution.Thispunishmentisneitheranindependentlawfulpunishmentnorasimplewayofdeathexecution.Chinastillneedstoimprovethespecificprovisionsonapplicabilityofthispunishment.

提要：

当今世界，死刑废止已成为不可扭转之势。在人权理念、人权组织的深刻影响和大力推动下，至今仍保留死刑的地区也在做着限制和减少死刑的努力。中国作为保留死刑的国家之一，其刑法中的死刑缓期执行制度，具有减少和控制死刑实际适用的法律功能，值得有关地区借鉴。论文阐述了中国死缓制度的由来，剖析了死缓制度的法律性质和价值定位，并就该制度的具体适用问题作了探讨。主要观点包括：死缓制度为新中国所独创的刑罚执行制度;死缓具有减少和控制死刑的实际功效;死缓既不是独立的刑种，也不是简单的死刑执行方法;中国的死缓制度在具体适用条件上存在一定的不足。

TomaintainortoeliminatedeathpunishmenthasbeenalastingcontroversyamongstthewesternacademicseversinceCesareBonesanaBecearia,thefamousItalianenlightenmentcriminologist,calledforaneliminationofdeathsentenceforthefirsttimeinhumanhistoryinhisimmortalworksOnCrimeandPunishmentpublishedin1764.Greateffortsarebeinggivennowtoabolishorrestrictdeathsentencingowingtothetremendousimpactsofhumanrightstheories,andtheappealoftheinternationalcommunity,particularlythehumanrightsorganizations.AccordingtoThe6thFive-YearReportofDeathPenaltyEnforcementandProtectionofRightsoftheCapitalPrisonersbytheDirectorGeneralofUnitedNation’sCommitteeofEconomyandSocialAffairs,thenumberofcountriesthathaveabandonedthedeathsentencingisonanincrease,comparedwithashrinkingnumberofthosethatgootherwiseandstillholdontothecapitalpunishmentpractice.Internationally,therefore,thereisapparentlyanirrevocabletrendtodeathpenaltyelimination.Inapoliticaladdressmadeatthe8thPlenarySessionofCCPin1956,Mr.LiuShaiqi,theformerChinesepresident,proclaimedsolemnlytotheworldthatChinawouldprogressivelyrestrictandcontrolthedeathsentencinginordertofinallyabolishthepractice.InconsiderationofthesignificantpoliticalaswellaseconomicchangesbothinandoutsideofChinaafterthefoundingofPRC,particularlyfollowingthereformandopening-upofChinatotheoutsideworld,therestillexistsquitealongwaytogobeforeacompleteabandonmentofthedeathpunishmentinChina,althoughithasnowbecomeasharedknowledgeoftheChineselegislators,judicialcirclesandacademicsthatdeathpunishmentbestrictlycontrolledandrestricted.UniquelyinitiatedinChina,thispunishmenthasnowbecomeanimportantpenalpracticeofChina,wherebydeathpunishmenthasbeenpracticallyandeffectivelyreducedandcontrolled.Thispenalpractice,reflectingChinesecharacteristics,hasbeenhighlycommendablebytheacademicsofothercountries.Therefore,studiesofthistypeofChinesepunishmentwillservetoprovidesignificantreferencesforthoseregionsthatstillmaintaindeathpenaltypracticetorestrictandcontrolstringentlythepracticalapplicationofthepractice.[page]

死刑存废问题，自意大利著名刑法启蒙思想家贝卡里亚于1764年在其不朽名著《论犯罪与刑罚》首倡死刑废止论以来，西方国家由此便展开了一场旷日持久的死刑存废之争。而在国际人权理念的深刻影响下，在国际社会尤其是国际人权组织的大力推动下，废除死刑、限制死刑的实践正如火如荼。根据联合国经济及社会理事会秘书长关于死刑和保护死刑犯权利的保障措施的执行第六个五年报告，目前成为废除死刑国家的比例得以保持，同时反对变革的保留死刑地区数目渐少，因而全世界朝着废除死刑方面发生的持续转变是比较显著的。可以说死刑废止运动已成为国际潮流。在中国1956年刘少奇就在党的“八大”所作的政治报告中庄严向全世界宣告：将通过减少和控制死刑，“逐步地达到完全废除死刑的目的。”然而，解放后尤其是改革开放以来，由于国内外政治、经济形势的变化，中国走向完全废除死刑的道路尚任重而道远，但严格控制和减少死刑，已成为中国立法、司法和学界的共识。而死刑缓期执行作为新中国独创而重要的一项刑罚制度，在实际减少和控制死刑的适用方面效果显著，成为中国特色刑罚制度的重要体现，亦为其他国家的学者所称道。研讨中国刑法上的死刑缓期执行制度，对于尚未废除死刑地区减少和严格控制死刑的实际适用有重要参考和借鉴意义。

Thisarticleispresentedwiththehighlightonthefollowingsectionsincludingthedetailedstudiesofthesubject.

论文分别从具体内容等几个层面展开论述。

I.HistoricalBackground

一、中国死缓制度的由来

AccordingtotheacademicsfromChinamainland,thepracticeofthispunishmentwasinitiatedinChinaatthepeakoftheMovementofCrackdownofCounter-Revolutionariesin1951,twoyearsafterthefoundingofPRC.ItisaveryspecialtypeofexecutionofdeathpunishmentthatisconsideredtobeapracticalinventionoftheChineseCommunistPartythenrepresentedbyMaoTse-Tung.

在中国大陆学界，一般认为死缓制度产生于1951年新中国成立之初的镇压反革命运动高潮中，是以毛泽东为代表的中国共产党人在实践的基础上创造出来的独树一帜的死刑执行制度。

Historically,thetermfirstappearedinResolutiononPenaltyExecutionoftheImperialistsinChineseSovietAreas,No.185thNoticeofCentralCommitteeofCommunistPartyofChinaissuedinNovember,1930.AccordingtotheResolution,deathsentencewithasuspensionofexecutioncouldbeappliedtopunishtheforeignenemies(外国人),namely,thesentencedprisonerswouldbeimprisonedandtheexecutionsuspendedforaperiodoftimethatwasnotthenspecified.Thispracticeofpunishment,applicableinspecifichistoricalsituationandstrategicallydesignedparticularlytofightagainsttheenemies,isobviouslydifferentfromtheprovisiononapplicationofdeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecutionthatisprescribedbytheCriminalLawofChinaintermsofthenature,purposeandapplicability.TheideaofadoptingthistypeofpunishmentisbelievedtohaveoriginatedfromaproposalmadebyChairmanMaoinMay,1951torevisetheResolutionoftheThirdNationalPublicSecurityConference.AccordingtoMao,“thosewhohavenotcommittedanyblooddebt,norhaveearnedseverepopularindignation,orwhowereseriouslydetrimentalbutwerenotthemostseverelydangeroustothenationalinterest,andthusdeserveadeathpenalty,shallbesentencedtodeathwithtwo-yearreprieve,andshallperformforcedlaborsothatwewillseeiftheyhavebeenproperlyreformed”.Theemphasisofthistypeofpracticethenadoptedwasattachedheavilyonthepoliticalstrategicaspectratherthanthelegalsignificance.Theapplicabilityofthispracticewassubsequentlyandgraduallyextendedtopunishembezzlers,warcriminals,counter-revolutionariesandcommoncriminals.ItwasnotastatutoryprovisionaswhatweunderstandtodayuntilSeptember30,1954,whentheCommissionofLegalAffairsoftheCentralPeople’sGovernmentlaunchedDraftPrinciples(Draft)forCriminalLawofPRC,withaspecificprovision(Article10thereof)onapplicationofthispunishment.Thisprovisionwascontinuedbyseveraldraftssubsequently.WiththeenactmentofCriminalCodein1979,itwasfinallydeclaredapenalprovisiontosubstitutethepreviousone.AccordingtoClause1ofArticle43thereof,“Deathpenaltyshallonlybeappliedtothecriminalsguiltyofthemostheinousandenormouscrimes.Iftheimmediateexecutionofacriminalpunishablebydeathisnotdeemednecessary,areprievematbepronouncedsimultaneouslywiththeimpositionofthedeathsentence,andcompulsorylaborisforcedtodeterminewhetherthecriminalsmendtheirdeeds”.TheCriminalCodesubsequentlyrevisedin1997hasfurtherimprovedthespecificationsonthispunishmentwithregardstotheapplicability,procedureofexaminationandapproval,post-reprieveprocess死缓考验期满后的处理,determinationoftheperiodofthereprieveandoftheperiodofimprisonmentofadeathcriminalcommutedtoafixedterm,etc..死缓减为有期徒刑的刑期计算.[page]

其称谓最早见于1930年11月中共中央通知第185号《关于苏区惩办帝国主义的办法的决议》。《决议》规定，对外国人可适用“死刑缓刑”，即判处死刑后，缓刑若干时期暂时监禁，而缓刑的期限则没有限制。这项政策本是特定历史条件下适用，具有明显的对敌斗争策略的性质，其与中国刑法中的死缓制度无论在性质、功能上，还是适用范围上都具有明显的不同。可认为其思想发端的是中国政府的毛主席于1951年5月针对《第三次全国公安会议决议》提出的修改意见，他提出，“对于没有血债，民愤不大和虽然严重地损害国家利益但尚未达到最严重的程度，而有罪该处死者，应当采取判处死刑，缓期二年执行，强迫劳动，以观后效的政策。”但这时的死缓仍具有浓厚的政治斗争策略色彩，而并没有明确地强调这一制度的法律意义。之后其适用范围逐渐扩大到贪污罪、战争罪犯、反革命罪和普通刑事犯罪。上升到今天法律意义上的死缓制度的规定，则是1954年9月30日中央人民政府法制委员会提出的《中华人民共和国刑法指导原则草案》(初稿)，该草案第10条规定的死缓制度，并为以后若干草案所延续。直至1979年刑法典第43条第1款明确规定：“死刑只适用于罪大恶极的犯罪分子。对于应当判处死刑的犯罪分子，如果不是立即必须执行的，可以判处死刑同时宣告缓期执行，实行劳动改造，以观后效。”其作为一项替代性刑罚措施得以最终确立。修订后的1997年刑法典对这一制度从死缓的适用条件、核准程序、死缓考验期满后的处理以及死缓考验期间的计算与死缓减为有期徒刑的刑期计算问题等方面作了进一步的完善。

Accordingtosomelawprofessionals,thispunishmentwasnotfirstinnovatedinChina,andsomearguedthatitwasstartedbyBritishlegislatorsandjuriesatatimemuchearlierthaninChina.Asasupporttothisargument,FortyYearsExperienceAsAForensicDoctor,anautobiographyofthefirstforensicprofessorofLondonUniversity,wastakentoshowthattherehadbeenfourcasesofdeathsentenceswithasuspensionofexecutionfrom1942toJuly,1949.Furthermore,itwasbelievedthatthetypesofdeathpenaltyappliedbyFrenchjuriesin1793includeddeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecution.AndsomewouldevenarguethatthispracticewasstartedlongbackinancientChina,andthatthepracticeofsentencingthejailedinautumnprevailinginMingandQingdynastieswasinfact,forinstance,anoldpracticeofthispunishment.DespitethefactthatthepracticeofsuspendedhangingordecapitationexecutioninancientChinamighthavereasonablycontributedtotheapplicationofthispunishment,orthatsomecasesofdeathexecutionofforeigncountriesmightsoundidenticaltothispunishment,webelievehowevertheCriminalLawofChina,innovativelyincludingthispracticeasastatutoryprovision,hasbeenwidelyrecognizedbyanumberofreputableforeigncriminologists.Morespecifically,thepracticeofsuspendedhangingordecapitationexecutioninancientChina’sMingandQingdynastieswas,inastrictsense,relativetotheinstantexecutionofhangingordecapitation,andthepracticeofsuspendedhangingordecapitationexecutioninancientChinaservedinfactasaprocedureofreviewingandexaminationofthedeathcasessentencedbycentralorlocalgovernment,andthefinaloutcomeofthesentencedcaseswastotallyirrelevanttothemendingofbehaviorsbythejailed.Theimplicationofthispunishmentoftodayprovidesnotonlyforareviewandexaminationofthesentences,butalso,mostimportantly,forthesubjectiveaswellasobjectivecircumstancesthatmakethispracticetotallydifferentfromthatofinstantexecution.AsforthecaseofLuoisof1793路易案,ashasbeenpreviouslycited,itwasjustaproposalofsuspendedexecution,which,asaspecialjudicialcase,wasnotdevelopedasastatutoryprovision.TheBritishRegistrationofDeathSentence死刑登记doesnotliterallymeanthatthispunishmenthasbeenestablishedasastatutoryprovisioninthecountry.Astheregistrationmayhaveindeedrestrainedtheappliedexecutionofthesentencedtocertainextent,itisstillfundamentallydifferentfromthepracticeofdeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecution.[page]

在学界，曾有学者认为，死缓制度不是新中国独创。其中有的论者指出，判处死缓的制度在英国的刑事立法、审判实践中的运用比中国早得多，并从英国伦敦大学第一位法医学教授的自传体著作《法医生涯四十年》中举出1942年至1949年7月间四起缓期执行的案例;有的论者认为在1793年法国当时在实际运用刑罚时已经有了死缓。有的论者则认为中国历史上早已有之，如明清两代的死囚监侯秋审制，就是古代的一种事实上的死缓制度。我们认为，无论是否从古代社会的绞监候和斩监候汲取了合理因素，也无论国外某些具体死刑执行措施具有死缓的某些特点，死缓作为一项具体的制度而被规定在刑法中，中国的刑法的确独树一帜，这一点也为不少国外著名的刑法学者所认同。因为严格地讲中国明清时期的斩监候、绞监候只是与斩立决、绞立决相对应的判决方式，实质上是对中央和地方所判处死刑案件的一种复核程序，最后的处理结果与犯罪人的悔改程度没有任何联系。而现代意义上的死缓制度，不仅包含了死刑复核的内容，更多地则是强调其具有不同于死刑立即执行的一系列主客观条件。至于前述所举的法国1793年路易案，只是有人主张应处死刑缓刑，但只是司法实践中的特殊情况，并没有上升为一种法律制度。而英国法律的“死刑登记”规定并不能表明英国已经确立了死缓制度。死刑登记尽管可能实际起到一定的限制死刑适用效用，但与死缓制度还相差甚远。

Inconclusion,theapplicationofthispunishment,whichservesasasignificantinstrumentforreductionofdeathpenaltyandsubstituteforthephysicalexecutioninnowadays,isundoubtedlyaninnovativeChinesewayofexecutionofdeathsentence.

因此，作为现代意义上限制死刑的重要举措、代替死刑实际执行的制度，死缓制度毫无疑问应是新中国所独创、独有而独树一帜的死刑执行制度。

II.StatusoftheApplicationofThispunishment

二、死缓制度的定位

1.EvaluationoftheApplication

(一)价值定位

Therehavebeencontradictingviewpointsamongsttheacademicsallaroundtheworldtodayasregardspracticalreductionofdeathexecutionasaresultofapplicationofthispunishment,andthenecessitytoadoptthispracticewhilekeepingdeathpenalty.

对于死刑缓期执行制度能否起到限制死刑实际适用的作用，以及在保留死刑的情况下是否有存在的价值，中外学者皆发表了不同意见：[page]

InJapan,somereputablecriminologistsproposethatJapanlearnfromtheChinesepracticeofthispunishmenttoimprovethetheirpracticeofdeathpenalty,whileothersareoftheopinionthatanymaneuverintendedtorestricttheexistingapplicabilityofdeathpenalty,whichhasbeenconductedwithduecareinreality,wouldleadtoavirtualabolishmentofdeathpenalty.Withinthepresentlegalscenario,asaresult,nothingcouldbereadilyavailabletorestricttheapplicabilityofdeathpenalty,exceptthatmorediligenceandgreatercareshallberequiredwhilehandlingthesentencingofthepenalty.

在日本，有些著名刑法学者建议借鉴中国的死缓制度以完善日本的刑法死刑制度，也有学者认为，现今的死刑适用极为慎重，在此基础上再限制死刑宣告，便等于实质上废除了死刑。因此在现行法下除应慎重判处死刑外，恐怕没有限制适用死刑之路可走。

ManyscholarsfromTaiwanofChina,includingProf.TsaiTun–Min蔡墩铭等教授,thefamouscriminologist,believethatthispracticeprescribedundertheCriminalLawofthemainland,somethingabsentinTaiwan’scriminallawpractice,deservesaspecialconsiderationforpracticalintroduction,becausethispunishment,suitedtotheindividualizationofcriminologicalpractice,willleadtoamoreflexibleoperationoftheexistingprovisionondeathpenalty.Thepracticeofthispunishmentinthemainlandisconsideredtoreflecttheessentialobjectivesofacriminallaw,andisbelievedtobehelpfulinminimizingtheafter-painofmis-judgedcases,softeningthecrueltyofadeathpunishment,promotingtheessenceofhumanitarianismandintransitioningtothefinalabandonmentofdeathpenalty.Someexpertswouldevensuggesttointroducethispracticefromthemainlandandhaveitreformedbymeansof,forexample,settingupacommissionforreviewingtheapplicationofthispunishment,andextendingtheperiodofareprievebyadditional2to7years,etc..AmajorityoftheMinistryofStatutoryAffairsofTaiwan台湾司法实务部门haveshownpositiveattitudetowardthissuggestion.AnopinionpollconductedbytheMinistryin1993showed63.1%ofthecommonpopulation,53%oftheelitecirclesand45.8%ofthejudicialpractitionerswerefortheintendedintroductionofthepracticeofthispunishmentfromthemainland.Thoseagainsttheproposalwouldclaimthatthispracticeofthemainlandwasalegalizedpoliticalinstrumentexpressedinabstractandambiguouswording,whichviolatedtheprincipleofjudgmentonapurelegalbasis违背罪刑法定主义,andthereforeshouldnotbetakentooserious.Inthemeantime,somewouldbelievethat,historically,thepracticeofthispunishmentcouldbetakenasalegalizationofthepoliticalinstrument,whichpurportedtoserveasapolicyofmollificationtakentohandlethecounter-revolutionariesunderaparticularpoliticalsituationimmediatelyfollowingthefoundingofPRC.Theywouldargue,moreover,thattheprovisiononthispunishment,whenexpressedmostlyinabstractandgeneralterms,wouldrendertheapplicationsubjective.Asaresult,itwoulddeserveadoublechecktoensurethattheprovisionbeworkedoutintheprincipleofjudgmentonapurelegalbasis,andthatthegoodfaithimpliedthereinbeproperlymaintained.是否会违背罪刑法定主义，是否会使其原来的立法美意丧失殆尽[page]

在中国台湾，著名刑法学者蔡墩铭等教授认为，大陆刑法规定死缓为台湾刑法所无，故特别值得重视，认为死缓符合刑罚个别化之要求，更能灵活运用现有死刑制度，为可以考虑采行之办法;有的学者对大陆死缓制度的优点概括为符合刑罚之本质与目的、减少误判之后遗症、缓和死刑之残酷性、发挥人道主义之精神、作为废止死刑之过渡形式;有的学者甚至提出吸收大陆死缓制度，并予以改革，如设置死缓审查委员会、死缓制度的缓期执行期间可延长2至7年，等等。台湾司法实务部门对此持赞成态度也占多数。“法务部”曾在1993年进行过一次民意调查，调查显示一般民众对将来引用大陆死缓制度问题，有63.1%表示赞同;在社会精英中，有53%赞同;司法官中有45.8%表示赞同。亦有反对者认为，大陆死缓制度是政治手段的法律化，大陆死缓制度条文上使用语意抽象的词语，违背罪刑法定主义，对死缓制度不应有过高的期待。如有的论者认为，“从其产生的历史背景来看，可以说是政治手段的法律化，完全是针对当时解放初期政治局势下对反革命分子的一种怀柔。”“死缓制度在条文中大量使用一些用语抽象概括的用字，势必会沦为主观，如此以来，是否会违背罪刑法定主义，是否会使其原来的立法美意丧失殆尽，颇值得深思。”

Inthemidandlate1950s,therewasaheateddebateinChinamainlandaswell.Theargumentsofthoseinsupportoftheremovalofthispunishmentmainlyincluded:(1)Thepoliticalsituationwherebythispunishmentwasinitiatedhadchanged.Inthespiritofleniencyunderthenewcircumstances,long-termorlifeimprisonmentwouldnowbecomeapplicabletothecounter-revolutionariespreviouslypunishablebythispunishment.Thepracticeofthispunishmentbecameunnecessaryasaresult.(2)Thispunishmentwouldcauseexcessivementalpressureonthesentencedprisoners,whichwasnohumanitarian.(3)Itwouldbeironicaltoapplythispunishmenttothecriminalspunishablebydeathjusttoshowhumanitarianism.(4)Asthecriminalsmustbepenalizedproperlywiththepunishmentpreciselyfitforthecrimes,thepracticeofthispunishmentwouldconstitutecertainoperationaldifficultiesbecausethispunishment,fallingwithinthecategoryofdeathsentence,meanssomethinguncertainthatexistsbetweendeathorlife但又介于死与不死之间，显得不稳定.(5)Uponexpirationoftwo-yearsofreformthroughforcedlabor,someofthecriminalssentencedtodeathwithasuspensionofexecutionaresubsequentlycommutedtoatermedjail,whichisinfactlighterthanalifeimprisonment.Thisaccountsforthereasonwhysomecriminalssentencedtolifeimprisonmentwouldasktochangeforthispunishment.Theargumentsofthoseinsupportofthecontinuationofthispunishmentinclude:(1)Changeofpoliticalsituationdoesnotpreventcontinuationofthepracticeofthispunishment.(2)Thispunishmentshallnotbesubstitutedwithlifeorlong-termedimprisonment.Thepracticeofasuspendedexecutionworksverywellsincenotmanyofthecriminalssentencedtodeathwithasuspensionofexecutionarephysicallyandsubsequentlyexecuted.(3)Reflectingaspiritofleniency,thispunishmentisnotanindependenttypeofpunishment.Andleniencyisnotrecklesslygranted,forstringentpreconditionsarealsoprescribedsimultaneously.(4)Thepracticeofthispunishmentisresponsiveinallrespectstothecallofhumanitarianism.(5)Duringthephysicaloperationofthepractice,theremayexistcertainissuesthataretobeseparatelyaddressed.Theseissuesshallnotbetakenhoweverasanexcusetorepudiatethepractice,asonedoesnotgiveupeatingforfearofchoking.[page]

在中国大陆上个世纪50年代中后期也曾发生过激烈的争论，死缓制度废除论者的理由主要是：(1)提出死缓的政治形势有了变化，在新形势下按实行宽大政策的精神，过去适用死缓的反革命分子，都变为适用长期徒刑或无期徒刑的对象，死缓制度已没有继续存在的必要;(2)死缓对犯罪分子精神压力过大，不符合人道主义;(3)对必须判处死刑的人适用死缓是无原则的谈人道主义;(4)对于罪犯在适用刑罚时，应当力求准确、稳当和罪刑相适应，死缓属于死刑范畴，但又介于死与不死之间，显得不稳定，审判人员在具体掌握上有一定困难;(5)判处死缓的人，经过二年劳动改造后，有的减为有期徒刑，实际上比判无期徒刑还轻，因而有些被判处无期徒刑的犯人要求判处死缓。保留论者则认为：(1)政治形势的变化不影响继续保留死缓制度;(2)死缓不能用无期徒刑或者长期徒刑来代替，被判处死缓的结果是执行死刑的不多，正说明了死缓制度收到了很好的效果;(3)死缓并非独立刑种，死缓体现了宽大，但并非是宽大无边，有严格的条件限制;(4)死缓制度完全符合人道主义精神;(5)死缓在实际执行中，即使存在个别问题，而且另需裁定，但都不能因此作为否定死缓制度的根据，不应因噎废食。

Practiceistheonlywaytotestthetruth.ApplicationofthispunishmentwasexpresslyspecifiedforthefirsttimeintheCriminalCodein1979,andwasimprovedintherevisedCodesin1997.Thishasgivenagreatcredittosubstantiatetheactualeffectsofthepracticewhenapplied.Particularly,consideringthefactthattherearequitemanycrimespunishablebydeathaspertheChineseCriminalCode,theapplicationofthispunishment,whenproperlyconducted,hasbeengenerallydeemedtobeanimportantinstrumentforrestrictionandreductionoftheapplicabilityfordeathsentencing.Itisnoeasytocreateandlaunchanewsystemofpractice,letaloneinheritanceoflawsofadifferenthistoricalbackground.ThereforewehavegoodreasonstokeepondevelopingandimprovingtheapplicationofthispunishmentsouniquelyinnovatedbythesocialistChina,insuchamannerastoadapttothechangesofthenewera.Theproperattitudeshallnotbearecklessrepudiationofthepunishment,instead,weshallmakeunremittingeffortstoimprovethepracticetoenableChinatovirtuallyabandondeathsentencingandabolishthestatutoryprovisionforsuchsentence,andtofinallymakeChinaacountryvirtuallyfreeofdeathpenalty.Therefore,itisgroundlesstorepudiatethenecessarycontinuationofthepracticeofthispunishmentontheexcuseofachangedhistoricalbackground,aviewpointheldbytheabovementionedscholarsfromTaiwanaswellasthosefromthemainland.Accordingtorelevanthistoricalrecords,asamatteroffact,thispunishmentwasappliedtocriminalsofmanyothercrimes,andnotjusttothecounter-revolutionaries,evenintheyearsimmediatelyafterthefoundingofPRC.Forinstance,itwasappliedtowarcriminals,counter-revolutionariesandcommoncriminals,accordingtotheResolutiononGrantingSpecialAmnestytotheTrulyReformedCriminals,passedonthe9thSessionoftheSecondNationalPeople’sCongressconvenedonSeptember17,1959,aswellastheWritofSpecialAmnestysubsequentlydecreedbyLiuShaoqi,thenthepresidentofthecountry.[page]

“实践是检验真理的唯一标准”。死缓制度自首次被明确规定在1979年刑法典中，至1997年修订后的刑法典对之加以完善，以其适用的实际效果显示出强大的生命力，尤其是在中国刑法典死刑罪名较多的情况下，死缓制度的恰当运用被普遍认为是限制、减少死刑适用的重要制度保障。我们认为，一项制度的创设来之不易，不同历史类型下的法律制度尚存在法律继承问题，作为中国社会主义国家所独创的死缓制度更应该在新的时代背景下，不断地予以发展、完善，为中国走向事实上废除死刑乃至完全废除死刑立法，使中国成为事实上废除死刑的国家而作坚实的铺垫，这才是我们应有的态度，而不是简单地否定。因而如上述台湾部分学者以及大陆对死缓持否定态度的学者以死缓制度的提出背景与时代发展变化不同而否定死缓制度继续存在必要的观点是站不住脚的。事实上，根据有关史料，即便是在建国初期，死缓制度的适用范围也已经扩大到除反革命犯罪之外的其他类型的犯罪。如我们可以从1959年9月17日第二届全国人大常委会第九次会议上通过的《关于特赦确实改恶从善的罪犯的决定》以及刘少奇主席发布的特赦令可以明确地看到，当时死缓的适用对象已经包括战争罪犯、反革命罪犯和普通刑事罪犯。

AstheChinesepracticeofthispunishmentpurportstopunishaswellaseducatethecriminals,whichistheessentialpurposeofapenalty,andenrichesthepracticeofdeathsentencewithimmediateexecutionwithamake-upofeducationalinstrument,itwillbetterservethepurposesofspecialpreventionaswellasgeneralpreventionascomparedwiththepracticeofdeathsentencewithimmediateexecution.Aslongasdeathpenaltyisapplicable,itwillbemorehumanitariantofollowthepracticeofthispunishment.Retributively,thispracticewillservetoreasonablyweakenthesocialreactions.WhereitisnotyetagoodtimetoabolishdeathpenaltyinChinatoday,itwillbeajustifiedeffortforustotakeintofullaccountofthechangedcircumstancesoftheneweraandredefinethetheoreticalbasisforthepracticeofthispunishment,soastoenhancetheapplicabilityofthepracticeandtotakeanactiveroletoattendtotheoperationalissuesinanattempttoformulateaperfectpracticeassuch.

[page]

我们认为，中国的死缓制度因循了惩罚与教育这一刑罚本质，并且弥补了死刑立即执行在刑罚教育功能上的欠缺，其相比死刑立即执行更能发挥一般预防与特殊预防的目的;在保留死刑的前提下，可以较为充分地表达人权观念;从刑罚报应的立场，其具有合理淡化社会反应的功效。因此在中国目前废止死刑尚不适宜的情况下，在新的时代条件下如何对死缓制度的理论基础进行重新阐释，进一步扩大死缓制度的生存、发展空间，并积极研讨死缓制度适用中的问题使之臻于完善，才是我们努力的方向。

2.DeterminationoftheNature

Howtodeterminethenatureofthepracticeofthispunishment?Whatistherelationbetweenthispracticeandthedeathpenalty?Theanswerstothesequestionsrelatetothefutureoftheapplicationofthispunishment

(二)性质定位

如何看待死缓的性质?死缓与死刑的关系是什么?这是关乎死缓制度命运前途的重大问题。

(1)IsThisPunishmentAnIndependentKindofPenalty

ThecriminologistsofmainlandChinagenerallybelievethatthispunishmentisnotanindependenttypeofpenalty,and,fallingwithinthescopeofdeathpenalty,itisaspecificmeansofenforcementofdeathsentence.However,someothersarguethatitshallbetakenasanindependenttypeofpenaltyforthemainreasonsasfollows:(1)TodeemthispunishmentasameansofenforcementofdeathpenaltywillcreatecontradictionsintheCriminalCode.AccordingtotheChineseCriminalCodeenactedin1979,deathpenaltyshallnotbeimposedonpersonswhohavenotreachedtheageof18atthetimethecrimeiscommitted,itisspontaneouslyspecifiedthatthispunishmentcanbeimposedonthepersonswhohavereachedtheageof16andnotyet18atthetimeanextremelyseriouscrimeiscommitted.Asameansofenforcementofdeathpenalty,thispunishmentmustbeestablishedonthepreconditionofdeathpenalty.Accordingtotheaforesaidprovision,however,nodeathpenaltyshallbeimposedonthejuvenilecriminals,whiledeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecutioncanbeimposableasperthesameprovision.Whatisthebasisofimpositionofthispunishmentthenspecifiedtherein?(2)Essentialdifferencesexistbetweenthispunishmentanddeathpenalty(immediateexecution),so,totreatthispunishmentasanindependenttypeofpunishmentwillnotincreasethecasesofdeathexecutioninpractice.(3)Totreatthispunishmentasanindependenttypeofpenaltyandcategorizeitinbetweenthedeathpenaltyandlifeimprisonmentwillhelptobuildupamorereasonablepenaltysystemandtoreducethetypesofcrimespunishablefordeathpenalty.[page]

1.死缓是否独立的刑种

在中国大陆刑法学界，一般认为，死缓并非独立的刑种，其隶属于死刑，只是死刑的一种具体执行制度。但也有的论者提出，死缓应作为独立的刑种，理由主要有：(1)把死缓作为死刑的执行制度使刑法典内部规定存在矛盾。中国1979年刑法典规定，犯罪时不满18岁的人不适用死刑，同时又规定，已满16岁不满18岁的人，如果所犯罪行特别严重，可以判处死缓。既然死缓是死刑的一种执行制度，它必须以死刑为前提，既然以死刑为前提，则上述规定一方面规定未成年人犯罪不判处死刑，另一方面又可以判处死缓，那么这里的死缓以什么为依存?(2)死缓和死刑(立即执行)有着质的不同，将死缓独立出来作为独立的刑种不会增加司法实践中死刑的执行。(3)将死缓作为独立刑种，排列于死刑与无期徒刑之间，使刑罚体系更加合理，而且更有助于减少死刑罪名。

Thefirstreasonstatedasaboveattackstheweakestpointofthe1979provisiononapplicationofthispunishment.Logically,acontradictiondidexistwhenspecifyingthatjuvenilecriminalsshouldnotbesentencedtodeathononehand,whiledeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecutionwasimposableontheotherhand.ThisconfusionhasbeenhowevereliminatedaspertheprevailingCriminalCodepassedin1997.Thereexistcommonpointsaswellasdifferencesbetweenthispunishmentanddeathpenalty(immediateexecution).However,takingbothastypesofpenalty,wewillfindthatcommonpointsoutweighthedifferences:theuncertaintyoflegalconsequencesofthispunishmentexistsduetothedifferenttypesofexecutionofthepunishment(therearethreelegalconsequencesuponexpiryofthereprieveinthecaseofdeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecution:deathexecution,commutationtolifeimprisonment,andcommutationtoatermedimprisonment).Whereaspecifictypeofpunishmentisapplied,specificlegalconsequencewillbegeneratedwithspecificexecutionofpenaltyonthecriminal.Thecertaintyofthelegalconsequencesiscloselyrelatedwiththecertaintyofthetypeofpunishmentimposed,althoughimpositionofaspecifictypeofpunishmentmaybesubjecttodeterminationofthejudgestocertainextent.尽管刑罚本身通常具有一定的幅度可供法官自由裁量.Thisrelativeuncertaintyjustrelatestothescopesoftheexecutionitself,andisimmediatelyrelevanttothetypeofpunishment.Thelegalconsequencesofdeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecution,however,reflectsomethingmuchmorethanthetypesofpunishment.Therefore,itisfundamentallyinappropriatetotreatdeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecutionatypeofpunishment.[page]

应当说，上述第一条理由所指出的问题是1979年刑法典关于死缓制度规定的一个“硬伤”，在未成年人不应判处死刑但可以判处死缓的规定上，确存在逻辑上的矛盾之处，但这一问题已为现行的1997年刑法典所克服。尽管死缓与死刑(立即执行)相比，具有共同点，也具有不同点，但如果从作为刑种的角度考察，二者的共性大于特殊性、相同点多于不同点：死缓的法律后果具有实际执行不同刑种的不确定性(死缓考验期满的法律后果有三种：执行死刑、减为无期徒刑、减为有期徒刑);而对于特定的刑种而言，对犯罪分子判处不同的刑罚类别，都将产生相应特定的法律后果，这种结果的确定性都是与所适用刑罚本身的确定性紧密联系在一起的，尽管刑罚本身通常具有一定的幅度可供法官自由裁量，但这种相对不确定性只是就刑罚幅度而言，没有超离刑种本身，但死缓的法律后果却超越了不同的刑种。因此死缓不具备作为刑种应当具有的基本条件。

(2)IsThisPunishmentAMeansofExecutionofDeathPenalty

2.死缓是否死刑的执行方法

Somescholarsbelievethatdeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecutionisameansofexecutionofdeathsentence.Tothisbelief,thereexistsomecriticism.Sincethetalkofameansofexecutionofadeathpenaltywouldbemorespecificallyfocusedonsuchexecutablemeansasshooting,injection,hangingorgasification施毒气.Asinthecaseofadeathpenalty,noexecutionisenforcedaslongasthelifeofthepersontobepenalizedhasnotyetbeendeprivedof.Somescholarsbelievethatthispunishmentisoneofthemeansofdeathpenaltyexecution,aftermakingaliterallycorrespondingstudyof“withatwo-yearreprieve”and“deathsentenceforimmediateexecution”.Butthetwoarenotsomuchcorresponsivetoeachother.Thedifferenceisnotjustatimingorderofexecution,forthelegalconsequencesofdeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecutionaretwo-sided,namelycapitalpunishmentvspunishmentagainstfreedom,whichdisqualifiesthispunishmentasanexecutablemeansofdeathpenalty.Webelievethatthelatterisacorrectpointofview.Intermsofdeterminationofthelegalnature,thispunishmentisaspecificsystemofenforcement,ratherthananexecutablemeans,ofdeathpenalty.[page]

在学界有一种观点认为，死缓是死刑的一种执行方法。有的学者对此作了批评，指出人们谈及死刑的执行方法时，往往是就死刑具体采用枪决，还是注射、绞刑、施毒气等而言的。对于死刑这种刑罚来讲，未剥夺受刑人的生命，就不能叫作执行死刑。从对应性上看，有的学者是从“缓期两年执行”与“死刑立即执行”相对应的角度来说明死缓是死刑的执行方法之一，但二者实际上并不完全对应，因为这二者不是单纯执行时间先后的问题，而是死缓具有生命刑与自由刑法律后果的两重性，因而死缓不可能是执行死刑的一种方法。我们认为后一种观点是正确的，在法律性质定位上，死缓属于死刑的具体执行制度，但不能说是死刑的一种执行方法。

(3)DeathSentenceWithASuspensionofExecutionDiffersFromProbation

3.死缓不同于缓刑

Eversincetheestablishment,practiceofprobationhasbeenhighlyappreciatedbythecountriesaroundtheworld,becausethispracticepeelsofftheimperfectionsofshort-termpunishmentagainstfreedom,andhighlightstheeconomicandsocialaspectsofpunishmentimposablenowadays符合现代社会行刑经济化、社会化思潮之特点.Theprobationpracticecurrentlyadoptedbythecountriesincriminallawsmainlyconsiststhreetypes:suspendedannouncementofpunishment,suspendedexecutionofpunishmentandsuspendedprosecution.InChineseCriminalLaw,probationmeanssuspendedexecutionofpunishment.AccordingtothispracticeofChina,suspendedexecutionofpunishmentwithacertainperiodofreprieveisimposableonthecriminalsentencedtolessthan3yearsofimprisonmentortodetention,subjecttothejudges’determinationofthecrimecommittedandcriminal’sactofrepentance,wherebytemporarilysuspendedexecutionoftheoriginalsentenceisdeterminednottoconstitutearealdangertothesociety.Inaddition,theoriginalsentencewillnotbeexecutableprovidedthatthecriminalhasnotcommittedanynewcrimewithintheperiodofprobation,norhasbeenfoundtohaveevadedfromamissedcountofguilt或者未被发现漏罪,norhasviolatedthelaws,regulationsorrelevantrules.Theoriginalsentenceisnotexecutedtemporarilybasedoncertainconditionsandremainsexecutableinbothcasesofprobationanddeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecution.Inthisregard,bothpracticesareidenticaltoeachother.Notwithstandingtheaforesaidcommonpoint,thedifferencesaregenerallybelievedtobepredominant,inthefollowingmajoraspects:(1)Theydifferinapplicableconditions.Applicationofdeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecutiondependsonthedeathpenaltyimposedonthedoer,whiletheapplicabilityofsuspendedexecutionofpunishmentonthesentenceofthedoertodetentionoratermedimprisonmentoflessthanthreeyears.(2)Theydifferinthemeansofexecution.Thesentencedcriminalpunishableforasuspendedexecutionofthepunishmentwillnotbelockedupandwillbeonprobationunderthesupervisionbythepublicsecurityauthority.Thecriminalpunishabletodeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecutionmustbeimprisonedandenforcedtoaccepteducationandreformthroughlabor.(3)Theydifferintheperiodofreprieve,Theperiodofreprieveistwoyearsfordeathsentencewithsuspensionofexecution,whilethatforsuspendedexecutionofpunishmentshallbedeterminedinviewofthesentencedtypeofpunishmentandthesentencedterm.(4)Theydifferinthelegalconsequences.Thelegalconsequencesfordeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecutionwillbeeitherexecutionofdeathpenaltyorcommutation(includingcommutedtolifeimprisonmentandatermedjail),whilethoseforsuspendedexecutionofpunishmentwillbenon-executionoftheoriginalpunishment;orrevocationofthesuspendedexecutionofpunishmentforacombinationofprecedingcrimeandthesubsequentcrimeintheprincipleofjoinderofpunishmentsforpluralcrimes,orimprisonmentasanexecutionoftheoriginalpunishment.[page]

由于缓刑具有避免短期自由刑弊端、符合现代社会行刑经济化、社会化思潮之特点，自创立以来倍受各国的青睐。目前，各国刑法规定的缓刑主要有刑罚暂缓宣告、刑罚暂缓执行合缓予起诉三种。中国刑法中的缓刑属于刑罚暂缓执行，是指法院对于被判处3年以下有期徒刑、拘役的犯罪分子，根据其犯罪情节和悔罪表现，认为暂缓执行原判刑罚确实不致再危害社会的，规定一定的考验期，暂缓刑罚的执行，若犯罪分子在考验期内不再犯罪，或者未被发现漏罪，或者没有违反法律、法规及有关规定，原判刑罚就不再执行的制度。死缓与通常的缓刑都是有条件地暂不执行原判刑罚，而保留执行的可能刑，在这一点上，二者是相同的。但中国学界一般认为，二者的不同点是主要的，具体表现在：(1)适用前提不同。死缓的适用，以行为人被处死刑为前提;缓刑以行为人被判处拘役、3年以下有期徒刑为前提。(2)执行方法不同。对于被宣告缓刑的犯罪分子不进行关押，由公安机关负责考察;对被宣告死缓的人，必须予以关押，并实行劳动改造。(3)考验期限不同。死缓的考验期为2年;而缓刑的考验期，必须依所判刑种和刑期而确定。(4)法律后果不同。死缓的法律后果是：或者执行死刑，或者减刑(包括减为无期徒刑和有期徒刑);缓刑的法律后果则是：或者原判刑罚不再执行，或者撤消缓刑，把前罪与后罪所判处刑罚，按照数罪并罚的规定处理，或者收监执行原判刑罚。

III.LegalProvisionandApplicationofDeathSentenceWithASuspensionofExecutioninChina

三、中国死缓制度的法律规定与司法适用

1.ApplicableConditions

AccordingtoArticle48oftheCriminalCode1997,twopreconditionsmustbedulymetbeforethispunishmentbecomesapplicable:firstly,thecrimecommitteddeservesadeathpenalty,namely,acrimepunishablebydeath;secondly,animmediateexecutionisnotdeemednecessary.Furthertothesecondprecondition,withreferencetothelegalpractices,animmediateexecutionshallbedeemedunnecessaryunderthefollowingcircumstances:afteracrimehasbeencommitted,thecriminalsurrendershimselftojustice,orperformsmeritoriousservices,orotherlegallyrecognizedcircumstances;oranordinarilywell-behavedpersonhascommittedincidentallyanextremelyseriouscrimeoutofacriminalmotivethatisnotexceptionallyvicious;orthevictimispartiallyblamable,andthedefenderisnotblamableforalltheconsequences;oracrimehasbeencommittedbythedoerinastateofpassionoroutofrighteousindignation;orincaseofajointoffense,thecriminal,thoughoneoftheprincipaloffenders,hasnotcommittedthemostseriousoffense;orthecriminalhasanintelligentdeficiencyorhasasituationworthyofasympathy,etc..其他令人怜悯情节的，等等[page]

(一)适用条件

根据1997年刑法典第48条的规定，适用死缓必须符合两个条件：其一，罪该处死，即应当判处死刑;其二，不是必须立即执行。结合司法实践，一般将以下情况视为“不是必须立即执行”的情形：犯罪后自首或者有立功表现的或者有其他法定任意情节的;平时表现较好，犯罪动机不十分恶劣，因偶然原因犯了特别严重罪行的;被害人一方有一定过错，责任不全在被告人的;行为人出于激情、义愤而实施犯罪的;在共同犯罪中虽是主犯之一，但不具有最严重罪行的;罪犯智力不健全的或有其他令人怜悯情节的，等等。

Thechallengestojudicialpracticeinclude:thelegalprovisionoftheCriminalLawof1979onthepreconditionsforapplicationofdeathpenaltywasrevisedin1997,namely,“Deathpenaltyshallonlybeappliedtothecriminalsguiltyofthemostheinousandenormouscrimes”,aswasprescribedunderArticle43oftheCriminalLawof1979,wasrevisedtoread“Thedeathpenaltyshallonlybeappliedtocriminalswhohavecommittedextremelyseriouscrimes.”Itisworthyofacarefulconsiderationtodeterminetheessentialdifferenceaftertherevision,thepurposeoftherevision,whetherornottherevisionmaycarryamorescientificandimprovedexpressionascomparedwiththepreviouswording.Weunderstandthat“guiltyofthemostheinousandenormouscrimes”,ashasbeenwordedin1979,isnotsostrictlyalegalphrasingindeed,whichwereliterallyambiguousandincompatibleexpressionsthatshouldbeavoidedinalegalinstrument.Itisnotgoodeithertorephraseitas“committedextremelyseriouscrimes”,however.Thewording“committedextremelyseriouscrimes”prescribedhereinshallbeconstruedtoincludetwoimportantaspects,namely,theobjectivelyhazardousnatureoftheoffenseandthesubjectivelymaliciousintentionofthedoer,aswellasthehazardousimpactsonhumanbody.

司法实践面临的问题是：1997年刑法在作为死缓适用前提的死刑条件法律表述上对1979年刑法作了修改，即由1979刑法第43条的“死刑只适用于罪大恶极的犯罪分子”改为“死刑只适用于罪行极其严重的犯罪分子”。这一修改有无实质性的变化?修改的初衷是什么?是否修改后的表述就比修改前的表述更加科学、完善?值得思考。我们认为，1979刑法中的“罪大恶极”一词确非严格的法律术语，存在着含义不明、用语不够严谨的弊端，需要修改，但将之修改为“罪行极其严重”并不妥当。实际上对这里的“罪行极其严重”仍应理解为包括犯罪行为的客观危害性及行为人的主观恶性与人身危险性都极其严重两个方面。[page]

2.Post-ReprieveProcess死缓期满后处理

(二)死缓期满后处理

ThefollowingprovisionsweremadeintheCriminalLawof1979inrespectoftheprocessuponexpiryofthereprievefordeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecution:“ifthecriminalhasbeentrulyreformed,thispunishmentshallbecommutedtolifeimprisonmentuponexpirationofthetwo-yearreprieve.Ifthecriminalhasbeentrulyreformedandperformedmeritoriousservice,thispunishmentshallbecommutedtofixedtermimprisonmentofnotlessthan15yearsbutnotmorethan20yearsuponexpirationofthetwo-yearreprieve.Ifitisverifiedthatthecriminalresistsreformationinamaliciousmanner,thedeathpenaltyshallbeexecuteduponverificationorexaminationandapprovaloftheSupremePeople’sCourt.”

1979年刑法典对死缓期满后的处理作了如下规定：如果确有悔改，二年期满以后，减为无期徒刑;如果确有悔改并有立功表现，二年期满以后，减为15年以上20年以下有期徒刑;如果抗拒改造情节恶劣、查证属实的，由最高人民法院裁定或者核准，执行死刑。

Inlogic,thisprovisionisverypoorlyestablished.Itdoesnotexpresslyspecifyhowtoproceedwiththosecriminalswhohavenotbeenproperlyreformed,orwhohavenotbeenproperlyreformednorperformedanymeritoriousservices,butwhohavenotresistedthereformationeithernorperformedanyparticularlywickedbehaviors.Asamatteroffact,therearealargenumberofcasesofcriminalswhohavenotbeensubjectivelyreformed,orhavenotacceptedreformationwithcareanddiligence,orhavenotobviouslyresistedthereformation,orhaveresistedreformationbuthavenotcreatedseriousconsequences.Suchcasesaregenerallycommutedtolifeimprisonment,whichcommutationsoundspracticallyreasonablebutgroundlessasperlaw.FromChineselegislativeandjudicialpointofview,moreover,havingmeritoriousormajormeritoriousservicesrefersheavilytoquiteanobjectivecircumstance,whichcanbeaddressedonacase-by-casebasis,andthesignificanceofhavingbeenproperlyreformedreferstoasubjectiveandideologicalmatter.Since,epistemologically,thissignificanceisdemonstrableandcognizablethroughspecificbehaviorsofthedoer,itwouldnotbefullydemonstrated,however,withoutlastingorconsistentpatternofbehaviorofthedoer.Therefore,onespecificcountofmeritoriousserviceofacriminalshallnotbetakenasarepresentationofhisbeingtrulyreformed.Inaddition,ameritoriousservicedoesnotnecessarilymeanacompletereformation,althoughthesetwobehavioralpresentationsdonotfighteachotheringeneralcircumstances.Accordingtothelogicsstatedasabove,thisprovisionwillnotbeapplicabletothecriminalwhohavenotbeenproperlyreformedbuthaveperformedmeritoriousservices.Inconsiderationoftheaforesaid,Article50oftherevisedcriminallawhasspecifiedtwocategoriesofthecriminalcircumstancesduringthereprieveofasuspendedexecutionofadeathsentence,namely,committingintentionalorunintentionalcrime.Morespecifically,thecriminalwhohasnotcommittedanintentionalcrimeduringthetwo-yearperiodofsuspendedexecutionofdeathsentence,shallbecommutedtoalifeimprisonmentupontheexpirationofthesaidperiod.Thecriminalwhohasnotcommittedanintentionalcrimeandhaveperformedamajormeritoriousserviceduringthetwo-yearperiod,shallbecommutedtoafixedtermofimprisonmentofnotlessthan15yearsbutnotmorethan20years.Ifitisverifiedthatthecriminalhascommittedanintentionalcrime,thedeathpenaltyshallbeexecuteduponverificationandapprovaloftheSupremePeople’sCourt.Havingbeenspecifiedasaforesaid,theprovisionbecomesmoredistributivethanthatprescribedundertherevisionof1979.But,thefollowingproblemsdostillarise,creatingcertainheadachesforapplicationofthepenalty.[page]

此条规定存在严重的逻辑漏洞，即对于既无悔改或无悔改和立功表现亦无抗拒改造情节恶劣表现的犯罪分子当如何处理没有明确规定，而事实上大量存在着犯罪人思想上不悔罪，但也不认真改造或抗拒改造不明显或虽抗拒改造但情节并不恶劣的情形，尽管司法实践大都将这种情形减为无期徒刑，而且具有实质的合理性，但毕竟于法无据。另外从我国的立法规定和司法实践来看，立功或重大立功在一定意义上更是一种客观情形，可以是一时一事的，悔改在存在意义上属于主观思想范畴，尽管在认识论上要通过行为人的具体行为去体现和认识，但必须通过行为人的一贯或长期的表现才能得以反映，因而不能用罪犯的某一个立功表现来代替他的悔改表现，犯罪人有立功表现未必就确有悔改，尽管通常情况下二者是一致的，这样若是犯罪人无悔改，但有立功表现的亦不在该条规定之列。基于以上原因，修订后的刑法第50条将死缓期间罪犯表现情形分为故意犯罪和没有故意犯罪两类，即在死缓执行期间没有故意犯罪的，二年期满后减为无期徒刑，没有故意犯罪且有重大立功表现的，二年期满后减为15年以上20年以下有期徒刑;如果故意犯罪，查证属实，由最高人民法院核准，执行死刑，从而克服了1979年刑法典在此问题规定上的不周延。但是，这一规定亦存在以下问题，并导致司法适用上的困难。

(1)Thisprovisionhasemphasizedonlythatifthecriminalhasnotcommittedanintentionalcrimeandhaveperformedamajormeritoriousserviceduringthetwo-yearperiod,deathsentencewithasuspensionofexecutionshallbecommutedtoafixedtermofimprisonmentofnotlessthan15yearsbutnotmorethan20years.Apartfromcommutationtoalifeimprisonment,whichisequallyapplicabletothecriminalcommittingnointentionalcrime,nothingspecialisapplicable,accordingtotherevision,tothecriminalwhohasnotcommittedintentionalcrimebuthasperformedmeritoriousservice.Asaresult,lifeimprisonmentshallbecomeequallyapplicableuponexpirationofthetwo-yearperiodofreprievetothecriminalwhohasnotcommittedintentionalcrimebuthasperformedmeritoriousservice,andtothecriminalwhohasnotcommittedintentionalcrimenorhasperformedanymeritoriousservice.Thisprovisionwillnotintheendbeencouragingtothecriminalstobecometrulyreformed.[page]

(1)这一规定仅强调了没有故意犯罪且有重大立功表现的得减为15年以上20年以下有期刑，但是对于无故意犯罪且有立功表现的没有同样地作出与仅是没有故意犯罪减为无期徒刑的情形相区别的规定，导致无故意犯罪有立功表现的与无故意亦无立功表现的、二年期满后，都是无期徒刑的执行效果，不利于罪犯改过自新。

ComparedwiththeprovisionoftheCriminalCodeof1979,whichspecifies:“Ifthecriminalhasbeentrulyreformedandperformedmeritoriousservice,thispunishmentshallbecommutedtofixedtermimprisonmentofnotlessthan15yearsbutnotmorethan20yearsuponexpiryofthetwo-yearreprieve”,therevisionhasbeenmadetointensifythepunishmentofsuchcriminal.

相对于1979年典刑法死缓执行期间“确有悔改并有立功表现，二年期满后减为15年以上20年以下有期徒刑”的规定，可以说加重了对该种罪犯的惩罚。

(2)Thechangefromtheprevious“resistancetoreformationinamaliciousmanner”to“committinganintentionalcrime,”hasledtoquitemanyundesiredeffects,althoughitishelpfulinrestrictingthediscretionaryapplicationofthejudgesaswellasincreasingthejudicialoperability.

(2)这一规定将原来的“抗拒改造情节恶劣”改为“故意犯罪”，尽管利于减少司法的任意性，增强司法的可操作性，但也存在诸多不合理之处。

First,thischangeseemstohavegreatlyreducedtheapplicationofdeathpenalty,butitisnotthecaseinreality.Injudicialpractice,partofthejailedresisteducationandreformation,humiliateandinsultthecustodialofficials,usuallybeatotherprisoners,oreventhreatentokillthecustodialofficials,usuallycommitincorrigibleandsalaciousactsintheprisonsuchassodomy,gangupintheprison,actasamasteroftheprisonersandresisttoperformlabor.Prisonerswithsuchactshavenotcommittedanyintentionalcrime,butshallbedeemedinallrespectstobe“resistanttoreforminamaliciousmanner”ashasbeenprescribedundertheCriminalCodeof1979wherebydeathexecutionbecomesapplicable.AccordingtotheCriminalCodeof1997,however,thesecriminalsshallbecommutedtoalifeimprisonmentuponexpirationoftwo-yearperiodofreprieve.Thisservestofurthersubstantiatethereducedapplicabilityofdeathsentenceduetotherevision.Inthemeantime,therearesomeothercriminalswhoshowconsistentlygoodbehaviors,carefullyobservetherulesoftheprison,butareusuallyhumiliatedorbeatbythejailedgangster,andbeattoinjuretheoffendersoutofindignation.TheseprisonersshallbedeemedtohavecommittedagainintentionalcrimesduringtheperiodofreprieveandshallbeexecutedaspertheprovisionofCriminalCodeof1997.But,aspertheCriminalCodeof1979,thesecriminalsshallnotbedeemedtobe“resistanttoreformationinamaliciousmanner”,therefore,deathexecutionisnotapplicable.Thischangeshowsthetrendofextendedapplicabilityofdeathsentenceundertherevision.Inviewofthesaidlattercircumstance,inparticular,deathexecutionisapplicabletothoseincompliancetotherulesofprisonandwithconstantgoodbehaviors,whileitisnotapplicabletothoseshowingconstantbadbehaviorsandseriousresistancetoreformation.Itfailstoreflecttheessentialpurposeofdeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecution,andwillnothelptomakethepunishmentreallyworkasintended.[page]

首先，这一改动看似大大限制了死刑的实际适用范围，实则不然。司法实践中，一部分罪犯不服管教、辱骂管教干部，经常殴打他犯、甚至扬言杀害干部，经常于监内进行鸡奸等流氓猥亵活动，拉帮接伙、充当牢头狱霸以及抗拒劳动等等，这些人没有故意犯罪行为，但完全符合“抗拒改造情节恶劣”的情形，根据1979年刑法应当执行死刑，而按1997年刑法典的规定，则应在二年期满后减为无期徒刑。这也是这一修改实际缩小死刑适用范围的一面。但也有一部分罪犯一贯表现较好，认真遵守监规，但在狱内经常备受牢头狱霸的欺凌、殴打，最后出于激愤而将侵害人打伤的，按1997年刑法典属于死缓执行期间又故意犯罪的情形，应当执行死刑，而按1979年刑法典的规定，这种情况不应当属于“抗拒改造情节恶劣”的情形，因而不应执行死刑。这反映了此修改在一定程度上扩大死刑适用的倾向。在上述后一种情形中，一贯遵守监规表现较好的倒要执行死刑，而一贯表现不好、抗拒改造情节恶劣的反倒不执行死刑，有违死缓的基本精神，亦不利于实现刑罚的目的。

Secondly,accordingtotheCriminalCodeof1997,deathexecutionshallforthwithbeappliedtothecriminalscommittinganykindofintentionalcrimes,regardlessofthecriminalconsequences.Ingeneral,however,thesubjectiveevilcharacterofanintentionalcrimeismoreseriousthanthatofanunintentionalone,andthesocialimpactoftheformerismuchgreaterthanthatofthelatter.Butthesubjectiveevilcharacteraswellasthesocialimpactofanunintentionalcrimeisnotnecessarilylighterthanthoseofanintentionalone.AccordingtotheCriminalCodeof1997,noexecutionshallbeappliedtothecriminalssentencedtodeathwithasuspensionofexecution,whocommitunintentionalcrimeswithintheperiodofreprieve,nomatterhowseriousthecrimesarenorhowgreatthedamagesareincurred.Inlogic,thedeathcriminalsshallbeexecutedaslongastheycommitintentionalcrimesduringtheperiodofsuspensionofexecution,regardlessofthecausesofthecrimes,whichmaybeworthyofasympathy,norofthesubjectiveevilcharacter,whichmaybeveryminor.Bythesametoken,suchdeathcriminalsshallnotbeexecutedaslongastheydonotcommitintentionalcrimesduringtheperiodofsuspensionofexecution,regardlessoftheirbehaviorsoftheperiod,whichmaybeextremelymalicious,noroftheirunintentionalacts,whichmaybeextremelyserious.Theresultisalegalimpartiality,whichisdetrimentaltothepurposeofastatutorysystem.Thirdly,ashasbeenmentionedpreviously,thechangefromtheprevious“resistancetoreformationinamaliciousmanner”to“committinganintentionalcrime,”issomewhathelpfulinrestrictingtheapplicabilityoftheactualexecutiontothecriminalssentenceddeathpenaltywithareprieve.Itisanimproperrestrictiontakingintoaccountofthepurposeofacriminallawthatspecifiesdeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecution.Justiceshallalwaysbemaintainedastheessentialvalueoflegalapplication,asthecallforrestrictionofdeathpenaltyhasbeenincreasingworldwide,whichoutlinestherighttrackaswellforustofollow.ThechangeofCriminalCodeof1997fromtheprevious“resistancetoreformationinamaliciousmanner”to“committinganintentionalcrime,”isagainsttheintendedlegislativepurposeofthepracticeofdeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecution,andisharmfultotherealizationofthepurposeintendedbythispunishment.DeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecutionprescribedintheCriminalCodepurportstogivethecriminalsalastchancetoreformandmendthemselves,and,withanexecutionbeingapplicableatanypossibletimes,serveasapoweranddeterrencetoawakethecriminalstoacceptreformationforanewlife.Wheredeathexecutiondependsonthedeterminationofanintentionalcrimecommittedduringtheperiodofreprieve,thispunishmentwillobjectivelylosethepowertoforcethecriminalstobetrulyreformed,andwillconniveorhelpthecriminalstodevelopanegativestateofmindtowardsthereformation,formostofthecriminalssentencedtodeathwithasuspensionofexecutionwouldbelieve“thepunishmentwillbecommutedtoalifeimprisonmentuponexpirationoftwo-yearsofreprieve,regardlessoftheoutcomeofthereformation”.Therefore,thispunishmentwillfailtohelpcriminalstomendthemselvesashasbeenpurposelyintendedbylaw.[page]

其次，按照1997年刑法典的这一规定，无论何种故意犯罪、其情节轻重如何，只要是故意犯罪，一律执行死刑。虽然一般情况下，故意犯罪的主观恶性要比过失犯罪严重，其社会危害性程度要比后者大，但有的过失犯的主观恶性和社会危害性未必比故意犯轻。而按照1997刑法典的规定，对死缓犯来说，在死缓执行期间，无论其过失犯罪的性质多么严重、造成的损失有多大，也一律不得执行死刑。如此一来，无论罪因如何，只要死缓犯在缓刑期间故意犯罪，即使其主观恶性很小，甚至有值得同情的事由，亦得执行死刑。而对没有再故意犯罪的死缓犯，无论在这两年期间表现得多么恶劣，无论其过失行为造成的后果多么严重，皆不得执行死刑。这将造成不公正，也不利于制度目的之实现。第三，前已指出，将“抗拒改造情节恶劣”改为“故意犯罪”，从死缓的适用效果看有利于一定程度的实际限制或减少死刑的适用。但从刑法规定死缓制度的宗旨看，这一缩小不妥当。虽限制死刑是当今世界刑法的趋势，亦应成为我国刑罚的价值取向，但在具体措施上应合乎公正合理要求。1997年刑法典将“抗拒改造情节恶劣”改为“故意犯罪”，有悖死缓制度的立法旨意，不利于行刑目的的实现。刑法规定死缓制度旨在为罪犯提供悔过自新和自救的最后机会，通过随时可能执行死刑的威慑与压力促其醒悟、迫其改造、以利更生。倘将死刑执行限以死缓期间犯故意之罪为条件，则客观上无以形成促其改造的威慑力量，难免纵容和助长其不服从改造的消极心理，“不论改造好坏两年后都减刑”是许多死缓犯的共同心理，如此则死缓制度无以实现促其自救本旨。

Theabovesectionsarededicatedtothestudiesofthenegativeeffectsofthechangeto“committinganintentionalcrime.”However,itrequiresamorein-depthlookatthesubjectinordertoimprovetheapplicationofthispunishmentinsuchawayastoensureareduceddiscretionaryapplication,facilitatethejudicialoperability,makethepunishmentworkasintended,maintainthespiritofimpartiality,andtovirtuallyrestricttheapplicationofdeathpenalty.

以上分析了改为“故意犯罪”后的消极后果，然而如何改善使之减少司法的任意性、方便司法操作，又合于死缓制度本旨，符合公平正义之要求，同时达到限制死刑实际适用之效果，颇值得研究。

从理论上讲对死缓犯应执行死刑可存在于死缓执行期间犯故意之罪、过失之罪以及其他反映罪犯极端的主观恶性、抗拒改造情节恶劣的情形。但必须对这三种情形进行实质的限制，即应从死缓制度的设立宗旨出发，立足于死缓犯的主观恶性，考察其客观行为。这样对主观恶性不大情节并不十分严重的轻微故意犯罪不应当执行死刑;同样只有反映罪犯较大恶性性质严重的过失犯罪方可执行死刑。在此前提下，应作大量的实际调查，进行实证分析研究，比如，考察死缓犯所能实施的故意犯罪的罪种，列举罪犯抗拒情节恶劣的具体性状等。或许通过实证会发现实践中死缓犯过失犯罪的情形很少或者对之执行死刑的很少，则也可不列入过失犯罪的情形。但必须在上述原则下进行，防止图一时之便而一刀切的权宜之法。当然，以上是就立法的完善提出的一些初步看法。目前情况下，只能根据现行刑法典的规定，对死缓犯执行死刑的情形只有一种，即死缓执行期间犯故意之罪。[page]

(3)Thisprovisiondoesnotexplicitlyspecifythecircumstanceswherebythecriminalpunishableforthispenaltyhasperformedmajormeritoriousserviceandhascommittedanintentionalcrime.Absenceofsuchexpressspecificationwillcauseconflictofapplicability.

(3)这一规定没有就死缓执行期间既有重大立功表现又有故意犯罪的情形作出明确规定，从而导致法律适用的冲突。

Ifitisprovidedthatdeathexecutionshallbeforthwithappliedtothecriminalpunishableforthispenaltyaslongashecommitsanintentionalcrimewithintheperiodofsuspensionofexecution,nomatterwhetherornothehasperformedmajormeritoriousservices,theprovisionwillsoundcontradictorytothepurposeintendedbythispunishment,norwillitbehelpfulinreformingthecriminal.Applicationofthisprovisionwillshakeandremovethefoundationofthecriminal’ssenseofconfidenceinatrulyreformation,especiallywhenhe,punishableforthispenalty,hascommittedanintentionalcrimewithintheperiodofreprieve,demonstratedaminorsubjectiveevilcharacterandthecrimeintentionallycommittedleadstoaminorconsequence.Undersuchcircumstances,moreover,thecriminalwillnotbecomesowillingtotakeuptheopportunitythatmayleadtoanaccomplishmentofamajormeritoriousservice.Intheend,boththecriminalandthecountryandsocietyarevictimizedaccordingly.InconsiderationoftheprincipleofjudgmentonapurelegalbasisaspertheCriminalCode,whichsomescholarswouldargueisoperatedtothebenefitofthedefendant,determinationshallbemadetotheinterestofthedefendant,thereforeadeathexecutionwouldnotbecomeapplicableundertheaforesaidcircumstances.Itisinappropriateaswelltocommutethispunishmenttoatermedjailwherethecriminalhasperformedamajormeritoriousservicewhilecommittinganintentionalcrime.Insuchacase,theproperpracticewouldbetocommutethepunishmenttoalifeimprisonment.Ideologically,webelievethatgreateremphasisshallbegivenundersuchcircumstances,totheprincipleofoptimizingthefunctionsoftheinstrumentbothasapenaltyandaneducation.Actingonapracticalcasebycasebasis,inthemeanwhile,weshallalsocarefullyevaluatethebenefitstothecountryaswellasthesocietyarisingoutoforinconnectionwiththecriminal’smajormeritoriousservice,andthesocialimpactsofhisintentionalcrime,inordertoproperlyassessthedegreeofacrimeandanatonement,andtodeterminethebasisanddegreeofthepunishmentapplicabletothecriminalaccordingtothisassessment.[page]

如果作出死缓犯只要在死刑缓期执行期间故意犯罪而无论是否有重大立功表现都一律执行死刑的处理，似乎有悖死缓的设立宗旨，亦不利于罪犯的改恶迁善。因为在这种情况下对于在死缓执行期间又故意犯罪尤其是主观恶性较小情节一般的故意犯罪的死缓犯来说，其悔过自新的信心必然丧失，即使有重大立功表现的机会，也不愿争取。可以说是犯罪人、国家和社会两受其害。对此，有学者指出，既然刑法规定了罪刑法定原则，该原则包括有利于被告人的思想，故在上述情况下应作出有利于犯罪人的选择，即不得执行死刑;但由于犯罪人在有重大立功表现的同时又故意犯罪，减为有期徒刑有不当之处，似应减为无期徒刑。我们认为，对于这种情况需在指导思想上以发挥刑罚的惩罚与感化功能并重为原则，在方法上综合考察重大立功表现给国家和社会带来的利益大小以及故意犯罪的社会危害性大小，衡量它们之间的“罪”与“赎罪”因素的比例程度，并以此作为影响犯罪人处理结局的根据，具体情况具体分析。

(4)ThisprovisionhasthesameproblemasthatofArticle46oftheCriminalCodeof1979,namely,whenthereexistsacircumstancewherebyadeathexecutionhasbecomeapplicable,whyshouldtheexecutionbesuspendeduntilexpirationoftwo-yearsperiodofreprieve?

(4)这一规定与79年刑法典第46条的规定存在同样问题，即当法定应当执行死刑的事由出现后，是否需要二年期满后方能执行死刑?

Whilenodefinitionhasbeenexpresslyprovidedforunderlawinthisregard,therehavebeendiversifiedviewsintheacademiccircle.Somebelievethat,upondeterminationofsoundevidenceoftheintentionalcrimecommitted,executionshallbeappliedforthwithandshallnotbesuspendeduntillapseofthetwoyearstime.Whileothersclaimthatregardlessofthecriminaldegreeoftheintentionalcrimecommitted,executionmustbesuspendeduntiltheexpirationofthesaidtwoyearstime,aclaimthatsomescholarsarealsointendedtoagreeto.Webelievethatasaprincipleexecutionofthispunishmentshallbesuspendeduntiltheexpiryofthetwo-yearsreprieve,subjecttocertaincircumstanceswherebythisexecutionshallbecomeforthwithapplicable.Thereasonforthisbeliefisthat,accordingtoArticle50oftheprevailingCriminalCode,itisexpresslystipulatedthat,forthefirsttwotypesofcircumstances,thepunishmentcannotbecommuteduntilexpirationofthetwoyearsperiodofreprieve;however,thesameprovisionisnotmadeforthethirdcircumstance,namely:whatifanintentionalcrimehasbeencommitted.Itisaliteralunderstandingthatexecutionisapplicableifitisverifiedthatthecriminalhascommittedanintentionalcrime,andwillnotnecessarilybesuspendeduntilexpirationofthesaidperiodoftwoyears.However,deathsentencewithasuspensionofexecutionisadeathpenaltydeterminedbythejudgestopunishthesentencedwhilesimultaneouslygrantingtwoyearsofsuspensionofexecution.Thereasonforallowingforasuspensionperiodoftwoyearsistoseethecomprehensiveperformancesofthesentencedwithinthisperiod,andtogivethesentencedanopportunitytoreformandmendforanewlife.Thisistheessenceoftheapplicationofdeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecution.Theperiodoftwoyearsasareprieveisdeterminedsubjecttoreasonablelegislativeconsiderations,andshallnotbeextendedorshortenedatwill,forthesakeofhonoringthepurposeintendedbythisinstrumentofpenalty.Ashasbeenpreviouslystated,however,executionshallbeappliedforthwithandshallnotbewithhelduntilthelapseoftwoyears,ifthecriminalpunishablefordeathwithasuspensionofexecutionhascommittedanintentionalcrimethatisagainpunishableforanimmediateexecution.Ifdeathexecutionisnotappliedforthwithandissuspendedforareprieveoftwoyears,tothecriminalwhohascommittedacrimepunishablefordeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecution,andwhohasagaincommittedacrimepunishableforanimmediatedeathexecution,itwouldbeimpartialandunreasonabletoimmediatelyexecutethecriminalwhohasnotcommittedthecrimepunishablefordeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecution,butwhohashowevercommittedacrimepunishableforanimmediateexecution.Forthelatter,punishmentisobviouslyanimmediateexecution,subjecttotheprovisionallowingforacertainperiodoftimeduetothecriminologicalprocedure.[page]

对此法律未明确规定。学界存有不同的理解：有的认为，只要故意犯罪查证属实就可随时执行死刑，而不需等二年期限。有的则主张无论其故意犯罪情节多么严重，只能等两年期满后才能执行死刑。有的趋向于采取二年期满后在执行死刑。我们认为原则上应在二年期满后才能执行死刑，但在特定条件下也可无须等两年期满再执行死刑。理由是：从现行刑法典第50条的规定来看，对于前两种情况明确规定“二年期满以后”才能减刑，而对第三种情况即故意犯罪的没有作出相同的规定，从文理上好似故意犯罪，经查证属实，就可以执行死刑而不需要等到两年期满以后。但死缓是法院判处罪犯死刑同时缓期两年执行，之所以规定二年考验期，就在于综合考察这两年期间罪犯的表现，以给罪犯改过自新的机会，这也是死缓的本旨，二年考验期是立法者基于某种合理的根据而确立的，不能随意延缩，否则有违死缓设立的初衷。但前已指出，若死缓犯再犯的是应当判处死刑立即执行的故意之罪，就无须等两年期满，因为对已犯下罪该处死又犯应判处死刑立即执行的死缓犯如果不是立即执行而是等二年期满后执行，则对不具有死缓犯身份的犯了应当判处死刑立即执行之罪的罪犯显失公平，亦不合理。因为后者显然是要立即执行的，除在刑事程序上有一定的期限规定外。

Inconclusion,theprovisionstheCriminalCodeondeathsentencewithasuspensionofexecution,auniquelyinnovativeChinesepracticewithapparentadvantages,dohavecertainproblems,whichaccountsfortheinconsistencyofthejudicialapplication.Itisbelievedthatthispracticewillgetimprovedandbetter-knittedwiththejudicialpracticebeingprogressivelydevelopedandmoreprovenlegislativeknowledgeandexperiencecumulatedinthefuture.

死刑缓期执行制度是中国独创的刑罚制度，其优越性是显然的，但目前刑法的规定仍然存在一些问题，并导致司法适用中执法不统一的弊端，相信随着司法实践的逐步深入和立法经验的渐趋成熟，这一制度将更加完善与成熟。

---

免责声明：本网部分文章和信息来源于国际互联网，本网转载出于传递更多信息和学习之目的。如转载稿涉及版权等问题，请立即联系网站所有人，我们会予以更改或删除相关文章，保证您的权利。同时，部分文章和信息会因为法律法规及国家政策的变更失去时效性及指导意义，仅供参考。