故意杀人案中认定“民间矛盾”的规范性事实

The Normative Facts of Identifying Civil Contradiction in the Case of Intentional Homicide

司法实践对"民间矛盾"的理解过于泛化,这一死刑控制的政策性因素初衷虽好,但不应越过法规范与具体案件直接对接,纯粹的政策适用往往缺乏可解释性、说理性。不予限定地运用"民间矛盾"为个案中的死刑限制做背书并不合适。应当将此通过被害人过错的改造还原为一个规范性的教义学上的法律概念,在排除被害人存在过错的案件中不应援引这一规定作为独立的从轻依据。在有责性层面,故意杀人案中被害人过错之所以可以成为限制死刑的教义学依据,在于其能够影响行为人主观恶性和人身危险性的评估,并且能够增加死缓甚至更轻的刑度的可接受性,进而颠覆"杀人偿命"的固有思维,对命案中的死刑限制具有一定裨益。

The understanding of civil contradiction is too general in judicial practice. As one of the policy factors of death penalty control, though well-meaning, it should not be direct docking specific cases beyond legal norms. Pure policy application is often lack of interpretability and rationality. It is not appropriate to use unlimitedly the civil contradiction in plea for death penalty restriction in a case.The reform of the victim＇s fault should be reverted to a normative doctrinal concept of law, which should not be cited as an independent basis for lighter judgment in the case of the exclusion of the victim＇s fault. On the level of accountability, the victim＇s fault can be the doctrinal basis for limiting the death penalty in the case of intentional homicide. The true cause lay in the fact that it can impact assessment of subjective malignant behavior and personal dangerousness, and increase acceptability of reprieve or even lighter punishment, thus to subvert the inherent thinking of Life for a life,which is beneficial to the limitation of death penalty in the ease of homicide.