索债型非法拘禁罪扩张适用下对绑架罪的再认识

Reconsideration on the Crime of Kidnapping under the Expanded Application of the Crime of Illegal Detention of Claim for Debts

审判实践中,扩张索债型非法拘禁罪以限制绑架罪的适用较为普遍,对索债进行过度扩张解释,背离了债的应有含义;索债目的事实上已经不是区分绑架罪与非法拘禁罪的标准,而是一种借口。将绑架罪等同于非法拘禁罪与勒索财物等不法目的的结合有违罪刑相适应原则:基于勒索财物目的而拘禁、扣押人质的案件也未必都被认定为绑架罪。绑架罪的实质在于对人身权利的严重侵害或威胁,将绑架罪的手段行为理解为对人身权利的严重侵害或威胁符合罪刑相适应,目的的不法程度对认定绑架手段的不法性具有参考意义。基于索债之外的目的而拘禁、扣押他人,没有严重侵犯人身权利的,仍应构成非法拘禁罪。应合理地限制解释绑架罪,及时调整罪刑关系。

It is common to expand the illegal detention crime of asking for debts to limit the application of kidnapping crime. The excessive expansion explanation to the claim for debts deviates from the proper meaning of the debts. The purpose of asking for debts is not the standard to distinguish the crime of kidnapping from the crime of illegal detention, but is an excuse. Considering the crime of kidnapping as the combination of the crime of illegal detention and the illegal purpose of extorting money and property is a violation of principle of suiting crime to punishment. The cases of detention and hostage taking based on extortion of property may not be regarded as kidnapping crime. The essence of kidnapping crime lies in the serious infringement or threat of personal rights. It is suitable for crime and punishment to understand the means of kidnapping crime as the serious infringement or threat of personal rights. The degree of illegality of purpose has reference significance for determining the illegality of the means of kidnapping. If a person is detained or detained for purposes other than debt collection, and there is no serious violation of personal rights, it shall still constitute the crime of illegal detention. We should reasonably limit the interpretation of kidnapping crime, and timely adjust the relationship between crime and punishment.