论文部分内容阅读
对受刑人的劳动成果权归属理论界一直存在着争论,目前有关受刑人劳动成果的归属的立法,在国外主要有两种立法模式,一种是以日本为代表的一元化的立法方式,即全部收归国有,另一种是意大利、美国等国家,采用多元化的立法方式,受刑人的劳动成果按照一定的比例,在与受刑人有利害关系的人之间进行分配。我国对受刑人劳动成果的态度,与日本的制度相类似。以著作权为例分析得出国家或者监狱管理部门不可能成为权利主体,说明受刑人的劳动成果权收归国有与法学理论相违背,实践中也不好操作。我们可以借鉴意大利的做法,即受刑人的劳动成果应当尽可能地清偿刑事被害人。采用受刑人劳动成果多元化的归属原则,按照一定的顺序处理受刑人的劳动成果。使受刑人劳动成果的归属更加合理化,以促进社会的和谐发展。
There has always been controversy over the theory of the attribution of the labor rights of prisoners. At present, there are mainly two kinds of legislative models concerning the ownership of labor achievements of prisoners in the world. One is the unified legislative model represented by Japan, that is, all Nationalization, the other is Italy, the United States and other countries, the adoption of a wide range of legislative methods, the labor force of prisoners in accordance with a certain percentage of people who have an interest in the distribution of torture. Our attitude towards the labor outcomes of prisoners is similar to that of Japan. Taking the case of copyright as an example, we can conclude that the state or prison administration can not be the subject of rights. It shows that the rights of the worker to be sentenced to labor are contrary to the theory of law and the practice is not good. We can learn from the Italian practice that the result of the labor of the torturer should be to pay off the criminal victim as much as possible. Adopting the principle of attribution of the diversified labor achievements of prisoners and handling the labor achievements of the torturers in a certain order. So that the attribution of the labor result of the torturer is more rationalized so as to promote the harmonious development of society.