發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-12 11:54

  本文選題：致人重傷、死亡 + 罪數(shù)形態(tài)��； 參考：《湖南師范大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：“致人重傷、死亡”或相類似的罪狀,表達(dá)的是對(duì)生命、健康法益侵犯而常出現(xiàn)的危害結(jié)果,在刑法分則中出現(xiàn)了48次,但其規(guī)范性質(zhì)不同,分別有著自己的規(guī)范價(jià)值,既影響定罪,又影響量刑：一種是作為基本犯犯罪構(gòu)成要件的結(jié)果要素；一種是作為結(jié)果加重犯犯罪構(gòu)成要件中的加重危害結(jié)果；一種是作為轉(zhuǎn)化犯中新構(gòu)成犯罪的犯罪構(gòu)成要件結(jié)果要素；還有一種則是作為包容犯中犯罪構(gòu)成要件結(jié)果要素。正是由于“致人重傷、死亡”危害結(jié)果是否由基本犯中的行為導(dǎo)致,犯罪行為造成了何種類別和程度的傷害亦或是死亡,行為與危害結(jié)果是否超出了基本犯罪的犯罪性質(zhì),對(duì)作為危害結(jié)果的重傷、死亡所包含的主觀罪過要求的不同,犯罪行為本身是否具有一定特殊性和對(duì)造成危害結(jié)果的行為手段有無特殊要求,導(dǎo)致了當(dāng)這種危害結(jié)果出現(xiàn)時(shí),我國采取了不同的立法態(tài)度：要么將其作為結(jié)果加重犯對(duì)待,要么轉(zhuǎn)化為另一性質(zhì)更為嚴(yán)重的新的犯罪,極少數(shù)情況下刑法又將其明文規(guī)定為包容犯用以克服數(shù)罪并罰的限制,起到刑種升格、加重處罰之作用,有時(shí)又不遺余力僅以提示為目的將在兩個(gè)主觀罪過下實(shí)施的兩個(gè)犯罪行為專門規(guī)定為數(shù)罪并罰,而在沒有任何規(guī)定的類似情況下,根據(jù)罪刑法定原則,司法實(shí)踐中我們只能依據(jù)罪數(shù)形態(tài)理論將其作為想像競合犯以及按其他罪數(shù)不典型形態(tài)處理或根據(jù)總則規(guī)定的原則數(shù)罪并罰。如此多樣的規(guī)范形式,勢(shì)必與刑法的立法初衷相違背,無疑會(huì)破壞刑法條文的明確性,使其在解釋和適用上產(chǎn)生諸多分歧,給理論和司法實(shí)踐帶來諸多困惑。在此,本文將運(yùn)用體系解釋的方法,對(duì)上述立法現(xiàn)象進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)的梳理,力求做到“對(duì)于應(yīng)為相同評(píng)價(jià)的事物作相同處理”,達(dá)到“性質(zhì)上的相同或類似,自然要求處理模式上的同一或類似”的效果。哪一種規(guī)范價(jià)值更能體現(xiàn)罪刑相適應(yīng)原則,更能保護(hù)好被害人和犯罪人的合法權(quán)益,便是我們立法選擇的終極根據(jù)。并在此基礎(chǔ)上,依據(jù)罪數(shù)不典型形態(tài)理論對(duì)現(xiàn)行刑法中“致人重傷、死亡”進(jìn)行分類所形成的規(guī)范形式為視角首先確定一個(gè)立法模式,然后再確定一定的規(guī)范形式取舍標(biāo)準(zhǔn),包括立法用語、行為對(duì)象、行為手段的特殊性要求、危害類型和程度等的外在識(shí)別標(biāo)準(zhǔn),以及罪過形態(tài)及法定刑的內(nèi)在識(shí)別標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在保證典型一罪和典型數(shù)罪法律適用的準(zhǔn)確性上,著重解決罪數(shù)不典型形態(tài)中“致人重傷、死亡”在立法和司法適用上混亂的難題,試圖建立一個(gè)健全、合理的“致人重傷、死亡”立法體系。
[Abstract]:"causing serious injury, death" or similar crime, which expresses the harmful result of infringing on life and health laws and interests, has appeared 48 times in the special provisions of criminal law, but its normative nature is different, and each has its own normative value. It not only affects conviction, but also affects sentencing: one is the result element of the basic crime constitution, the other is the result of aggravating the crime as the result. One is the result element of the constitutive elements of the newly constituted crime and the other is the result element of the constitutive elements of the crime in the inclusive crime. It is precisely because of "causing serious injury, death" that the result of the harm is caused by the conduct of the basic offence, the type and degree of injury caused by the criminal act, or the death, and whether the act and the result of the harm exceed the criminal nature of the basic crime, For serious injury as a result of harm, death contains different subjective sin requirements, whether the criminal act itself has a certain particularity and whether there are special requirements on the means of causing the harmful result, which results in the occurrence of this kind of harm result. Our country has adopted different legislative attitudes: it is either treated as a result of aggravated crime, or transformed into a new crime of a more serious nature, and in rare cases it is explicitly stipulated in the criminal law as an inclusive crime to overcome the restrictions of impunity for several crimes. Serving to upgrade the category of punishment and increase the penalty, sometimes sparing no effort to specify, for the sole purpose of prompting, the combination of several crimes for the two criminal acts committed under two subjective offences, and in similar cases where there is no such provision, According to the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime, in judicial practice we can only treat it as an imaginative concurrence crime according to the theory of number and form of crime, and deal with it according to the atypical form of the number of other crimes or according to the principle stipulated in the general rules. Such a variety of normative forms is bound to be contrary to the original intention of the legislation of criminal law, will undoubtedly destroy the clarity of the provisions of criminal law, make it in the interpretation and application of many differences, to the theory and judicial practice brings a lot of confusion. Here, this article will use the system explanation method, carries on the systematic comb to the above legislation phenomenon, strives to "should do the same treatment to the same appraisal thing", achieves "the nature is identical or similar," Nature requires the same or similar "effect on the processing mode." Which normative value can better reflect the principle of adaptation of crime and punishment, and better protect the legitimate rights and interests of victims and offenders is the ultimate basis of our legislative choice. On this basis, according to the theory of atypical form of crime, the normative form formed by the classification of "causing serious injury and death" in the current criminal law is first determined as a legislative model, and then a certain standard of formal choice is determined. It includes the specific requirements of legislative terms, objects of conduct, means of conduct, the external identification standards of the types and degrees of harm, as well as the internal identification standards of the form of guilt and the statutory punishment. In order to ensure the accuracy of the legal application of the typical crime and the typical crime, the problem of "causing serious injury and death" in the atypical form of the crime number is solved in order to set up a sound and reasonable "serious injury" problem in the legislative and judicial application. Death legislation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.11

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 溫曉莉;;論法律虛擬與法律擬制之區(qū)別——法哲學(xué)的時(shí)代變革[J];北大法律評(píng)論;2007年01期

2 盧鵬;法律擬制正名[J];比較法研究;2005年01期

3 周少華;現(xiàn)行刑法中的轉(zhuǎn)化犯之立法檢討——兼論刑法規(guī)范的內(nèi)部協(xié)調(diào)[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年05期

4 許發(fā)民;;結(jié)果加重犯的構(gòu)成結(jié)構(gòu)新析[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年02期

5 龍洋;;論轉(zhuǎn)化犯立法的理論根據(jù)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2009年04期

6 陳小清;;論犯罪的完成形態(tài)[J];中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1989年04期

7 吳學(xué)斌;我國刑法分則中的注意規(guī)定與法定擬制[J];法商研究;2004年05期

8 田宏杰;;故意傷害罪若干疑難問題探討[J];法學(xué)家;2001年04期

9 趙廷光;論定罪、法定刑與量刑[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1995年01期

10 初炳東,許海波,邢書恒;論新刑法中的包容犯與轉(zhuǎn)化犯[J];法學(xué);1998年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：2009586