本文選題：教唆自殺 + 幫助自殺��； 參考：《華東政法大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：在如今高速發(fā)展的社會下，人們面對著各方面的壓力，精神狀況經常處于緊繃狀態(tài)，自殺也成為越來越普遍的現(xiàn)象。但是，自殺率的提高并不只是自殺者個人的內心因素所決定的，往往還伴隨著引起自殺行為的外部因素的影響。有時，這些外部因素甚至能夠影響自殺者的內心因素從而決定自殺行為的發(fā)生與否。這種外部因素就是我們所稱的自殺關聯(lián)行為。而在這些自殺關聯(lián)行為中，教唆自殺行為與幫助自殺行為又因其具有其他自殺關聯(lián)行為所不具有的特性而處于十分重要的位置。 但是無論對于教唆自殺行為還是對于幫助自殺行為，我國刑法都沒有進行明確的規(guī)定，目前司法實踐中存在著諸多做法，有的參照故意殺人罪進行定罪量刑，有的則認定為不構成犯罪，造成了司法上的混亂。為了能夠有效地規(guī)制教唆、幫助自殺行為，進而降低我國的自殺率，本文從教唆、幫助自殺行為中所存在的三方面難題進行展開論述，旨在通過這三方面難題的探析，能夠為教唆、幫助自殺行為的規(guī)制尋求一條出路，，使之能在刑法上得到合理的評價。 本文除去導言與結語，共分為三個部分，由淺入深地對教唆、幫助自殺行為進行梳理與分析，最后對于教唆、幫助行為在刑法上的規(guī)制提出自己的一點看法與意見： 第一部分主要闡述了本文以教唆、幫助自殺行為作為研究自殺關聯(lián)行為落腳點的依據和理由。教唆、幫助自殺行為作為自殺關聯(lián)行為中最為常見的兩種形式，具有其他自殺關聯(lián)行為所沒有的包容性，并且，由于在現(xiàn)實生活中出現(xiàn)的頻率比其他自殺關聯(lián)行為高，也比其他自殺關聯(lián)行為具有更大的危害性。因此，研究教唆、幫助自殺行為相比研究其他自殺關聯(lián)行為而言更具有必要性。 第二部分內容主要從教唆、幫助自殺行為中所存在的一些難題進行展開論述。第一個方面為教唆、幫助自殺行為與刑事歸責的關系，通過判斷教唆、幫助自殺行為與他人生命權受到嚴重危害之間是否存在因果關系，從而確立追究教唆、幫助自殺行為刑事責任的客觀基礎；第二個方面主要判斷幫助自殺行為存在過失犯罪的可能性，以防止將過失幫助行為排除在幫助自殺行為之外；第三個方面則是通過判斷教唆、幫助自殺的行為人存在不作為犯罪的可能性，以防止對于自殺者的死亡結果與教唆、幫助自殺的行為人之間進行不合理的評價。通過這三個難題的解決，使得對于教唆、幫助行為在刑法上的評價能夠有一個統(tǒng)一的標準。 第三部分旨在對教唆、幫助自殺行為進行一個獨立定罪的探析，通過對于自殺行為的定性，確定教唆、幫助自殺行為單獨入罪的必要性，并且在量刑方面根據其自身的社會危害性，參照故意殺人罪與過失致人死亡罪進行了嘗試性擬制。通過定罪與量刑兩個方面，以期在司法實踐中能夠對教唆、幫助自殺行為起到一個規(guī)制作用。
[Abstract]:In today's rapidly developing society, people are facing various kinds of pressure, mental condition is often in a tight state, suicide has become a more and more common phenomenon. However, the increase of suicide rate is determined not only by the individual's inner factors, but also by the external factors that cause suicide. In some cases, these external factors can even affect the heart of suicide factors to determine whether suicide occurred or not. This external factor is what we call suicidal association behavior. In these suicidal related behaviors, abetting suicide behavior and aiding suicide behavior are in a very important position because of their characteristics which other suicidal related behaviors do not have. However, there are no clear provisions in our criminal law for abetting or aiding suicide, and there are many ways in judicial practice at present, some of them are convicted and sentenced by reference to the crime of intentional homicide. Some are found not to constitute a crime, resulting in judicial confusion. In order to effectively regulate abetment, help suicide behavior, and then reduce the suicide rate in our country, this paper discusses the three problems in abetting and aiding suicide behavior, aiming to analyze these three problems. It can find a way out for the regulation of abetting and helping suicide, so that it can get a reasonable evaluation in criminal law. This article, apart from the introduction and conclusion, is divided into three parts, from the superficial to the instigation, aiding suicide behavior combing and analysis, finally to abetting, aiding behavior in the criminal law regulation put forward their own views and opinions: The first part mainly expounds the basis and reasons for the study of suicide related behavior by abetting and aiding suicide. Abetting, aiding, as the two most common forms of suicide-related behavior, is more inclusive than other suicide-related behaviors, and, since it appears more frequently in real life than other suicide-related behaviors, It is also more harmful than other suicidal-related behaviors. Therefore, it is more necessary to study abetting and aiding suicide than other suicidal related behaviors. The second part mainly discusses some problems in abetting and aiding suicide. The first aspect is abetting, the relationship between aiding suicide and criminal imputation. By judging whether there is a causal relationship between aiding suicide and the serious harm to the right to life of another person, so as to establish the investigation and abetting. The second aspect mainly judges the possibility of negligent crime in helping suicide in order to prevent the exclusion of negligent help from helping suicide. The third aspect is that by judging the abetment, the perpetrator of aiding suicide has the possibility of omission, in order to prevent the result of death and abetment of suicide, and to make unreasonable evaluation between the perpetrator of aiding suicide. Through the solution of these three problems, there can be a unified standard for the evaluation of aiding and aiding in criminal law. The third part aims at the analysis of an independent conviction of abetment and aiding suicide, and determines the necessity of instigating and aiding suicide separately through the characterization of suicide. In sentencing, according to its own social harmfulness, according to the crime of intentional homicide and negligent crime of death is attempted fictitious. Through two aspects of conviction and sentencing, the author hopes to regulate abetting and helping suicide in judicial practice.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前9條

1 彭偉;;自殺加工行為的定罪及立法完善[J];長春理工大學學報;2010年08期

2 馬榮春;;再論刑法因果關系[J];當代法學;2010年03期

3 馮軍;刑法的規(guī)范化詮釋[J];法商研究;2005年06期

4 趙秉志;劉志偉;;犯罪過失理論若干爭議問題研究[J];法學家;2000年05期

5 張紹謙;略論教唆、幫助他人自殺行為的定性及處理[J];法學評論;1993年06期

6 張莉瓊;;夫妻間刑法作為義務的法理分析[J];法學評論;2008年02期

7 陳興良;;刑法因果關系:從哲學回歸刑法學——一個學說史的考察[J];法學;2009年07期

8 陳山;;自殺關聯(lián)行為的刑法應對[J];中國人民公安大學學報(社會科學版);2012年03期

9 趙秉志;相約自殺案件的刑事責任——兼析李某見死不救行為的定性處理[J];人民公安;1997年21期

本文編號：1841864