本文選題：個(gè)人因素 + 被害人過(guò)錯(cuò)　； 參考：《昆明理工大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：刑事古典學(xué)派認(rèn)為,犯罪是由犯罪人自由意志的結(jié)果。然而,隨著犯罪學(xué)的發(fā)展,人們逐漸認(rèn)識(shí)到,犯罪是由多種原因共同造成的。意大利犯罪學(xué)家菲利認(rèn)為,犯罪是由人類(lèi)學(xué)因素、自然因素、社會(huì)因素等多種因素共同作用的結(jié)果。德國(guó)著名學(xué)者李斯特提出了“罪因二元論”。無(wú)論是菲利的“罪因三元論”,還是李斯特的“罪因二元論”,都無(wú)一例外地羅列了社會(huì)因素對(duì)犯罪發(fā)生的重要影響。然而,傳統(tǒng)罪責(zé)理論在確定犯罪人的刑事責(zé)任時(shí),很大程度上忽視了行為人以外的導(dǎo)致犯罪的原因。這樣一種罪責(zé)理論有多方面的缺陷。首先,傳統(tǒng)罪責(zé)理論偏重于犯罪人自身因素,將犯罪自身以外的因素基本排除在考慮之外,顯得不周?chē)?yán)。其次,傳統(tǒng)罪責(zé)理論難以實(shí)現(xiàn)實(shí)質(zhì)正義。傳統(tǒng)罪責(zé)理論在確定行為人的罪責(zé)時(shí),側(cè)重行為人事由,很大程度上忽視了社會(huì)因素和被害人事由,必然難以確定犯罪人的實(shí)質(zhì)罪責(zé),最終會(huì)使刑罰偏離實(shí)質(zhì)正義。最后,傳統(tǒng)罪責(zé)理論不利于被害人警醒自己的過(guò)錯(cuò),難以實(shí)現(xiàn)被害人預(yù)防。總之,傳統(tǒng)罪責(zé)理論存在的諸多缺陷,需要以罪因多元為視角重新審視。 當(dāng)存在被人過(guò)錯(cuò)時(shí),傳統(tǒng)罪責(zé)理論應(yīng)正視被害人過(guò)錯(cuò)對(duì)案件發(fā)生的影響力。學(xué)界對(duì)被害人過(guò)錯(cuò)影響刑事責(zé)任的機(jī)理提出了多種理論。梳理“值得保護(hù)”、“自我答責(zé)”及“比較過(guò)錯(cuò)”等理論,發(fā)現(xiàn)這些理論具有共通之處,即被害人與犯罪人對(duì)犯罪結(jié)果都有責(zé)任.且該責(zé)任具有可區(qū)分性；可分性還可通過(guò)侵權(quán)歸責(zé)原理審視�？疾靷鹘y(tǒng)民事侵權(quán)、刑事侵權(quán)的構(gòu)成要件,可歸納出侵權(quán)責(zé)任的一般原理。運(yùn)用侵權(quán)責(zé)任的一般原理,確定被害人與犯罪人的過(guò)錯(cuò)比例,并在考察被害人、犯罪人民事責(zé)任比例的基礎(chǔ)之上,減免犯罪人的刑事責(zé)任。從而實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)犯罪人實(shí)質(zhì)罪責(zé)的追問(wèn)。 當(dāng)存在不可忽視的社會(huì)因素時(shí),傳統(tǒng)罪責(zé)理論考慮社會(huì)因素不僅存在必要性,也存在可行性。傳統(tǒng)罪責(zé)理論應(yīng)通過(guò)以下路徑進(jìn)行修正。將不可忽視的社會(huì)因素量化為單個(gè)元素,包含教育程度、經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況、家庭背景及其他在行為人生活中發(fā)生的,且對(duì)行為人人格、價(jià)值觀、人生觀產(chǎn)生影響的諸多事件,并采取社會(huì)調(diào)查報(bào)告的方式,將社會(huì)因素的單個(gè)元素作為影響因子引入到裁判量刑程序中去,以法官自由裁量權(quán)界定社會(huì)因素與個(gè)人因素對(duì)犯罪發(fā)生的作用比值,進(jìn)而實(shí)現(xiàn)社會(huì)因素對(duì)犯罪人罪責(zé)的分擔(dān),形成社會(huì)因素修正傳統(tǒng)罪責(zé)理論的多進(jìn)路模式。 綜合上述兩種特殊情形,傳統(tǒng)罪責(zé)理論可以作如下重新構(gòu)造。一是同價(jià)犯罪人自身因素與社會(huì)因素對(duì)犯罪發(fā)生的影響力。即犯罪人自身因素與社會(huì)因素在罪責(zé)考量中具有等價(jià)作用。二是嚴(yán)格區(qū)分犯罪人類(lèi)型,對(duì)病態(tài)犯罪人與激情犯罪人嚴(yán)格區(qū)分,尤其對(duì)病態(tài)犯罪人中的病理型病態(tài)犯罪人實(shí)行從寬量刑,對(duì)生理型病態(tài)犯罪人從嚴(yán)依法量刑,對(duì)激情犯罪人亦實(shí)施從寬量刑的方針。三是以二次量刑的模式考慮社會(huì)因素,從而實(shí)現(xiàn)實(shí)質(zhì)罪責(zé),進(jìn)而實(shí)現(xiàn)實(shí)質(zhì)正義。具體而言,先以社會(huì)調(diào)查報(bào)告為手段,引入社會(huì)因素的單個(gè)元素作為法官裁量的事實(shí)依據(jù),確定社會(huì)因素與個(gè)人因素對(duì)犯罪發(fā)生的影響分量之比。然后,假定以純正個(gè)人因素對(duì)犯罪發(fā)生的影響,造成了該社會(huì)危害性,并結(jié)合案件情節(jié)對(duì)行為人定罪與量刑。最后,依據(jù)前述比值與第一次量刑值對(duì)行為人罪責(zé)進(jìn)行修正,從而實(shí)現(xiàn)社會(huì)因素對(duì)行為人刑事責(zé)任的分擔(dān)。
[Abstract]:The criminal classical school believes that crime is the result of the free will of the criminal. However, with the development of criminology, people gradually realize that crime is caused by a variety of reasons. Italy criminologist Feeley believes that crime is the result of a variety of factors, such as anthropological factors, natural factors, social factors and other factors. The scholar Lester put forward "the dualism of the cause of sin". Whether it is Philip's "three yuan of sin" or "the dualism of the cause of sin", the important influence of social factors on the occurrence of crime is listed without exception. However, the traditional guilt theory largely ignores the perpetrator in determining the criminal responsibility of the criminal. The cause of the crime is the cause of the crime. There are many defects in this kind of crime theory. First, the traditional theory of guilt emphasizes the criminal's own factors, excluding the factors other than the crime itself from the consideration, it is not strict. Secondly, the traditional guilt theory is difficult to realize the substantial positive meaning. The traditional culpability theory is to determine the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator. With emphasis on the behavior and personnel, to a great extent, the social factors and the victims of the victims are largely ignored. It is inevitable that it is difficult to determine the substantive responsibility of the criminal, and ultimately makes the penalty deviate from the substantive justice. Finally, the traditional crime theory is not conducive to the victim to alert his own fault and to realize the prevention of the victims. In a word, there are many defects in the traditional crime theory. The crime needs to be reexamined from the perspective of pluralism.
When there is a person's fault, the traditional crime theory should face the influence of the victim's fault on the case. The academic circle has put forward many theories about the mechanism of the criminal responsibility of the victim's fault, and combs the theory of "worthy of protection", "self accountability" and "comparative fault", and finds that these theories have common points, that is, the victims and offenders. The sinner has the responsibility for the result of the crime. And the responsibility is distinguishable; the separability can also be examined by the principle of tort liability. The constitution of the traditional civil tort, the constituent elements of the criminal tort can be summed up, the general principle of the tort liability is summed up, and the general principle of the tort liability is used to determine the proportion of the victims and the offenders, and the investigation is made. On the basis of the ratio of crimes and crimes, the criminal responsibility of the offender is reduced and the criminal responsibility of the offender is examined.
When there is a social factor that can not be ignored, it is necessary and feasible to consider the social factors in traditional guilt theory. The traditional culpability theory should be amended by the following path. The social factors that can not be ignored are quantified as a single element, including education, economy, family background and others in the life of the perpetrator. There are many events which have influence on the personality, values and outlook on life of the actor, and adopt the social investigation report to introduce the individual elements of social factors into the referee's sentencing procedure, and determine the ratio of the social and human factors to the crime by the discretion of the judges, and then realize the society. The sharing of the guilt between the factors and the offenders forms a multi way way to amend the traditional theory of guilt by social factors.
Combining the above two special situations, the traditional crime theory can be restructured as follows. One is the influence of the individual factor and social factor on the crime of the same price criminal. That is, the offender's own factors and social factors have the equivalent effect in the consideration of the crime. The two is to strictly distinguish the type of the criminal, and to the sick and the passionate offender. Strictly distinguish, especially to the pathological and pathological morbid criminal among the sick offenders, to measure the punishment of the physiologically morbid criminal strictly according to law, and to carry out the principle of wide sentencing for the passionate criminals. Three is to consider the social factors by the mode of two sentencing, so as to realize the real quality of the crime, and then realize the substantive justice. The social investigation report, as a means, introduces a single element of social factors as the factual basis of a judge's discretion and determines the ratio of the social and personal factors to the crime. Then, it is assumed that the influence of pure personal factors on the occurrence of the crime has caused the social danger and the conviction and quantity of the perpetrator in the case of the case. Finally, according to the above ratio and the first sentencing value to amend the actor's guilt, we can achieve the social factor's sharing of the criminal responsibility of the actor.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：昆明理工大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D914

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孫道萃;;論刑事責(zé)任歸責(zé)體系的建構(gòu)——兼及回應(yīng)“刑事責(zé)任獨(dú)立要件化”界說(shuō)[J];福建法學(xué);2012年02期

2 夏吉先;法人二元罪因罪責(zé)論[J];法學(xué);1993年09期

3 初紅漫;;論被害人過(guò)錯(cuò)影響刑事責(zé)任之正當(dāng)依據(jù)[J];河北法學(xué);2012年01期

4 侯國(guó)云;;對(duì)刑事責(zé)任理論的質(zhì)疑[J];南都學(xué)壇;2011年04期

5 勞東燕;;罪責(zé)的社會(huì)化與規(guī)范責(zé)任論的重構(gòu)——期待可能性理論命運(yùn)之反思[J];南京師大學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年02期

6 黎宏;;關(guān)于“刑事責(zé)任”的另一種理解[J];清華法學(xué);2009年02期

7 楊雄;;未成年人刑事案件中社會(huì)調(diào)查制度的運(yùn)用[J];法學(xué)論壇;2008年01期

8 劉軍;;事實(shí)與規(guī)范之間的被害人過(guò)錯(cuò)[J];法學(xué)論壇;2008年05期

9 廖煥國(guó);曾祥生;;民刑互動(dòng):侵權(quán)責(zé)任法與刑法的沖突與協(xié)調(diào)[J];武漢大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年02期

10 肖世杰;;我國(guó)現(xiàn)行刑事責(zé)任理論的結(jié)構(gòu)性缺陷與改造思路[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2007年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1880321