【摘要】：近年來學(xué)術(shù)界對教唆理論問題的研究成果頗多，但其中絕大多數(shù)是從整體上對教唆犯問題進行研究，對概然性教唆這一特殊教唆類型的深入研究還是比較少,在司法實踐中應(yīng)當(dāng)如何對其予以定性始終是觀點各異，沒有確切的答案，無法給予實務(wù)界打擊類似犯罪以及保障犯罪分子人權(quán)提供足夠的理論支撐。教唆故意范疇、教唆的具體內(nèi)容方式、方法，與教唆犯罪指向的對象不確定時，被教唆人又沒有實施被教唆的犯罪，那么怎么樣對教唆人的教唆行為定性一直以來都是個沒有定論的問題。因此，對概然性的教唆行為進行細致的研究和分析,有助于對其基本特征、表現(xiàn)形式、認定與處罰等問題的思考和深入研究，也有助于在司法實踐中對共同犯罪中的教唆行為的準(zhǔn)確的定性,以此來減少出現(xiàn)因定性不準(zhǔn)確而導(dǎo)致不符合罪刑相適應(yīng)原則的情況。本文主要從概然性教唆行為的概念、特征、表現(xiàn)形式的角度入手，進而探討各方關(guān)于概然性教唆定性的不同觀點，以尋求更完善地對概然性的教唆行為進行定性的方案。 文章第一部分主要對概然性教唆行為進行大致的介紹，包括其概念、界定時需要著重把握的方面以及其與明確性教唆的本質(zhì)區(qū)別。然后介紹了概然性教唆行為的表現(xiàn)形式，包括教唆故意范疇不確定、教唆犯罪行為內(nèi)容不確定以及教唆犯罪指向的對象不確定這三類。在文章的第二部分，主要探討了如何對概然性教唆行為定性的幾種觀點及其評析，其中分別評析了依被教唆人實行行為定性說、依教唆人主觀定性說和主客觀相結(jié)合說，，并在支持主客觀相結(jié)合觀點的基礎(chǔ)上對概然性教唆的情形下可能出現(xiàn)的幾種定性結(jié)果進行了分析，包括無罪、教唆未遂、實行過限這三種情形。第三部分主要闡述的是作者本人對于概然性教唆行為定性的看法。首先，從概然性教唆行為定性的理論依據(jù)出發(fā)，包括了考慮教唆人犯罪目的所產(chǎn)生的背景，理清教唆人的犯罪目的與被教唆人的犯罪手段之間的因果關(guān)系以及準(zhǔn)確地對教唆行為與實行行為之間的事實要素中的差異作出判斷。再在此基礎(chǔ)上分別針對概然性教唆行為的三種表現(xiàn)形式作定性的具體分析。
[Abstract]:In recent years, there have been a lot of researches on the theory of abettor in academic circles, but most of them have studied the problem of abettor as a whole, and the deep research on this special type of abettor is still relatively few. In judicial practice, how to characterize it is always different, there is no definite answer, can not give practical circles to crack down on similar crimes and protect the human rights of criminals to provide sufficient theoretical support. The category of aiding intent, the specific contents and methods of abetment, and when the object of the instigated crime is not certain, the abettor does not commit the instigated crime, So how to instigator's abetting behavior has always been a question of uncertainty. Therefore, the detailed study and analysis of the instigating behavior of likelihood is helpful to the thinking and in-depth study of its basic characteristics, forms of expression, identification and punishment, etc. It is also helpful to the accurate characterization of the instigating behavior in the joint crime in judicial practice, so as to reduce the situation that the inaccuracy of the characterization leads to the inconformity with the principle of crime and punishment. This paper mainly starts with the concept, characteristics and forms of probable abetting, and then discusses the different views of all parties on the characterization of likelihood abetment, in order to seek a more perfect scheme for the characterization of probable abetting. In the first part of this paper, the author gives a general introduction to the generalized abetting behavior, including its concept, the aspects that need to be grasped and the essential difference between it and the explicit abettor. Then it introduces the forms of general abetting behavior, including the uncertainty of the category of aiding intention, the uncertainty of the content of the criminal act of abetting and the uncertainty of the object to which the abetting crime is directed. In the second part of the article, the author mainly discusses several views and comments on the qualitative nature of the generalized abetting act, in which, respectively, the qualitative theory of the act carried out by the instigated person, the subjective qualitative theory of the abetting person and the combination of subjective and objective theory are analyzed. On the basis of supporting the combination of subjective and objective views, this paper analyzes several possible qualitative results in the case of likelihood abetting, including innocence, attempted instigation and excessive restriction. The third part mainly describes the author's views on the qualitative nature of probable abettor. First of all, starting from the theoretical basis of the qualitative nature of the instigator, including the background of considering the criminal purpose of the abettor, The causality between the criminal purpose of the abettor and the criminal means of the instigated person and the difference in the factual elements between the abetting act and the abetting act are clarified and the difference between the instigator's criminal means and the instigator's criminal means is accurately judged. On the basis of this, the qualitative and concrete analysis of three forms of probable abetting behavior is made.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D914

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳雄飛;英美法系教唆犯罪主、客觀要件研究[J];北京科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2004年03期

2 劉招華;教唆相關(guān)問題探討[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2003年05期

3 張永紅;;概括故意研究[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);2008年01期

4 黃祥青;論不可罰的教唆行為——共犯理論與實踐中有待確立的一個新命題[J];法律適用(國家法官學(xué)院學(xué)報);2001年09期

5 馬克昌;;論教唆犯[J];法律學(xué)習(xí)與研究;1987年05期

6 陳慶新;;教唆犯性質(zhì)之理論探討[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(中旬刊);2010年01期

7 顧建軍;;教唆行為的影響力與量刑[J];法學(xué)雜志;1988年04期

8 劉燁;劉少夫;;淺議司法實踐中如何認定對危害結(jié)果認識不明確的概括故意——以鐘某涉嫌故意傷害一案為例[J];法制與社會;2012年33期

9 唐雙燕;;論教唆犯的性質(zhì)[J];今日財富(金融發(fā)展與監(jiān)管);2011年11期

10 李英偉;;教唆犯理論中兩個問題的研究[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年03期

本文編號：2159859