論被迫行為
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-03 07:48
【摘要】：被迫行為是指在受脅迫的狀態(tài)下,行為人只能按照脅迫人意思實施的一類行為。在此種情況下,行為人面對死亡、重傷的威脅,自由意志較低,實施的行為并非在其本意的支配下,因此刑法不能簡單地依照法條來判處行為人有罪。2015年發(fā)生的一起刑事案件中,章某被綁架脅迫殺人,當(dāng)時就引起大家的廣泛關(guān)注,章某的行為到底該解釋為何種行為?需不需要承擔(dān)責(zé)任?有認(rèn)為屬于脅從犯,有認(rèn)為符合緊急避險的要件,有認(rèn)為行為人遭受了不可抗力,也有人提到了間接正犯。非出于行為人本身的意愿,但因為處于一個被脅迫的狀態(tài)而不得不這么去做,本文認(rèn)為被迫行為理論恰恰很能概括此種行為,行為本身的違法性毋庸置疑,卻不具備有責(zé)性。此時,如果直接按照刑法規(guī)定,特別是對行為人一方來講難以達(dá)到公正的效果。本文以該案例為出發(fā)點,一步步論證在我國刑法體系中確立被迫行為獨立地位的意義何在。本文主要使用案例分析法和對比研究法,用一個案例引出對下文被迫行為的討論,通過對比英美法系、大陸法系以及我國相關(guān)理論,以此探討被迫行為的理論基礎(chǔ)、成立條件、如何定性和如何定位等問題,并與緊急避險和脅從犯理論進(jìn)行比較研究,逐一分析理論間的異同點,從而論證被迫行為對我國司法實踐的借鑒意義,以及在我國刑法體系中有效融入被迫行為的必要性。本文先比較英美法系、大陸法系與我國的各自規(guī)定,被迫行為理論最開始作為一種可以辯護(hù)的理由出現(xiàn)在英美法系,但對于程度、方式、對象等方面并沒有統(tǒng)一的定論,美國各個州的規(guī)定都不盡相同;德國刑法中的緊急避險理論分為兩類,一類是合法化的,一類是阻卻責(zé)任的,被脅迫實施的行為歸類到阻卻責(zé)任緊急避險理論中;韓國刑法不同于英美刑法,而是將被脅迫實施的行為規(guī)定在超法規(guī)的責(zé)任阻卻事由中。我國學(xué)者有以下幾種觀點,有認(rèn)為被脅迫可以解釋為是一種不可抗力的狀態(tài),有認(rèn)為行為人處于意志完全喪失的狀態(tài),有認(rèn)為行為人的行為屬于一種緊急避險,也有認(rèn)為行為人的行為用脅從犯理論就可以說得通。本文對上述各種理論學(xué)說進(jìn)行對比論證,指出不合理的地方,從而對被迫行為進(jìn)行一個總結(jié)性的概括。我國有些學(xué)者認(rèn)為被脅迫實施的犯罪行為屬于脅從犯或緊急避險,因此本文另一個重點就是將被迫行為與緊急避險、脅從犯進(jìn)行深入比較。緊急避險要求保護(hù)的法益與侵害的法益之間有一個衡量的界限,而被迫行為不需要顧慮這些;如果避險人考慮的是他人、集體、國家的利益而實施的避險行為,那么刑法是積極鼓勵支持的,但被迫行為存在違法性,對于違反法律的行為刑法不會鼓勵肯定,這些是緊急避險與被迫行為的區(qū)別。脅從犯歸屬于共犯理論,所起作用比從犯、主犯要小,成立脅從犯不要求當(dāng)場性、緊迫性,不要求遭受的是死亡、重傷的脅迫,不要求行為人必須是在較低程度自由意志的情形下實施犯罪行為,這些是脅從犯與被迫行為的區(qū)別。當(dāng)把被迫行為闡釋清楚之后,本文開頭的案例如何解決就迎刃而解了。章某受到死亡的脅迫,他只能選擇遵從幾個脅迫人的要求殺害被害人,刑法難以要求章某能英雄般地犧牲自己而堅決不去殺害被害人,章某只是做出了一般人都會做的選擇,因此不需要承擔(dān)刑事責(zé)任。因此,在我國刑法體系中確立被迫行為的獨立地位,既有助于解決司法實務(wù)中的類似案件,也能保證公正對待行為人、第三人,維護(hù)刑法的權(quán)威性以及社會的穩(wěn)定性。
[Abstract]:Forced act refers to a kind of behavior that the perpetrator can only carry out in accordance with the meaning of the coercion under the condition of coercion. In this case, the perpetrator is facing death, the threat of serious injury, the lower free will, and the act of carrying out the act is not under the control of its original intention, so the criminal law can not be simply sentenced to the perpetrator for.2015 years of crime in accordance with the law. In a criminal case of birth, Zhang was kidnapped and homicide, which caused wide attention at that time. What was the explanation for the behavior of Zhang? It is not out of the will of the perpetrator itself, but because it is forced to do so in a state of coercion, this article holds that the theory of forced behavior can precisely summarize such behavior. The illegality of the act itself is unquestionable, but not accountable. At this time, it is difficult to reach the criminal law, especially for the perpetrator. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the significance of establishing the independent status of forced behavior in the criminal law system of our country. This article mainly uses case analysis and comparative study, and uses a case to lead to the discussion of the forced behavior below, through the related theory to the Anglo American legal system, the continental law system and our country. On the basis of this, it discusses the theoretical basis of forced behavior, the establishment of conditions, how to determine the quality and how to locate it, and compare it with the theory of emergency avoidance and coercion, and analyze the similarities and differences of the theory one by one, so as to demonstrate the significance of the forced behavior to our judicial practice, and to effectively integrate the forced behavior into the criminal law system of our country. It is necessary to compare the rules of the Anglo American law system, the continental law system and our country, and the theory of forced behavior first appeared in the Anglo American legal system as a justification, but there is no uniform conclusion on the degree, the way, the object and other aspects. The emergency avoidance theory in the German Criminal Law It is divided into two categories: one is legalized, the other is hindered by the responsibility, and the coercive action is classified into the theory of emergency avoidance. The Korean criminal law is different from the Anglo American criminal law, but the act of coercion under the responsibility of the super statute. It is interpreted as a state of force majeure. There is a state that the perpetrator is in a state of total loss of will. The behavior of the actor is considered as an emergency avoidance, and the behavior of the perpetrator is considered to be effective by the theory of coerced offender. Some scholars in our country think that the coerced criminal acts are coerced offenders or emergency avoidance, so the other focus of this article is to compare the forced act with the emergency avoidance and the coerced offender. There is a limit between the legal interest of the emergency protection requirement and the legal benefit of the infringement, But forced behavior does not need to worry about these; if the risk avoidance person considers the avoidance of other people, collectives, and the interests of the state, the criminal law is an active encouragement, but the act of coercion is illegal and does not encourage affirmation of the criminal law that violates the law. This is the difference between emergency and forced behavior. The theory of accomplice is more important than an accomplice, the principal offender should be smaller, the coercion is not required to be on the spot, the urgency is not required to suffer the death, the stress of the serious injury, and the perpetrator must be committed to the crime under the lower free will, which is the difference between the offender and the forced act. After the death of the case, he can only choose to kill the victim in accordance with the demands of a few coercion. The criminal law is difficult to claim that the chapter can sacrifice himself heroic and not to kill the victim. Therefore, the establishment of the independent status of forced behavior in the criminal law system of our country will not only help to solve similar cases in the judicial practice, but also guarantee the fair treatment of the perpetrator, third people, the authority of the criminal law and the stability of the society.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.1
本文編號：2161084
[Abstract]:Forced act refers to a kind of behavior that the perpetrator can only carry out in accordance with the meaning of the coercion under the condition of coercion. In this case, the perpetrator is facing death, the threat of serious injury, the lower free will, and the act of carrying out the act is not under the control of its original intention, so the criminal law can not be simply sentenced to the perpetrator for.2015 years of crime in accordance with the law. In a criminal case of birth, Zhang was kidnapped and homicide, which caused wide attention at that time. What was the explanation for the behavior of Zhang? It is not out of the will of the perpetrator itself, but because it is forced to do so in a state of coercion, this article holds that the theory of forced behavior can precisely summarize such behavior. The illegality of the act itself is unquestionable, but not accountable. At this time, it is difficult to reach the criminal law, especially for the perpetrator. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the significance of establishing the independent status of forced behavior in the criminal law system of our country. This article mainly uses case analysis and comparative study, and uses a case to lead to the discussion of the forced behavior below, through the related theory to the Anglo American legal system, the continental law system and our country. On the basis of this, it discusses the theoretical basis of forced behavior, the establishment of conditions, how to determine the quality and how to locate it, and compare it with the theory of emergency avoidance and coercion, and analyze the similarities and differences of the theory one by one, so as to demonstrate the significance of the forced behavior to our judicial practice, and to effectively integrate the forced behavior into the criminal law system of our country. It is necessary to compare the rules of the Anglo American law system, the continental law system and our country, and the theory of forced behavior first appeared in the Anglo American legal system as a justification, but there is no uniform conclusion on the degree, the way, the object and other aspects. The emergency avoidance theory in the German Criminal Law It is divided into two categories: one is legalized, the other is hindered by the responsibility, and the coercive action is classified into the theory of emergency avoidance. The Korean criminal law is different from the Anglo American criminal law, but the act of coercion under the responsibility of the super statute. It is interpreted as a state of force majeure. There is a state that the perpetrator is in a state of total loss of will. The behavior of the actor is considered as an emergency avoidance, and the behavior of the perpetrator is considered to be effective by the theory of coerced offender. Some scholars in our country think that the coerced criminal acts are coerced offenders or emergency avoidance, so the other focus of this article is to compare the forced act with the emergency avoidance and the coerced offender. There is a limit between the legal interest of the emergency protection requirement and the legal benefit of the infringement, But forced behavior does not need to worry about these; if the risk avoidance person considers the avoidance of other people, collectives, and the interests of the state, the criminal law is an active encouragement, but the act of coercion is illegal and does not encourage affirmation of the criminal law that violates the law. This is the difference between emergency and forced behavior. The theory of accomplice is more important than an accomplice, the principal offender should be smaller, the coercion is not required to be on the spot, the urgency is not required to suffer the death, the stress of the serious injury, and the perpetrator must be committed to the crime under the lower free will, which is the difference between the offender and the forced act. After the death of the case, he can only choose to kill the victim in accordance with the demands of a few coercion. The criminal law is difficult to claim that the chapter can sacrifice himself heroic and not to kill the victim. Therefore, the establishment of the independent status of forced behavior in the criminal law system of our country will not only help to solve similar cases in the judicial practice, but also guarantee the fair treatment of the perpetrator, third people, the authority of the criminal law and the stability of the society.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.1
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 魏漢濤;;被迫行為的性質(zhì)及其體系性地位——一個批判性分析[J];海南大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);2012年01期
2 魏漢濤;;反思被迫行為與緊急避險的關(guān)系[J];昆明理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2011年06期
3 鄧定永;;論脅從犯在共犯人分類中的歸屬[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(法學(xué)版);2010年05期
4 張坤;;被迫行為在我國和大陸法系犯罪論體系中的應(yīng)然地位[J];福建警察學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年04期
5 柳忠衛(wèi);;論被迫行為的刑法規(guī)制及其體系性地位的重構(gòu)[J];中國法學(xué);2010年02期
6 李青;;淺論英美刑法中的被迫行為[J];南華大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2009年03期
7 張明楷;;期待可能性理論的梳理[J];法學(xué)研究;2009年01期
8 孫立紅;;比較評析被脅迫作為阻卻犯罪事由的法律性質(zhì)[J];中國刑事法雜志;2008年06期
9 于改之;郭獻(xiàn)朝;;兩大法系犯罪論體系的比較與借鑒[J];法學(xué)論壇;2006年01期
10 黃明儒;論緊急避險的概念與本質(zhì)屬性[J];華僑大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2005年02期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條
1 王藝曉;被迫行為比較研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2014年
2 史蘭芳;被脅迫行為之比較研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年
，本文編號：2161084
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2161084.html
教材專著
