【摘要】：煽動指通過一定的方式,比如鼓勵、命令、敦促、請求、建議、引誘等,去慫恿、鼓動他人,希望他人信任其所表達的內(nèi)容并實施該內(nèi)容所指向的目標行為。煽動型犯罪與其他犯罪相比,有其特殊性,煽動行為一般是發(fā)表言論等表意性行為,當人們談及言論往往會談及言論自由以及包含言論自由在內(nèi)的表達自由,故煽動行為往往關系著公民的表達自由。因此,應該明確“煽動”入罪的界限,在懲罰犯罪與保障公民表達自由之間達到平衡。既不能為了懲罰犯罪而在煽動立法時任意擴大煽動的外延,也不能為了表達的絕對自由而放棄對煽動行為的處罰。當表達自由明顯越界時,國家有權(quán)予以規(guī)范和懲罰,煽動入罪便是最重要的懲罰手段。同時,因為刑法中的罪刑法定原則,通過懲罰濫用表達自由行為劃定表達自由的行為邊界,亦是對表達自由的一種保障。本文分為四個部分:第一部分是煽動概述。首先對煽動進行界定;其次對煽動與教唆進行比較;然后闡述煽動入罪的必要性,它既是懲治犯罪的需要,也是對憲法權(quán)利的保障;最后論述了煽動入罪的理論基礎:未完成罪理論與危險犯理論。第二部分通過研究域外國家?guī)追N主要的煽動型犯罪類型,分析國外對煽動行為的刑法規(guī)制,并得出啟示:煽動立法(入罪)的基本趨勢是國家越來越注重對表達自由的保護,嚴格界定煽動的內(nèi)涵,設立抗辯理由與例外條款為一些不應受刑法規(guī)制但可能會造成不良后果的行為出罪。第三部分分析我國對煽動的刑法規(guī)制。我國刑法沒有設立煽動他人犯罪罪,而是代之以教唆犯;我國刑法分則設立了七宗煽動型犯罪,這是典型煽動;此外,一些聚眾犯罪與言論犯罪中也可能包含煽動行為,這是非典型煽動。第四部分提出完善我國煽動刑法規(guī)制的建議:設立公共場合煽動他人犯罪罪,明確煽動入罪的界限以及增設例外條款。
[Abstract]:Incitement means encouraging, urging, requesting, advising, luring, etc., by means of encouragement, command, urge, suggestion, inducement, etc., in order to encourage others to believe in what they are expressing and to carry out the targeted act of that content. Compared with other crimes, seditious crime has its own particularity. Incitement generally refers to expressive acts such as speech. When people talk about speech, they often talk about freedom of speech and freedom of expression, which includes freedom of speech. Therefore, incitement is often related to the freedom of expression of citizens. Therefore, we should make clear the boundary of "inciting" incrimination and strike a balance between punishing crime and guaranteeing citizens' freedom of expression. Neither the extension of incitement in the legislation of incitement should be arbitrarily expanded in order to punish the offence, nor the punishment of incitement should be waived for the sake of absolute freedom of expression. When freedom of expression clearly crosses the border, the state has the right to regulate and punish it, and incitement is the most important punishment. At the same time, because of the principle of legality in criminal law, it is also a guarantee for freedom of expression to delimit the boundary of freedom of expression by punishing the abuse of freedom of expression. This article is divided into four parts: the first part is an overview of incitement. Firstly, it defines incitement; secondly, it compares incitement with abetting; then it expounds the necessity of inciting incrimination, which is not only the need of punishing crime, but also the guarantee of constitutional right. Finally, it discusses the theoretical basis of sedition: the theory of unfinished crime and the theory of dangerous crime. In the second part, by studying several main types of seditious crimes in foreign countries, the author analyzes the criminal law regulation of sedition in foreign countries, and concludes that the basic trend of sedition legislation is that the state pays more and more attention to the protection of freedom of expression. Strictly defining the connotation of incitement, establishing defense and exception clauses are crimes that should not be regulated by criminal law but may result in adverse consequences. The third part analyzes the criminal regulation of sedition in our country. The criminal law of our country does not establish the crime of inciting others to commit crimes, but it is replaced by an abettor; the sub-rule of our criminal law sets up seven seditious crimes, which are typical incitement; in addition, some mass crimes and speech crimes may also contain seditious acts. This is atypical incitement. The fourth part puts forward the suggestions of perfecting the regulation of the criminal law of sedition in our country: setting up the crime of inciting others in public, clarifying the limits of the crime of inciting and adding the exception clause.
【學位授予單位】：江西理工大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.3

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 李哲;張一;;中英煽動恐怖主義犯罪比較[J];國家檢察官學院學報;2016年05期

2 孫浩文;;煽動實施恐怖活動罪相關問題研究[J];太原學院學報(社會科學版);2016年01期

3 盧有學;吳永輝;;極端主義犯罪辨析——基礎理論與立法剖析[J];西南政法大學學報;2015年02期

4 胡杰;;公共事項言論入罪界限初探[J];理論界;2013年06期

5 班克慶;;淺議煽動恐怖活動罪[J];云南行政學院學報;2012年03期

6 陳興良;;“風險刑法”與刑法風險:雙重視角的考察[J];法商研究;2011年04期

7 孟慶華;;煽動暴力抗拒法律實施罪的幾個構(gòu)成要件問題探討[J];江西科技師范學院學報;2008年02期

8 葉小琴;;略論煽動分裂國家罪[J];華中農(nóng)業(yè)大學學報(社會科學版);2006年03期

9 李炳爍;言論自由的限度理論[J];江蘇大學學報(社會科學版);2005年05期

10 彭劍鳴,鄧萬飛;論煽動民族仇恨、民族歧視罪[J];貴州民族研究;2002年02期

相關博士學位論文 前2條

1 陳小彪;言論自由的刑法邊界[D];西南政法大學;2012年

2 班克慶;煽動型犯罪研究[D];蘇州大學;2012年

相關碩士學位論文 前2條

1 沈yN雪;論宣揚恐怖主義、極端主義、煽動實施恐怖活動罪[D];華東政法大學;2016年

2 李政;煽動性言論的刑法邊界[D];山東大學;2016年

，

本文編號：2182978