發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-01-23 17:56

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 因果關(guān)系錯(cuò)誤 人權(quán)保障 法益保護(hù)　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：因果關(guān)系錯(cuò)誤是我國刑法領(lǐng)域非常重要的問題，因?yàn)橐蚬P(guān)系錯(cuò)誤通常與罪與非罪、此罪彼罪、未遂既遂問題交織在一起，所以對行為人的實(shí)行行為進(jìn)行歸責(zé)意義重大，對刑法學(xué)界與司法實(shí)踐都有重要的價(jià)值，由于我國的刑法典中也沒有相關(guān)內(nèi)容的規(guī)定，同時(shí)因果關(guān)系錯(cuò)誤問題也存在著很多爭議的問題，在司法實(shí)踐領(lǐng)域產(chǎn)生很多分歧，容易滋生法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，削弱法律權(quán)威，使行為人與被害人的合法權(quán)利都得不到切實(shí)的保障。 學(xué)界通說觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為法定符合說是解決因果關(guān)系錯(cuò)誤的最好辦法，本文以人權(quán)保障與法益保護(hù)為視角，通過運(yùn)用比較研究方法和案例分析方法，對具體符合說與法定符合說進(jìn)行了細(xì)致的分析，發(fā)現(xiàn)具體符合說與法定符合說在解決因果關(guān)系錯(cuò)誤問題上存在著理論缺陷。具體符合說在構(gòu)成要件內(nèi)具體的相一致才能成立故意犯罪既遂，由于條件的苛刻在很大程度上阻止了故意犯罪既遂的成立，正是由于這樣的問題的存在，現(xiàn)在理論界已經(jīng)很少有人在主張具體符合說了。法定符合說在法益保護(hù)上有效的保護(hù)了被害人的權(quán)益，并且在法定的構(gòu)成要件內(nèi)一致就成立故意犯罪既遂，成立故意犯罪既遂的門檻較低，，并且沒有細(xì)分行為在實(shí)施危害行為時(shí)的故意，沒有做到具體問題具體分析，極有可能成為人們?yōu)E用刑法的合理借口，極容易損害行為人的利益，不利于人權(quán)保障這一刑法機(jī)能的發(fā)揮。 本文通過在整體與部分的視角對因果關(guān)系錯(cuò)誤問題進(jìn)行了比較分析，通過對我國當(dāng)前的理論觀點(diǎn)與德日刑法理論界的通說觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行評析，進(jìn)一步了解因果關(guān)系錯(cuò)誤問題及其下位概念中事前故意與結(jié)果提前實(shí)現(xiàn)的相關(guān)理論，加深了對因果關(guān)系錯(cuò)誤問題及因果關(guān)系錯(cuò)誤類型案例的主客觀構(gòu)成的認(rèn)識(shí)。本文在對事前故意與結(jié)果提前實(shí)現(xiàn)類型案例中的行為人的實(shí)行行為與其包含在行為背后的故意進(jìn)行細(xì)分，發(fā)現(xiàn)在不同內(nèi)容的故意支配下行為人實(shí)施危害行為如果用統(tǒng)一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)歸責(zé)，在行為人與被害人利益平衡時(shí)會(huì)有所偏失，人權(quán)保障與法益保護(hù)兩大刑法機(jī)能也達(dá)不到理想的平衡狀態(tài)。而任何一種科學(xué)合理的學(xué)說與方法都應(yīng)該在人權(quán)保障與法益保護(hù)兩大機(jī)能之間尋求最佳平衡狀態(tài)。 本文正是以人權(quán)保障與法益保護(hù)刑法的兩大機(jī)能為視角，通過對當(dāng)前我國與德日刑法學(xué)界的理論學(xué)說進(jìn)行評析，發(fā)現(xiàn)每種學(xué)說的合理與不足之處，探索在解決因果關(guān)系錯(cuò)誤問題類型的最優(yōu)途徑。本文通過對行為人的實(shí)行行為與背后故意情況的細(xì)分，發(fā)現(xiàn)在這類案例中根據(jù)行為人所持故意的不同，我們應(yīng)當(dāng)具體分析第一行為與第二行為在不同種類故意支配下所產(chǎn)生出的不同情況做分類討論，對行為人的故意進(jìn)行更加深入的探索，當(dāng)然這需要司法實(shí)踐活動(dòng)中提供充足的證據(jù)作為支撐。之所以這樣做并不是簡單為行為人出罪提供理論借口，而是通過對故意的細(xì)分使行為人的惡故意更加鮮明的擺在我們面前，使犯罪意圖決絕的行為人的犯罪故意無處遁形，而犯罪故意惡性不大的行為人理應(yīng)減輕處罰。這樣使法律的公平性、可接受性、權(quán)威性得到切實(shí)的貫徹，也使人權(quán)保障機(jī)能與法益保護(hù)機(jī)能之間得到最佳平衡。在苛責(zé)行為人的同時(shí)，也使行為人的權(quán)利得到應(yīng)有的保障。
[Abstract]:The causation error is a very important problem in China's criminal law field, because causality errors are commonly associated with crime and non crime, this crime and that crime, attempted crime problems are intertwined, so for the implementation of the perpetrator's behavior imputation is significant, and has important value of community and judicial practice of criminal law, the provisions no related content in our criminal law, and causality errors also exist many controversial issues, have a lot of differences in the field of judicial practice, easy to breed the legal risk, the authority of law, legal rights and harmful behavior that are not effectively protected.
The academic viewpoint is that that is to say, is the best way to deal with false causality, the protection of human rights and the protection of law from the perspective of method and case analysis method by using comparative study, to meet the specific that the detailed analysis and legal compliance, and statutory compliance with said that in resolving the cause the relationship between error problems. Theoretical defect of concrete accord in cabstand consistent to the establishment of specific accomplishment of intentional crime, because of the harsh conditions to a great extent prevent intentional crime accomplishment, it is precisely because of such problems, now the theory has rarely been in favor of concrete accord said. That is to say, in the protection of the interests of the law on the effective protection of the rights and interests of the victims, and the legal elements in the agreement on the establishment of crime of intentional crime, intentional crime The accomplishment of the low threshold, and no intentional behavior in the implementation of subdivision harmful action, no specific problem analysis, is likely to be a reasonable excuse for people to abuse of criminal law, is very easy to damage the interests of the people, is not conducive to the protection of human rights in the criminal law function of play.
This paper through the comparative analysis in whole and in part from the perspective of false causality problem, based on the theory of current China and the German and Japanese criminal law theory view analysis, further understanding of the relevant theory of causality error and its subordinate concept in advance intention and results ahead of schedule to achieve, to deepen the understanding of causality the relationship between error and the causal relationship between the subjective and objective error type case. Based on the composition and the type of intentional advance ahead of schedule to achieve in the case of the implementation of the perpetrator's behavior and behavior behind the intention contained in the subdivision, found in different contents under the control of the perpetrator intentionally harm behavior if the standard of liability that will be due to the deviation in behavior and victim of balance of interests, the protection of human rights and interests protection two functions of criminal law can not reach the ideal balance. And any scientific and reasonable theory and method should seek the best balance between the two functions of the protection of human rights and the protection of legal interests.
This paper is based on the two functions of human rights protection and legal protection of criminal law from the perspective of the analysis through the theory of current China and the German and Japanese criminal law scholars, found that each theory is reasonable and inadequate exploration in solving the optimal path type false causality problem. Based on the behavior of the implementation of behind the intentional behavior and segmentation, found in this case according to the behavior of people deliberately holding different, we should first analyzes different behavior and behavior of second produced in different kinds of intentional under the domination of classified discussion, on the behavior of the intention to explore more in-depth, of course, the need to provide as the support of sufficient evidence in judicial practice. The reason for doing so is not simply to acts of crime and provide a theoretical excuse, but through the deliberate evil people deliberately make behavior segmentation more Bright in front of us, the criminal intent of the perpetrator of the crime of intentionally refuse nowhere to hide, and intentional crime behavior should not malignant. So the mitigated punishment of the legal fairness, acceptability, authority has been effectively implemented, the protection of human rights can obtain the best balance between protection and function of legal interest. In the critical behavior of people at the same time, the behavior of human rights.

【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】：2014
【分類號】：D924.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張明楷;;英美刑法中關(guān)于法律認(rèn)識(shí)錯(cuò)誤的處理原則[J];法學(xué)家;1996年03期

2 謝望原,柳忠衛(wèi);犯罪成立視野中的違法性認(rèn)識(shí)[J];法學(xué)評論;2003年03期

3 黎宏;日本近現(xiàn)代刑法學(xué)的發(fā)展歷程及其借鑒意義[J];法學(xué)評論;2004年05期

4 阮齊林;論刑法中的認(rèn)識(shí)錯(cuò)誤[J];法學(xué)研究;1996年01期

5 賈宇;;論刑法中的認(rèn)識(shí)錯(cuò)誤[J];人民檢察;2009年05期

6 陳興良;;不能犯與未遂犯——一個(gè)比較法的分析[J];清華法學(xué);2011年04期

7 周光權(quán);;區(qū)分不能犯和未遂犯的三個(gè)維度[J];清華法學(xué);2011年04期

8 錢葉六;;未遂犯與不能犯之區(qū)分[J];清華法學(xué);2011年04期

9 張明楷;;論具體的方法錯(cuò)誤[J];中外法學(xué);2008年02期

10 劉明祥;關(guān)于事實(shí)錯(cuò)誤的學(xué)說及其評析[J];外國法譯評;1995年04期

本文編號：1457882