本文關(guān)鍵詞： 致人失蹤 刑法規(guī)制 危害結(jié)果 死亡認(rèn)定 司法解釋　出處：《大連海事大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：人員失蹤這種結(jié)果狀態(tài)在民事法律上有宣告失蹤和宣告死亡的制度加以規(guī)制,而在刑事法律上,對(duì)人身的犯罪結(jié)果只有死亡和重傷,對(duì)“人員失蹤”的情形沒(méi)有明確的制度規(guī)定。因此,在司法實(shí)踐中,司法機(jī)關(guān)在對(duì)出現(xiàn)致人失蹤結(jié)果的案件進(jìn)行判處時(shí)找不到直接的法律依據(jù),判決結(jié)果出現(xiàn)了不統(tǒng)一的情況,主要司法模式有：致人失蹤的結(jié)果不構(gòu)成犯罪進(jìn)而不進(jìn)行刑事追究；伴隨死亡結(jié)果,對(duì)人員失蹤的結(jié)果忽略不計(jì)；以民事宣告死亡作為依據(jù)追究刑事責(zé)任；法院推定死亡后進(jìn)行定罪宣判。嚴(yán)格說(shuō)來(lái),致人失蹤作為一種新呈現(xiàn)的非死亡、非重傷的結(jié)果,其并不是刑事實(shí)體法的研究對(duì)象,而是刑事訴訟程序中缺少證據(jù)加以證實(shí)的法律事實(shí),實(shí)體法律對(duì)其有所忽略可以理解。但近年來(lái)出現(xiàn)致人失蹤這種結(jié)果的刑事案件越來(lái)越多,沒(méi)有明確的法律加以指引勢(shì)必造成司法混亂、處判不公的結(jié)果。針對(duì)致人失蹤這一結(jié)果進(jìn)行刑法規(guī)制需要區(qū)分不同案件類(lèi)型。發(fā)生在陸地上的案件大多屬于事故型案件,這類(lèi)案件失蹤人員生還希望幾乎為零,等同于死亡,通過(guò)收集證據(jù)形成證據(jù)鏈條足以證明死亡事實(shí)的存在,因此這類(lèi)案件需要采取對(duì)失蹤人員進(jìn)行死亡認(rèn)定的程序后,依據(jù)死亡人數(shù)進(jìn)行刑事責(zé)任的追究；而發(fā)生在水上的案件則不適宜采取陸地上完整證據(jù)鏈認(rèn)定死亡的方式,因?yàn)樗檄h(huán)境具有流動(dòng)性、不封閉性,落水的人員除遭遇極致環(huán)境難以生存外,其余情況下不能排除生存的可能性,收集證據(jù)組成證據(jù)鏈條證明死亡這一證據(jù)手段在水上環(huán)境中的操作性也非常之低,出于保護(hù)犯罪嫌疑人的生命、自由權(quán)利的慎重考慮,應(yīng)采用在司法解釋中加入失蹤這一結(jié)果,與死亡、重傷并列成為構(gòu)成犯罪的結(jié)果形式,如此一來(lái)既保證犯罪行為的有效追究又切實(shí)保障犯罪嫌疑人的權(quán)益。
[Abstract]:The result state of missing person is regulated by the system of declaration of disappearance and declaration of death in civil law, but in criminal law, the result of crime of person is only death and serious injury. There is no clear system of "missing persons". Therefore, in judicial practice, the judicial authorities can not find a direct legal basis when sentencing a case that results in the disappearance of a person. The result of judgment is not uniform, the main judicial models are: the result of disappearance does not constitute a crime, and no criminal investigation; With the result of death, the result of missing person is ignored; To investigate criminal responsibility on the basis of civil declaration of death; Strictly speaking, as a new result of non-death and non-serious injury, it is not the research object of criminal substantive law. But the lack of evidence in criminal proceedings to prove the legal facts, the substantive law to ignore it understandable. But in recent years there have been more and more criminal cases resulting in the disappearance of such a result. The lack of clear legal guidance is bound to lead to judicial confusion. It is necessary to distinguish different types of cases according to the result of criminal law. Most cases occurring on land are accident cases. The survival of missing persons in such cases is expected to be almost zero, equating to death, and the chain of evidence generated by the collection of evidence is sufficient to prove the existence of the fact of the death. Such cases therefore require criminal accountability based on the number of deaths following the adoption of procedures for the determination of the death of missing persons; The case occurred on the water is not suitable to adopt the complete evidence chain on land to determine the way of death, because the water environment is mobile, not closed, the people who fall into the water are difficult to survive in addition to the extreme environment. Other circumstances can not rule out the possibility of survival, the collection of evidence to form a chain of evidence to prove the death of the evidence means in the aquatic environment is also very low operational, out of the protection of the lives of suspects. Careful consideration of the right to liberty should include the result of disappearance in the judicial interpretation, along with death and serious injury, as the result of the crime. In this way, both to ensure the effective investigation of criminal acts and effectively protect the rights and interests of criminal suspects.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(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 趙秉志;;略論刑法的機(jī)能[J];北京聯(lián)合大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年02期

2 趙俊勞;論宣告死亡后果與實(shí)際死亡后果的沖突與協(xié)調(diào)——兼論最高人民法院司法解釋第36條[J];寶雞文理學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2001年02期

3 李龍;;我國(guó)礦業(yè)生產(chǎn)安全刑事治理探析[J];重慶科技學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年08期

4 聶慧蘋(píng);;論危害結(jié)果在犯罪構(gòu)成體系中的地位與功能[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2011年04期

5 蘇雄華;論宣告死亡結(jié)果在刑事法中的效力[J];福建公安高等專(zhuān)科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2005年04期

6 褚福民;;論中國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)刑事法中的推定[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2009年04期

7 張學(xué)軍;;失蹤法律制度基本模式述評(píng)[J];法學(xué)雜志;2007年02期

8 臧冬斌;;刑法保障機(jī)能與保護(hù)機(jī)能的立法調(diào)整和司法實(shí)現(xiàn)[J];法學(xué)家;2002年03期

9 張旭;張曙;;也論刑事推定[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2009年01期

10 黃基盛;劉元見(jiàn);;民事上的宣告死亡可以作為刑事上認(rèn)定犯罪事實(shí)的證據(jù)——兼論我國(guó)刑事訴訟的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];廣西政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 張小燕;水上交通肇事犯罪研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：1471060