本文選題：黑社會性質(zhì)組織　切入點：包庇　出處：《西南大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：《刑法》第二百九十四條第四款對“包庇、縱容黑社會性質(zhì)組織罪”進行了規(guī)定,但在司法實踐過程中,如何準(zhǔn)確認定本罪的犯罪主體、犯罪故意、行為方式、行為對象、犯罪形態(tài)等,一直存在爭議。如何解決司法認定的疑難問題,有利于提高定罪量刑的準(zhǔn)確性,對摧毀黑社會性質(zhì)組織的“保護傘”,有著重要的理論與實踐價值。 本文從司法認定的角度入手,采取理論、案例、數(shù)據(jù)相結(jié)合的形式,研究本罪在司法認定中的疑難問題。首先從行為對象入手,明確本罪的對象必須為黑社會性質(zhì)組織,如果對其他犯罪組織、團伙或個人進行包庇不構(gòu)成本罪。然后,從包庇、縱容行為的對象、實施方式以及兩者的共性問題進行分析,厘清包庇、縱容行為的區(qū)別與聯(lián)系。接著,分析了本罪主體。從罪刑法定的精神出發(fā),國家機關(guān)工作人員是構(gòu)成本罪的唯一主體,非國家機關(guān)工作人員只能成為本罪的共犯。但就立法與司法實踐兩方面來看,若本罪的主體僅指國家機關(guān)工作人員,不僅有弱化刑法設(shè)立本罪的目的之嫌,也不利于司法實踐中對于本罪的認定和打擊。對于國家機關(guān)工作人員能否成為其所包庇、縱容的黑社會性質(zhì)組織的成員,理應(yīng)從具體的案情進行分析,不能一概而論。隨后,從主觀認識因素出發(fā),分析了本罪只能由直接故意構(gòu)成,但在認定是否需要“明知”包庇、縱容的對象是黑社會性質(zhì)組織時,筆者認為就目前的刑法理論基礎(chǔ)以及司法實踐情況還無法給出一個確定的結(jié)論,這也是司法實踐中存在的困境。筆者提出了一種設(shè)想,即謹(jǐn)慎的利用客觀行為及司法機關(guān)掌握的證據(jù),推導(dǎo)出行為人是否“明知”其包庇、縱容的對象為黑社會性質(zhì)組織。最后,從罪數(shù)及犯罪形態(tài)兩個角度,對本罪在司法實踐中的其他問題進行了探討。 全文分為三部分。第一部分是本罪的理論梳理。以概念解讀的方式,闡述本罪的含義和內(nèi)容。接著,分析了本罪的立法沿革,縱向上對本罪的立法規(guī)定進行闡述,理解立法的精神和目的。 第二部分是對本罪在司法實踐中凸顯的疑難問題進行剖析。首先,從行為對象的司法認定角度入手,明確認定本罪成立的關(guān)鍵在于行為對象是否為黑社會性質(zhì)組織。在司法實踐過程中,認定本罪應(yīng)當(dāng)要有一個正確的邏輯思路,不能先“定調(diào)子”,認定犯罪組織為黑社會性質(zhì)組織,然后再去收集相關(guān)的罪證。對行為對象的發(fā)現(xiàn)和認定,通常是從具體的、復(fù)雜的違法犯罪事實中去判斷和分析。然后,從本罪的客觀行為方式上入手,具體分析包庇、縱容的對象、行為方式等,厘清與知情不舉行為的區(qū)別,分析徇私利或徇私情是否為構(gòu)成本罪必備的要素,闡述包庇與縱容的共性問題。接著,對本罪主體的司法認定疑難問題進行分析。應(yīng)當(dāng)認為,按照罪刑法定精神,本罪的主體應(yīng)僅限于國家機關(guān)工作人員,非國家機關(guān)工作人員只能成為本罪的共犯。但若將本罪的主體只限于國家機關(guān)工作人員,不利于對黑社會性質(zhì)組織提供庇護的“保護傘”進行打擊。對于國家機關(guān)工作人員能否成為其所包庇、縱容的黑社會性質(zhì)組織的成員,理應(yīng)從具體的案情進行分析,不能一概而論。最后,在實踐中,司法機關(guān)應(yīng)當(dāng)堅持主客觀相一致的辦案思路,在認定行為人對本罪是否“明知”的問題上,應(yīng)從行為人對其所包庇、縱容的組織情況的了解程度,與組織成員關(guān)系的密切程度,及其該組織實施的違法犯罪活動的次數(shù)、性質(zhì)、行為等多方面事實進行整體分析,全面考量。 第三部分主要是對本罪司法認定中的其他問題進行分析和闡述。罪數(shù)和犯罪形態(tài)的認定也是司法機關(guān)在定罪量刑中常常遇到的問題。本罪為行為犯,即行為人實施并完成包庇或者縱容黑社會性質(zhì)組織的行為,就成立犯罪的既遂。界定本罪既遂與未遂的根本在于：行為人有無著手實行并完成包庇、縱容的犯罪行為。而在司法實踐中,當(dāng)行為人既收受賄賂,又對黑社會性質(zhì)組織進行包庇、縱容時,因為受賄和包庇、縱容是數(shù)個行為,觸犯了不同客體,侵犯了刑法所保護的不同法益。同時,在立法理論依據(jù)上,我國刑法也明確了對牽連犯可以數(shù)罪并罰。因此,為了預(yù)防和打擊犯罪,對行為人實行數(shù)罪并罰是適當(dāng)?shù)摹Ａ硪环矫?如果行為人的包庇、縱容行為除了構(gòu)成本罪,還觸犯了瀆職類犯罪的,應(yīng)當(dāng)依照法條競合的原則,從一重罪進行處罰。
[Abstract]:< > 294th of paragraph fourth of criminal law "shield, connive" of the rules, but in the process of judicial practice, how to accurately identify the subject of the crime of intentional crime, behavior, behavior object, crime, has been controversial. How to solve the difficult problems in judicial cognizance, have to improve the accuracy of the conviction and sentencing, to destroy the Mafia "umbrella", has important theoretical and practical value.
This paper from the judicial perspective, take the theory and case data, combining form, difficult problems in the judicial practice of this crime. Starting from the behavior of the object, the object must be clear of the crime syndicate, if the other criminal organizations, groups or individuals will not constitute the crime. Then, from the harbor, the object of conniving behavior, analysis, implementation methods and their common problems to clarify the relationship between the harbor, indulgent behavior. Then, analyzes the subject of the crime. Starting from the legality of the spirit, the staff of state organs is the only subject of this crime, the non state staff can only become accomplices of this crime. But on the two aspects of legislation and judicial practice, if the subject of the crime only refers to the staff of state organs, not only weaken the criminal purpose of the establishment of this crime suspect, is not conducive to judicial practice To identify and combat the crime. The state personnel can become the harbor, members of Mafia connivance, should be analyzed, from the specific case can not be generalized. Then, starting from the subjective factors, analysis of this crime is direct intention, but in determining whether to "knowingly" the harbor, connivance is the object of the underworld organization, the author thinks that the current criminal law theory and judicial practice are also unable to give a definite conclusion, and it is also the difficulty in legal practice. The author suggests that, cautious use to master objective behavior and judicial evidence derived whether the perpetrator knowingly harboring, indulgent object for the Mafia. Finally, from two angles of quantity of crime and crime, for this crime in the judicial practice in the other The problem is discussed.
The full text is divided into three parts. The first part is the theoretical combing of this crime. It explains the meaning and content of this crime in the way of concept interpretation. Then, it analyzes the legislative evolution of the crime, and expounds the legislative provisions of this crime in the longitudinal direction, and understands the spirit and purpose of legislation.
The second part is the problems of the crime in the judicial practice highlights analyze. First of all, from the perspective of judicial behavior, clearly identified the key lies in the establishment of this crime behavior whether the object is the underworld organization. In the process of judicial practice, identification of the crime should be to have a correct logic, not to "set the tone", the crime of Mafia organization, and then to collect relevant evidence. The behavior of object discovery and identification, usually from the complex criminal facts in judgment and analysis. Then, starting from the way of the objective behavior of crime, the specific analysis of the harbor, indulgent object, behavior, and to distinguish the behavior, analysis to gain or relations is essential elements of this crime, elaborate shielding and conniving problems. Then, for the Lord The judicial determination of difficult problems were analyzed. It should be considered that, in accordance with the spirit of legality, the subject of the crime should be limited to the staff of state organs, non state staff can only become accomplices of this crime. But if the subject of the crime is only limited to the staff of state organs, is not conducive to the underworld organization provide asylum protection umbrella "to combat. For state personnel can become the harbor, members of Mafia connivance, should be analyzed, from the specific case can not be generalized. Finally, in practice, the judicial organs shall adhere to the objective and subjective handling ideas consistent, in recognition of this crime is" knowing "the problem, from the behavior of the shield, understand the organization degree of connivance, and close degree of organization membership, and the organization and implementation of the illegal crime The number of crimes, the nature, the behavior and other facet of the whole analysis, comprehensive consideration.
The third part is mainly on the other problems in the judicial cognizance is described and analyzed. The number of crimes and crime form of the crime is the judicial organs are often encountered in the conviction and sentencing issues. The crime is committed, the behavior of the implementation and completion of harboring or conniving Mafia organization behavior, crime is accomplished. Is accomplished and attempted crime: define the behavior of people have started to implement and complete the shield, criminal acts condoned. In judicial practice, when the perpetrator is accepting bribes, and the organization of the underworld nature of the harbor, connivance, for bribery and harboring, connivance of a number of acts, violated the different object that violated the different legal interests protected by criminal law. At the same time, the legal theory basis, China's criminal law is also clear on implicated offense can graft. Therefore, in order to prevent and combat crime, and to implement the number of Crime and punishment is appropriate. On the other hand, if the shield behavior person, in addition to indulge behavior of this crime, but also violated the crime of dereliction of duty, should be in accordance with the articles of law the principle of punishment from a felony.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳婉婷;包庇、縱容黑社會性質(zhì)組織罪的認定[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2003年03期

2 楊忠民;包庇、縱容黑社會性質(zhì)組織罪之主觀特征辨析[J];公安大學(xué)學(xué)報;2002年06期

3 左吳,潮龍起;黑惡勢力“保護傘”的危害及其防治[J];甘肅社會科學(xué);2005年05期

4 楊欣;;包庇、縱容黑社會性質(zhì)組織罪的主體認定[J];廣西大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2009年S1期

5 黃立;“保護傘”研究[J];河北法學(xué);2005年08期

6 仝其憲;賴文添;;《刑法修正案(八)》有關(guān)黑社會性質(zhì)組織罪的立法完善[J];中北大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2011年06期

7 陳世偉;;黑社會性質(zhì)組織基本特征的實踐展開[J];河南大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2012年01期

8 田宏杰;包庇、縱容黑社會性質(zhì)組織罪研究[J];湖南公安高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報;2001年04期

9 張建軍;魏志宇;;貪污賄賂知情不報行為的犯罪化[J];華南理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2011年01期

10 覃珠堅;試析包庇、縱容黑社會性質(zhì)組織犯罪與他罪的界限[J];廣西社會科學(xué);2002年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 羅高鵬;中國東北三省黑社會性質(zhì)組織犯罪實證研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

2 宋洋;我國黑社會性質(zhì)組織犯罪若干問題研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號：1716868