本文選題：激情殺人 + 激憤殺人　； 參考：《東南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版)》2017年S1期

【摘要】："激憤殺人"在故意殺人案件中已經(jīng)占據(jù)較大的比重,但我國(guó)目前對(duì)其并無(wú)法律的直接規(guī)定,也未將其作為故意殺人罪的法定從寬情節(jié),導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐中的裁量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不一。在刑法中明文規(guī)定"激憤殺人"行為具有必要性和可行性。只有符合無(wú)事先預(yù)謀性、被害人過(guò)錯(cuò)性和行為的當(dāng)場(chǎng)性三個(gè)成立要件的故意殺人行為才能被認(rèn)定為"激憤殺人"。在定罪方式上,采取"條文+司法解釋"的方式是比較妥當(dāng)?shù)�。在刑罰配置上,要注意考察域外立法以及我國(guó)關(guān)于直接侵犯公民生命權(quán)的刑罰配置體系。
[Abstract]:"indignant homicide" has already occupied a large proportion in intentional homicide cases, but there is no direct legal regulation on it in our country at present, and it is not regarded as the legal leniency of intentional homicide, which leads to different discretion standards in judicial practice.It is necessary and feasible to explicitly stipulate "indignant murder" in criminal law.Only if there is no premeditated, the fault of the victim and the act on the spot can be regarded as "indignant homicide".In the way of conviction, it is more appropriate to adopt the method of judicial interpretation.In penalty allocation, we should pay attention to the extraterritorial legislation and the penalty allocation system of direct violation of citizens' right to life.
【作者單位】： 華東政法大學(xué)法律學(xué)院;
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D924.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 李海青;;惡意欠薪罪淺析[J];法制與社會(huì);2012年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：1750644