本文選題：水上交通 + 交通肇事逃逸　； 參考：《大連海事大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：交通運(yùn)輸除了道路交通運(yùn)輸外還包括了水路交通運(yùn)輸,同理,水上交通肇事犯罪與陸上交通肇事犯罪,都屬于危害公共安全犯罪。但兩者有著不同的特性,尤其是交通肇事逃逸方面,水上交通肇事逃逸犯罪有著其獨(dú)特的特征,由于水上航運(yùn)的特殊性,使得幾乎每起水上交通肇事都有著極大的逃逸可能性,且逃逸致人死亡的可能性遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)大于陸上交通肇事逃逸。目前,我國(guó)立法中有關(guān)水上交通肇事逃逸刑事責(zé)任的規(guī)定僅限于我國(guó)刑法第133條規(guī)定的交通肇事罪,此罪名以及相應(yīng)的司法解釋完全是按照陸上車輛肇事的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及情況來(lái)設(shè)置的,若直接適用于水上交通肇事逃逸犯罪定罪量刑會(huì)有不適合的地方。 水上環(huán)境特殊肇事后逃逸極不利于對(duì)受害者的救助,對(duì)人命、財(cái)產(chǎn)、海洋污染都有著嚴(yán)重的威脅。近年來(lái),水上交通肇事逃逸率居高不下且逃逸之后被害人的死亡率極高,肇事者的逃逸基本上等同于給受害者判了死刑,在這種特殊的水上環(huán)境之下的逃逸能否轉(zhuǎn)化為間接地故意殺人。同時(shí)水上交通肇事逃逸往往導(dǎo)致“人員失蹤”、“環(huán)境污染”等陸上交通肇事極少出現(xiàn)的危害結(jié)果,此種危害后果能否作為水上交通肇事逃逸所導(dǎo)致的危害結(jié)果在定罪量刑予以考慮。立法上的缺陷使得海事司法的困惑日益凸顯,對(duì)于類似的案件各地司法機(jī)關(guān)的處理結(jié)果也大相徑庭。這種司法的不統(tǒng)一不利于刑法的權(quán)威性也助長(zhǎng)了逃逸心理的滋長(zhǎng)。 本文分共為四個(gè)部分：第一部分為對(duì)水上交通肇事逃逸行為的概述,主要從水陸不同區(qū)別上對(duì)水上交通肇事逃逸行為進(jìn)行了解讀、分析與陸上不同的特點(diǎn)、以及社會(huì)危害性；第二部分主要闡述追究水上交通肇事逃逸行為犯罪的刑事責(zé)任的依據(jù)以及現(xiàn)階段在司法實(shí)踐中的追責(zé)的困難；第三部分主要闡述水上交通肇事逃逸如何追究刑事責(zé)任的問(wèn)題,分析了水上交通肇事逃逸導(dǎo)致人員失蹤的情況下如何追究刑事責(zé)任的問(wèn)題,分析了在水上交通肇事逃逸造成水域環(huán)境污染與污染環(huán)境罪競(jìng)合的情況下追究何種刑事責(zé)任的問(wèn)題,分析了在水域環(huán)境內(nèi)“因逃逸致人死亡”與故意殺人之間的爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題,以及此種情況如何追究刑事責(zé)任；第四部分主要為有效控制和減少水上交通肇事逃逸行為的法律建議及對(duì)策。
[Abstract]:In addition to road transportation, transportation also includes waterway transportation, the same as waterborne traffic crime and land traffic crime, which all belong to crimes against public safety.But the two have different characteristics, especially in the aspect of traffic hit-and-run, the crime of waterborne hit-and-run has its unique characteristics, because of the particularity of waterborne shipping, almost every waterborne traffic hit-and-run has a great possibility of escape.Moreover, the possibility of death caused by escape is far greater than that caused by land traffic.At present, the provisions on the criminal liability for hit-and-run of waterborne traffic in Chinese legislation are limited to the traffic accident crime stipulated in Article 133 of the Criminal Law of our country.This charge and the corresponding judicial explanation are set up in accordance with the standards and circumstances of the onshore vehicle hit-and-run crime. If it is directly applicable to the conviction and sentencing of the escaped crime of waterborne traffic, there will be some unsuitable places.The escape after a special hit-and-run on water environment is not conducive to the rescue of the victims, and it is a serious threat to human life, property and marine pollution.In recent years, the escape rate of waterborne traffic accidents has been high and the death rate of victims has been extremely high. The escape of the perpetrators is basically equivalent to the death penalty imposed on the victims.Can escape in this particular aquatic environment translate into indirect intentional killing.At the same time, water traffic hit-and-run often leads to "missing persons", "environmental pollution" and other land-based traffic accidents rarely occur harm results.Whether the consequence of such harm can be considered as the result of water traffic hit-and-run in the conviction and sentencing.The defects in legislation make the confusion of maritime justice more and more prominent, and the results of dealing with similar cases vary greatly.This kind of judicial disunity is not conducive to the authority of criminal law and promotes the growth of escape psychology.This paper is divided into four parts: the first part is an overview of the hit-and-run behavior of water traffic, mainly from the different differences between water and land, the analysis of the characteristics of different from the land, as well as social harm;The second part mainly expounds the basis of investigating the criminal responsibility of the escape behavior of water traffic accident and the difficulty of pursuing the responsibility in the judicial practice at the present stage; the third part mainly expounds the problem of how to investigate the criminal responsibility for the escape of the water traffic hit-and-run act.This paper analyzes the problem of how to investigate the criminal responsibility in the case of missing persons caused by the escape of water traffic hit-and-run, and analyzes the question of what kind of criminal responsibility to investigate when the environmental pollution of the water area caused by the escape of the waterborne traffic accident is in harmony with the crime of pollution of the environment.This paper analyzes the dispute between "death caused by escape" and intentional homicide in the water environment, and how to investigate criminal responsibility in this situation;The fourth part is mainly for the effective control and reduction of water traffic hit-and-run behavior legal advice and countermeasures.
【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
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 侯國(guó)云;交通肇事罪司法解釋缺陷分析[J];法學(xué);2002年07期

2 施海平;;海上交通肇事逃逸原因及法律問(wèn)題探討[J];中國(guó)海事;2010年12期

3 程和友;淺析交通肇事后逃逸行為的犯罪化[J];武漢交通職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年04期

4 朱煒;對(duì)“交通肇事后逃逸”和“逃逸致人死亡”的理解[J];江西公安專科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2000年04期

5 冷正珍;;海上交通肇事逃逸的刑事責(zé)任探析——以首例涉外海上交通肇事逃逸案為例[J];世界海運(yùn);2013年08期

6 葉國(guó)鑫;;法網(wǎng)難逃——一起重大水上交通肇事涉嫌逃逸犯罪心理分析與對(duì)策[J];中國(guó)海事;2012年08期

7 吳文正;李光輝;吳忠華;;水上交通肇事逃逸情況分析及對(duì)策[J];世界海運(yùn);2012年02期

8 鄭進(jìn);論不作為犯罪中先前行為引起的義務(wù)[J];人民檢察;1997年04期

9 趙秉志,田宏杰;交通肇事逃逸致人死亡問(wèn)題研究[J];人民檢察;2000年01期

10 何濤;;水路交通肇事犯罪初探[J];人民檢察;2006年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王慧;水上交通犯罪刑事責(zé)任研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：1757601