本文選題：隨意毆打 + 定性　； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：法律規(guī)定，隨意毆打行為在情節(jié)惡劣時(shí)構(gòu)成隨意毆打型尋釁滋事罪。然隨意毆打行為在致人輕傷、重傷或死亡時(shí)又可能構(gòu)成諸如故意（過(guò)失）傷害罪、故意（過(guò)失）致人死亡罪等其它罪名。由于這些罪名在主客觀方面存在著一定的相似和模糊，相關(guān)法律、司法解釋不完善以及隨意毆打行為在日常生活中的多發(fā)性，使得刑法中的隨意毆打行為的定性問(wèn)題成為司法人員的一大難題。想要準(zhǔn)確對(duì)其定性，就必須有一個(gè)較為完善合理的定性方法。 刑法學(xué)界，關(guān)于隨意毆打行為的定性的學(xué)說(shuō)大致有四種，即動(dòng)機(jī)論、客體論、因果論、想象競(jìng)合論。四種學(xué)說(shuō)分別從行為動(dòng)機(jī)、行為所侵犯的客體、行為原因能否被人理解、想象競(jìng)合論等不同角度對(duì)刑法中的隨意毆打行為的進(jìn)行定性，有很好的研究和借鑒價(jià)值。但經(jīng)過(guò)分析，發(fā)現(xiàn)動(dòng)機(jī)論為隨意毆打型尋釁滋事罪添加一個(gè)流氓動(dòng)機(jī)的做法并不合理；客體論中隨意毆打行為所涉及的幾罪的客體存在很大爭(zhēng)議；因果論的“因”是否能被普通人所理解也會(huì)因?yàn)楦鞯�、個(gè)人的傳統(tǒng)思想、觀念不同而產(chǎn)生分歧；想象競(jìng)合論缺乏刑法理論根據(jù)，對(duì)“從一重罪處罰”中的“重罪”如何判斷沒(méi)有闡明，定性時(shí)沒(méi)考慮到“情節(jié)惡劣”這一要素，且沒(méi)有討論共同隨意毆打行為的定性問(wèn)題。都不是最合適的定性方法。 通過(guò)分析，發(fā)現(xiàn)以想象競(jìng)合論作為隨意毆打行為的定性依據(jù)有一定合理性，但需要進(jìn)行完善才能適用。首先，闡明想象競(jìng)合論的刑法理論基礎(chǔ)應(yīng)該是主客觀相統(tǒng)一原則；想象競(jìng)合犯的特征是一行為，，觸犯數(shù)罪名；“從一重罪處罰”中的“重罪”應(yīng)按“宣告刑比較說(shuō)”來(lái)判斷；隨意毆打致人傷害、死亡的結(jié)果也屬于情節(jié)惡劣。然后在主客觀相統(tǒng)一原則的指導(dǎo)下，結(jié)合隨意毆打的行為人的主觀故意、客觀行為，對(duì)隨意毆打行為進(jìn)行具體定性。最后，在共同隨意毆打行為中，應(yīng)該對(duì)造成了他人輕傷、重傷、死亡的行為人和其他沒(méi)有造成了他人輕傷、重傷、死亡的行為人進(jìn)行分開(kāi)定罪。再運(yùn)用完善后的想象競(jìng)合論分別定罪量刑。
[Abstract]:According to the law, arbitrary beatings constitute a crime of random assault when the circumstances are abominable. In case of minor injury, serious injury or death, the act of random beating may constitute other crimes such as intentional (negligent) injury, intentional (negligent) death and so on. Because these charges are similar and vague in subjective and objective aspects, related laws, imperfect judicial interpretations and arbitrary beatings are common in daily life. It makes the nature of arbitrary beatings in criminal law become a difficult problem for judicial personnel. If we want to define it accurately, we must have a more perfect and reasonable qualitative method. In the field of criminal law, there are four kinds of theories about the nature of random beating, namely motive theory, object theory, causality theory and imaginative competition theory. It is valuable to study and learn from different angles, such as behavior motive, object violated by behavior, whether the cause of behavior can be understood, the theory of imaginative concurrence and so on. However, it is found that it is not reasonable to add a rogue motive to the crime of random beating, and the object of several crimes involved in the act of random beating in the theory of object is very controversial. Whether the cause and effect of causality can be understood by ordinary people will be divided because of the different traditional ideas and concepts in different places; the theory of imagination competing lacks the theoretical basis of criminal law. How to judge "felony" in "punishment for a felony" has not been clarified, the element of "aggravated circumstances" has not been taken into account in the characterization, and the qualitative problem of joint random beating has not been discussed. Are not the most appropriate qualitative method. Through analysis, it is found that it is reasonable to use the theory of imaginative concurrence as the qualitative basis for arbitrary beating, but it needs to be perfected to be applicable. First of all, it should be clarified that the criminal law theory of imaginative concurrence theory should be based on the principle of unity of subjectivity and objectivity; the characteristic of imaginative co-occurrences is one act and offends a number of crimes; "felony" in punishment of a felony should be judged according to "proclamation of criminal comparison"; Random beatings result in injury, and the result of death is abominable. Then under the guidance of the principle of unity of subjectivity and objectivity, combined with the subjective intent and objective behavior of the person who beat at will, the concrete qualitative analysis of the random beating behavior is carried out. Finally, in the behavior of common random beating, the perpetrator who caused minor injury, serious injury, death and others who did not cause minor injury, serious injury and death should be convicted separately. And then use the perfect theory of imaginative concurrence respectively conviction and sentencing.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.34

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李錦陽(yáng);劉瑜;;“隨意毆打”型尋釁滋事罪的定罪標(biāo)準(zhǔn)淺探[J];法制與社會(huì);2013年12期

2 耿國(guó)美;孫遠(yuǎn);;淺析對(duì)“隨意毆打他人”的合理認(rèn)定[J];法制與社會(huì);2013年19期

3 張麗華;;淺議對(duì)“隨意毆打他人”的理解[J];才智;2009年25期

4 史社軍;;論尋釁滋事罪在實(shí)踐中的認(rèn)定[J];北京人民警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年01期

5 張明楷;新刑法與客觀主義[J];法學(xué)研究;1997年06期

6 苑民麗;胡洋;;主客觀相統(tǒng)一原則的司法適用對(duì)策[J];南都學(xué)壇;2011年03期

7 蔡軍;;想象競(jìng)合犯處斷論[J];河南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年02期

8 張麗;;客觀處罰條件與主客觀相統(tǒng)一原則關(guān)系要論[J];人民論壇;2012年20期

9 蔡英;;想象競(jìng)合犯的批判與再認(rèn)識(shí)[J];西南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年04期

10 張明楷;;尋釁滋事罪探究(下篇)[J];政治與法律;2008年02期

本文編號(hào)：1937337