本文選題：事實(shí)不能 + 法律不能��； 參考：《中國(guó)青年政治學(xué)院》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：自不能犯產(chǎn)生以來(lái),就備受關(guān)注。兩大法系圍繞不能犯各自形成了一套自己的理論,英美法系從能否作為未遂犯辯護(hù)理由的角度出發(fā)將不能犯分為事實(shí)不能與法律不能,并指出事實(shí)不能犯不能作為辯護(hù)理由,應(yīng)當(dāng)處罰;法律不能犯可以作為未遂犯的辯護(hù)理由不予處罰。大陸法系圍繞如何區(qū)分不能犯與未遂犯形成了十分復(fù)雜的學(xué)說(shuō),從大的方面將分為主觀說(shuō)與客觀說(shuō)兩大學(xué)說(shuō)體系。我國(guó)刑法只有不能犯未遂的概念,傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為不能犯未遂屬于未遂犯的一種,應(yīng)當(dāng)予以處罰。在重新架構(gòu)不能犯理論的過(guò)程中,我國(guó)對(duì)以德日為代表的大陸法系不能犯理論研究比較多,而對(duì)以英美為代表的英美法系不能犯理論則關(guān)注的比較少。本文選取英美法系的代表英、美兩國(guó)的刑法,通過(guò)對(duì)英美法系的不能犯理論進(jìn)行一定的梳理,從英美不能犯理論的概念、分類,普通法及相關(guān)制定法的規(guī)定,理論上的爭(zhēng)議與批判幾個(gè)方面展開(kāi)討論,運(yùn)用比較分析、案例分析等方法對(duì)英美不能犯理論進(jìn)行全面的介紹,最后通過(guò)對(duì)英美不能犯的分析得出,英美刑法不能犯理論并不適用于我國(guó),但其理論仍然為我國(guó)不能犯理論的進(jìn)一步研究提供很多借鑒意義。本文共分為五部分,第一部分是英美不能犯概念的厘清,英美不能犯與大陸法系以及我國(guó)的不能犯未遂概念不同,也與同樣作為辯護(hù)理由的錯(cuò)誤存在區(qū)別。第二部分是對(duì)英國(guó)普通法及制定法對(duì)不能犯規(guī)定的梳理。英國(guó)普通法通過(guò)霍頓訴史密斯案確立了不能犯理論的一般原則,但之后的審判中多有反復(fù),并沒(méi)有徹底的堅(jiān)持通說(shuō)確立的一般原則,制定法對(duì)不能犯同樣沒(méi)有做出明確詳細(xì)的規(guī)定,這就導(dǎo)致了實(shí)踐中再運(yùn)用不能犯的一般原則時(shí)存在極大的混論。第三部分是對(duì)美國(guó)普通法及制定法不能犯規(guī)定的介紹。針對(duì)實(shí)踐中在區(qū)分事實(shí)不能與法律不能面臨的困境,許多學(xué)者提出法律不能作為辯護(hù)未遂犯理由的原則不能一概適用,主張對(duì)通說(shuō)進(jìn)行修正,主要有三種修正觀點(diǎn)。第四部分介紹英美不能犯理論的背景及目前理論上對(duì)通說(shuō)觀點(diǎn)的批判。在預(yù)防理論背景下的英美不能犯理論,體現(xiàn)了明顯的主觀主義傾向。許多學(xué)者開(kāi)始對(duì)通說(shuō)主要依據(jù)行為人的犯罪意圖的做法進(jìn)行反思,嘗試從客觀主義的視角重新架構(gòu)不能犯理論。第五部分主要介紹英美不能犯理論對(duì)我國(guó)的借鑒意義。
[Abstract]:Since the emergence of impossibility, attention has been paid to it. The two major legal systems have formed a set of their own theories around the impossibility of offense. From the angle of whether they can be used as the justification for attempted crime, the Anglo-American legal system divides the impossibility into fact and law, and points out that the fact can't be committed as the defense reason. Should be punished; the law can not be committed as the defense of attempted crime without punishment. The continental law system has formed a very complicated theory about how to distinguish between impossibility and attempted crime, which can be divided into subjective theory and objective theory. The criminal law of our country only has the concept of attempted crime, and the traditional view is that it is a kind of attempted crime and should be punished. In the process of re-structuring the theory of non-offense, our country pays less attention to the theory of non-offense in the civil law system represented by Germany and Japan, but to the theory of non-offense in the common law system represented by the United States and the United States. This article selects the British and American criminal law which is the representative of Anglo-American law system, through combing the theory of non-offense in Anglo-American law system, from the concept, classification, common law and the provisions of relevant statutory law of Anglo-American non-offense theory. The theoretical controversy and criticism of several aspects of the discussion, the use of comparative analysis, case analysis and other methods of Anglo-American impossibility to conduct a comprehensive introduction of the theory, finally through the analysis of Anglo-American impossibility, The theory of impossibility of criminal law in Anglo-American criminal law is not applicable to our country, but its theory still provides a lot of reference significance for further study of the theory of impossibility in our country. This paper is divided into five parts. The first part is the clarification of the concept of Anglo-American impossibility. The Anglo-American impossibility is different from the continental law system and the concept of attempted impossibility in our country. The second part is the carding of the English common law and the statutory law. The common law of England established the general principle of impossibility through Horton v. Smith, but the trial has been repeated since then, and the general principle established by the general theory has not been fully adhered to. The formulation law does not make clear and detailed stipulation on the same impossibility, which leads to the great confusion when the general principle of impossibility is applied again in practice. The third part is the introduction of the common law and the statute law of the United States. In order to distinguish between fact and law in practice, many scholars put forward that the principle that law can not be used as a reason for defending attempted offense can not be applied. There are three kinds of amendments to the general theory. The fourth part introduces the background of Anglo-American impossibility theory and the criticism of general theory at present. Under the background of prevention theory, Anglo-American can not commit the theory, which reflects the obvious subjectivism tendency. Many scholars begin to reflect on the general theory, which is mainly based on the criminal intention of the perpetrator, and try to reconstruct the theory of impossibility from the perspective of objectivism. The fifth part mainly introduces the reference meaning of Anglo-American impossibility theory to our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)青年政治學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D914

【共引文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王振生;;未遂犯與不能犯界限研究[J];安陽(yáng)師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年04期

2 馬鳳春;;“刑事處罰”與相關(guān)概念辨析[J];保定學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年02期

3 趙秉志;;論不能犯與不能犯未遂問(wèn)題[J];北方法學(xué);2008年01期

4 于志剛;;關(guān)于“使用盜竊”行為在網(wǎng)絡(luò)背景下入罪化的思考[J];北京聯(lián)合大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年03期

5 王春林;;海峽兩岸侵犯商標(biāo)權(quán)犯罪比較研究[J];北京理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年03期

6 周銘川;;對(duì)向犯基本問(wèn)題研究[J];北京理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年02期

7 鄧中文;;商業(yè)賄賂犯罪的法益分析[J];商業(yè)研究;2011年03期

8 吳學(xué)斌;;遺棄罪研究的新視角[J];晟典律師評(píng)論;2005年01期

9 彭輝;;查處商業(yè)賄賂的難點(diǎn)與刑事立法對(duì)策[J];長(zhǎng)春工程學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年04期

10 劉作勛;對(duì)增加新條文懲治計(jì)算機(jī)犯罪的思考[J];重慶工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 張向東;基準(zhǔn)刑研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

2 劉曉林;唐律“七殺”研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

3 郭磊;量刑情節(jié)適用研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

4 周雪梅;刑事犯罪與民事侵權(quán)比較研究[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2009年

5 徐靜;合同詐騙罪司法認(rèn)定研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

6 喻貴英;國(guó)際刑法中的共同犯罪行為研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

7 張維;尋釁滋事罪問(wèn)題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

8 董淑君;刑罰的要義[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2003年

9 王桂萍;定罪總論[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2003年

10 王洪偉;證券犯罪論[D];吉林大學(xué);2004年

，

本文編號(hào)：1955576