本文選題：見危不救 + 不作為�。� 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：近些年來，見危不救行為在中國時有發(fā)生。各種有關(guān)見危不救事件的報道也是屢見報端，不斷沖擊民眾和社會的道德底線。很多人把這種情況歸咎于道德調(diào)整見危不救行為的效果不佳，遂將視線轉(zhuǎn)移到法律手段，希望通過法律來更好地規(guī)制見危不救行為。學(xué)界諸位專家、學(xué)者紛紛思考該如何解決這一問題。究竟是否需要將見危不救行為作犯罪化處理，這是存在很多爭議的。 綜合多方面的考慮，筆者認(rèn)為將見危不救行為納入犯罪的做法不僅存在很多理論基礎(chǔ)上的缺陷，而且考慮到我國國情以及法治發(fā)展現(xiàn)狀的考慮，在我國實施見危不救行為犯罪化甚不現(xiàn)實，一旦實施必將面臨實踐操作多方面的重重困難。本文主要從幾個方面來分析見危不救行為的界定以及其入罪化處理的不合理之處。 第一部分，筆者在綜合眾多有關(guān)見危不救行為定義的觀點之后，分析各種觀點的爭議焦點所在，確認(rèn)見危不救行為的各個構(gòu)成要件的具體內(nèi)容及其意義，提出了“見危不救”的新定義。這個定義在文字?jǐn)⑹錾舷鄬啙嵉菢?gòu)成要件完整，并且能為社會大眾所認(rèn)同的。筆者將見危不救行為定義為：無特定義務(wù)的行為人，在他人處于危難之時，能夠救助而不予以救助，最終導(dǎo)致危害結(jié)果發(fā)生的行為。 第二部分，筆者依次從道德義務(wù)與法律義務(wù)的關(guān)系、刑法謙抑性以及當(dāng)前司法實踐中是如何處理見危不救行為的來否定見危不救入罪的可能性與可行性。首先，見危不救行為的救助行為僅是單純的道德義務(wù)，，并非法律義務(wù)，也不會輕易轉(zhuǎn)化為法律義務(wù)；其次，刑法謙抑性要求刑法謙卑退讓，刑法不應(yīng)過多干預(yù)社會生活，對于見危不救行為的調(diào)整不應(yīng)當(dāng)由刑法來介入；最后，司法實踐中并沒有將見危不救行為認(rèn)定為是一種犯罪行為，只是針對具有特定義務(wù)人的見危不救行為作為不作為犯罪來進(jìn)行定罪量刑，而此種特殊身份主體的見危不救行為不在本文討論范圍之內(nèi)。 第三部分，筆者詳細(xì)分析了見危不救犯罪化更深層次的不合理之處，包括從人性本身的特性、道德與法律的關(guān)系、刑法理論基礎(chǔ)上的缺陷、設(shè)想見危不救行為入罪之后司法實踐可能出現(xiàn)的新問題、是否需要借鑒學(xué)習(xí)外國法或是繼承中國古代近代法律五個方面展開進(jìn)行詳述。從人性本身的特性來說，通過多學(xué)科佐證利己、趨利避害為人之本性，見危不救實屬人性使然，不應(yīng)過分苛責(zé)。從道德與法律的關(guān)系來說，見危不救行為的出現(xiàn)更多體現(xiàn)的是道德層面出現(xiàn)了問題，與法律并無太大聯(lián)系。從刑法學(xué)理論來說，通過社會危害性、不作為方面的學(xué)說論證見危不救行為不應(yīng)犯罪化。從司法實踐可能出現(xiàn)的新問題來說，一旦犯罪化處理將會給司法實踐帶來更多隱憂。最后，通過與外國法與中國古代近代法律的比較，得出我國不應(yīng)當(dāng)引入也不應(yīng)當(dāng)“繼承”“見危不救罪”。 第四部分，筆者探討的是如何很好地規(guī)制見危不救行為。筆者認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)通過社會多元化的調(diào)整手段來更為合理地規(guī)制見危不救行為，而不是訴諸刑法手段。一方面通過反向機制鼓勵獎勵見義勇為、見危救助的行為，建立健全見義勇為、見危救助者的權(quán)益保障制度；另一方面就要加強道德教育、道德宣傳等方面的工作，提高公民的道德素養(yǎng)，從思想意識上遏止見危不救行為的產(chǎn)生。
[Abstract]:In recent years, unrescue practices have occurred in China. Reports of unrescued incidents are also repeated, and the moral bottom line of the people and society is constantly impacted. Many people blame this situation on the bad effect of moral adjustment, which turns the sight to legal means and hopes to be better by law. There are many controversies on how to deal with this problem.
Considering the comprehensive and multifaceted consideration, the author thinks that there are many defects on the basis of theory, but in consideration of the situation of our country and the current situation of the rule of law, it is unrealistic to carry out the crime of dangerous non rescue in our country, and once the practice will inevitably face many difficulties in practical operation. This article mainly from several aspects to analyze the definition of dangerous and unrescued behavior and its unreasonable handling of criminalization.
In the first part, after taking a multitudinous view of the definition of unrescuable behavior, the author analyzes the focus of disputes in various views, and confirms the specific content and significance of all the components of the unsaved behavior, and puts forward a new definition of "not to save the rescue". And it can be recognized by the public. The author defines the act of non salvation as the act of a person without a specific obligation, who is able to help and not be rescued when others are in danger.
The second part, from the relationship between the moral obligation and the legal obligation, the modesty of the criminal law and the current judicial practice, how to deal with the possibility and feasibility of dealing with the dangerous and non rescuing crime. First, the rescue behavior of the non rescue act is only a simple moral obligation, not the legal obligation, and it will not be easy. Secondly, the modesty of criminal law requires the humility of criminal law to surrender, and the criminal law should not interfere with social life too much. The adjustment of the non rescue act of danger should not be intervened by the criminal law. In the end, the judicial practice does not identify the act of danger and non rescue as a criminal act, but only against the danger of a specific obligor. As a crime of omission, rescue behavior is convicted and sentencing, and the dangerous act of such a special identity is not within the scope of this article.
In the third part, the author analyzes in detail the unreasonableness of the delinquency in danger, including the characteristics of human nature, the relationship between morality and the law, the defects on the basis of the criminal law theory, and the new problems that may arise in the judicial practice after the incrimination of dangerous and non rescue actions, whether it is necessary to learn from foreign law or to inherit China. From the characteristics of the ancient modern law, five aspects are described in detail. From the characteristics of the human nature itself, it is necessary to prove the egoism by multidisciplinary, and to seek benefits and avoid harm as human nature. There is no great connection between law and law. From the theory of criminal law, through the theory of social harmfulness and inaction, the behavior of danger and non rescue should not be criminalization. From the new problems that may arise in the judicial practice, the criminal treatment will bring more hidden worries to the judicial practice. Finally, through the comparison with the foreign law and the ancient Chinese modern law. It is concluded that China should not introduce or inherit the crime of not being rescued.
In the fourth part, the author discusses how to regulate the act of danger and not rescuing. The author thinks that it should be more rationally regulated by the means of social diversification, rather than resort to criminal law. On the other hand, it is necessary to strengthen the work of moral education, moral propaganda and so on, to improve the moral quality of the citizens, and to prevent the emergence of the non rescuing behavior from the ideological consciousness.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 王衛(wèi)軍;;“牽尸要價”事件與見危不救助罪的思考[J];法制與社會;2010年01期

2 蔡英;;見危不救犯罪化之合理性質(zhì)疑[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年06期

3 張曉蓮;;我國見義勇為立法問題探析——以美國法的比較和借鑒為基礎(chǔ)[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年06期

4 李春斌,王自榮,于杰蘭;設(shè)立“見死不救罪”的冷思考[J];甘肅政法成人教育學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年02期

5 鄭顯文;中國古代關(guān)于見義勇為的立法[J];中外法學(xué);1999年06期

6 汪力,鄒兵;關(guān)于“見危不救罪”的法理學(xué)和刑法學(xué)思考[J];西南師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);2001年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 孫建保;刑法中的社會危害性理論研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年

本文編號：2106247