發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-08-14 13:19

【摘要】：煽動(dòng)指通過(guò)一定的方式,比如鼓勵(lì)、命令、敦促、請(qǐng)求、建議、引誘等,去慫恿、鼓動(dòng)他人,希望他人信任其所表達(dá)的內(nèi)容并實(shí)施該內(nèi)容所指向的目標(biāo)行為。煽動(dòng)型犯罪與其他犯罪相比,有其特殊性,煽動(dòng)行為一般是發(fā)表言論等表意性行為,當(dāng)人們談及言論往往會(huì)談及言論自由以及包含言論自由在內(nèi)的表達(dá)自由,故煽動(dòng)行為往往關(guān)系著公民的表達(dá)自由。因此,應(yīng)該明確“煽動(dòng)”入罪的界限,在懲罰犯罪與保障公民表達(dá)自由之間達(dá)到平衡。既不能為了懲罰犯罪而在煽動(dòng)立法時(shí)任意擴(kuò)大煽動(dòng)的外延,也不能為了表達(dá)的絕對(duì)自由而放棄對(duì)煽動(dòng)行為的處罰。當(dāng)表達(dá)自由明顯越界時(shí),國(guó)家有權(quán)予以規(guī)范和懲罰,煽動(dòng)入罪便是最重要的懲罰手段。同時(shí),因?yàn)樾谭ㄖ械淖镄谭ǘㄔ瓌t,通過(guò)懲罰濫用表達(dá)自由行為劃定表達(dá)自由的行為邊界,亦是對(duì)表達(dá)自由的一種保障。本文分為四個(gè)部分:第一部分是煽動(dòng)概述。首先對(duì)煽動(dòng)進(jìn)行界定;其次對(duì)煽動(dòng)與教唆進(jìn)行比較;然后闡述煽動(dòng)入罪的必要性,它既是懲治犯罪的需要,也是對(duì)憲法權(quán)利的保障;最后論述了煽動(dòng)入罪的理論基礎(chǔ):未完成罪理論與危險(xiǎn)犯理論。第二部分通過(guò)研究域外國(guó)家?guī)追N主要的煽動(dòng)型犯罪類型,分析國(guó)外對(duì)煽動(dòng)行為的刑法規(guī)制,并得出啟示:煽動(dòng)立法(入罪)的基本趨勢(shì)是國(guó)家越來(lái)越注重對(duì)表達(dá)自由的保護(hù),嚴(yán)格界定煽動(dòng)的內(nèi)涵,設(shè)立抗辯理由與例外條款為一些不應(yīng)受刑法規(guī)制但可能會(huì)造成不良后果的行為出罪。第三部分分析我國(guó)對(duì)煽動(dòng)的刑法規(guī)制。我國(guó)刑法沒(méi)有設(shè)立煽動(dòng)他人犯罪罪,而是代之以教唆犯;我國(guó)刑法分則設(shè)立了七宗煽動(dòng)型犯罪,這是典型煽動(dòng);此外,一些聚眾犯罪與言論犯罪中也可能包含煽動(dòng)行為,這是非典型煽動(dòng)。第四部分提出完善我國(guó)煽動(dòng)刑法規(guī)制的建議:設(shè)立公共場(chǎng)合煽動(dòng)他人犯罪罪,明確煽動(dòng)入罪的界限以及增設(shè)例外條款。
[Abstract]:Incitement means encouraging, urging, requesting, advising, luring, etc., by means of encouragement, command, urge, suggestion, inducement, etc., in order to encourage others to believe in what they are expressing and to carry out the targeted act of that content. Compared with other crimes, seditious crime has its own particularity. Incitement generally refers to expressive acts such as speech. When people talk about speech, they often talk about freedom of speech and freedom of expression, which includes freedom of speech. Therefore, incitement is often related to the freedom of expression of citizens. Therefore, we should make clear the boundary of "inciting" incrimination and strike a balance between punishing crime and guaranteeing citizens' freedom of expression. Neither the extension of incitement in the legislation of incitement should be arbitrarily expanded in order to punish the offence, nor the punishment of incitement should be waived for the sake of absolute freedom of expression. When freedom of expression clearly crosses the border, the state has the right to regulate and punish it, and incitement is the most important punishment. At the same time, because of the principle of legality in criminal law, it is also a guarantee for freedom of expression to delimit the boundary of freedom of expression by punishing the abuse of freedom of expression. This article is divided into four parts: the first part is an overview of incitement. Firstly, it defines incitement; secondly, it compares incitement with abetting; then it expounds the necessity of inciting incrimination, which is not only the need of punishing crime, but also the guarantee of constitutional right. Finally, it discusses the theoretical basis of sedition: the theory of unfinished crime and the theory of dangerous crime. In the second part, by studying several main types of seditious crimes in foreign countries, the author analyzes the criminal law regulation of sedition in foreign countries, and concludes that the basic trend of sedition legislation is that the state pays more and more attention to the protection of freedom of expression. Strictly defining the connotation of incitement, establishing defense and exception clauses are crimes that should not be regulated by criminal law but may result in adverse consequences. The third part analyzes the criminal regulation of sedition in our country. The criminal law of our country does not establish the crime of inciting others to commit crimes, but it is replaced by an abettor; the sub-rule of our criminal law sets up seven seditious crimes, which are typical incitement; in addition, some mass crimes and speech crimes may also contain seditious acts. This is atypical incitement. The fourth part puts forward the suggestions of perfecting the regulation of the criminal law of sedition in our country: setting up the crime of inciting others in public, clarifying the limits of the crime of inciting and adding the exception clause.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：江西理工大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李哲;張一;;中英煽動(dòng)恐怖主義犯罪比較[J];國(guó)家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2016年05期

2 孫浩文;;煽動(dòng)實(shí)施恐怖活動(dòng)罪相關(guān)問(wèn)題研究[J];太原學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2016年01期

3 盧有學(xué);吳永輝;;極端主義犯罪辨析——基礎(chǔ)理論與立法剖析[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2015年02期

4 胡杰;;公共事項(xiàng)言論入罪界限初探[J];理論界;2013年06期

5 班克慶;;淺議煽動(dòng)恐怖活動(dòng)罪[J];云南行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年03期

6 陳興良;;“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”與刑法風(fēng)險(xiǎn):雙重視角的考察[J];法商研究;2011年04期

7 孟慶華;;煽動(dòng)暴力抗拒法律實(shí)施罪的幾個(gè)構(gòu)成要件問(wèn)題探討[J];江西科技師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年02期

8 葉小琴;;略論煽動(dòng)分裂國(guó)家罪[J];華中農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年03期

9 李炳爍;言論自由的限度理論[J];江蘇大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年05期

10 彭劍鳴,鄧萬(wàn)飛;論煽動(dòng)民族仇恨、民族歧視罪[J];貴州民族研究;2002年02期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 陳小彪;言論自由的刑法邊界[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

2 班克慶;煽動(dòng)型犯罪研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2012年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 沈yN雪;論宣揚(yáng)恐怖主義、極端主義、煽動(dòng)實(shí)施恐怖活動(dòng)罪[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

2 李政;煽動(dòng)性言論的刑法邊界[D];山東大學(xué);2016年

，

本文編號(hào)：2182978