發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-09-10 11:07

【摘要】：教唆、幫助自殺的行為在我國(guó)目前刑法典中并未作以規(guī)定，相對(duì)應(yīng)的只是以“故意殺人罪”抽象性地規(guī)定，但是否能將教唆、幫助自殺的行為包含其中仍有疑問(wèn)。國(guó)外許多國(guó)家以及我國(guó)港澳臺(tái)地區(qū)對(duì)該行為都予以單獨(dú)立法，而我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐做法是以“故意殺人罪”處之，相比之下，我國(guó)刑法殺人罪的條款也頗為“簡(jiǎn)陋”，直接導(dǎo)致教唆、幫助自殺者之行為的定罪量刑成為了相當(dāng)大的疑問(wèn)。本文作者首先以自殺的法律性質(zhì)為切入點(diǎn)，對(duì)自殺的違法性進(jìn)行判斷，肯定自殺具備違法性，進(jìn)而對(duì)教唆、幫助自殺行為進(jìn)行界定。采用比較分析方法，對(duì)德國(guó)、日本、英美國(guó)家學(xué)者們的相關(guān)觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行比較，認(rèn)為教唆、幫助自殺具有違法性。本文第二部分對(duì)教唆幫助自殺的可罰性進(jìn)行理論分析，對(duì)于該行為可罰性存在肯定說(shuō)和否定說(shuō)兩種觀點(diǎn)，但兩種學(xué)說(shuō)均有不足，筆者將通過(guò)綜合比較，同意其具備可罰性，但理論依據(jù)則不能簡(jiǎn)單依附于自殺者行為的違法性上，同時(shí)，，通過(guò)闡述我國(guó)實(shí)踐中對(duì)該行為的處罰做法和借鑒國(guó)外及我國(guó)港澳臺(tái)地區(qū)的法律實(shí)踐，在第三部分著重闡述完善教唆、幫助自殺立法的必要性，并根據(jù)我國(guó)現(xiàn)有法律體系進(jìn)行大膽設(shè)計(jì)，從罪名、罪狀到刑罰，以及情節(jié)處罰幅度等方面，既充分借鑒國(guó)外立法精要之處，又符合我國(guó)基本法律原則和國(guó)情政策，作以建議性陳述，希望對(duì)今后學(xué)者的研究起到拋磚引玉的作用。
[Abstract]:The act of abetting and aiding suicide is not stipulated in the Criminal Code of our country at present, what is corresponding is only the abstract stipulation of "intentional homicide", but whether the act of abetting or aiding suicide can be included in it is still doubtful. Many foreign countries, as well as Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan regions of our country, legislate on this act separately, but the judicial practice of our country is to deal with the crime of "intentional homicide". In contrast, the terms of the crime of homicide in criminal law of our country are also quite "simple". The conviction and sentencing of the direct cause of abetting and aiding suicide has become a considerable question. In this paper, the author starts with the legal nature of suicide, judges the illegality of suicide, affirms the illegality of suicide, and then defines the act of abetting and aiding suicide. By using the method of comparative analysis, this paper compares the views of scholars in Germany, Japan and the United States and thinks that abetting and aiding suicide are illegal. In the second part of this paper, the author makes a theoretical analysis of the penalization of aiding suicide. There are positive and negative views on the behavior's penalization, but the two theories are deficient. The author will agree that the behavior is punishable by comprehensive comparison. However, the theoretical basis cannot be simply attached to the illegality of suicide behavior. At the same time, by expounding the punishment of this act in our country's practice and drawing lessons from foreign countries and the legal practice of Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan in our country, In the third part, it focuses on the necessity of perfecting abetting and helping suicide legislation, and makes bold design according to the existing legal system of our country, from the charge, the crime to the penalty, and the extent of the punishment of the circumstances, and so on. It not only draws lessons from the foreign legislative essentials, but also conforms to the basic legal principles and national policies of our country, and makes a constructive statement, hoping to serve as an inspiration to the future research of scholars.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：黑龍江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D914

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 胡海;;論教唆他人自殺的犯罪性來(lái)源[J];福建警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年03期

2 馮軍;刑法的規(guī)范化詮釋[J];法商研究;2005年06期

3 張明楷;論刑法的謙抑性[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1995年04期

4 張永紅;吳茵;;教唆自殺新論[J];法學(xué)雜志;2011年01期

5 沈玉忠;;教唆他人自殺行為的定性與理性分析[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年04期

6 馮凡英;教唆、幫助自殺行為芻議[J];人民檢察;2004年02期

7 陳興良;共同犯罪論[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2001年03期

8 何彩萍;教唆、幫助他人自殺獨(dú)立定罪的法理探析[J];榆林學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期

9 陳興良;教唆或者幫助他人自殺行為之定性研究——邵建國(guó)案分析[J];浙江社會(huì)科學(xué);2004年06期

本文編號(hào)：2234269