幫助犯罪分子逃避處罰罪實踐爭議問題研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-10-15 18:01
【摘要】：幫助犯罪分子逃避處罰罪是1997年刑法新增加的罪名,規(guī)定在第417條。由于刑法條文罪狀表述不明確,司法解釋也沒有及時補充完善,對本罪認識上的分歧影響了其適用。本文試圖分析研究幫助犯罪分子逃避處罰罪的實踐爭議問題,希望對本罪的理論研究及司法實踐提供參考。 本文除引言和結(jié)語外,總共三個部分： 第一部分用四個實案引出幫助犯罪分子逃避處罰罪實踐爭議問題。 第二部分詳細分析幫助犯罪分子逃避處罰罪實踐爭議問題。這部分是本文的主體部分,主要從犯罪構(gòu)成要件實踐爭議問題、犯罪形態(tài)實踐爭議問題及與其他罪名界限實踐爭議問題三個方面詳細加以闡述。首先,犯罪構(gòu)成要件方面,認為“有查禁犯罪活動職責(zé)的國家機關(guān)工作人員”包括兩類：一類是司法工作人員,另一類是稅務(wù)、工商、質(zhì)監(jiān)、衛(wèi)生等行政執(zhí)法人員及行政監(jiān)察人員。本罪行為方式既包括作為,也包括不作為。行為人幫助犯罪分子逃避處罰必須利用其職責(zé)便利�！疤颖芴幜P”包括“免受處罰”和“減輕處罰"。本罪中的“犯罪分子”包括違反刑法應(yīng)追究刑事責(zé)任但尚未被立案偵查的人、犯罪嫌疑人、被告人以及經(jīng)法院判決確定為有罪的人。其次,對犯罪形態(tài)實踐爭議問題進行分析,認為應(yīng)以行為人實施的幫助行為是否妨礙了司法機關(guān)查禁犯罪活動為既遂標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。對于共同犯罪及罪數(shù)形態(tài)的認定,司法解釋已作出明確規(guī)定,依照執(zhí)行即可。最后,對司法實踐中與本罪難以區(qū)分的徇私枉法罪、幫助偽造證據(jù)罪、徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪與本罪的界限簡要作了分析。同時,本文開頭引入的四個爭議案件將在上述三個問題論述中一一進行評析。 第三部分提出幫助犯罪分子逃避處罰罪實踐爭議問題的解決思路及具體建議。
[Abstract]:Helping criminals evade punishment is a new offence in the 1997 Criminal Code, stipulated in Article 417. Because the criminal law is not clear about the crime and the judicial interpretation has not been supplemented in time, the difference in the understanding of the crime has affected its application. This paper attempts to analyze and study the practical controversy of helping criminals evade punishment, hoping to provide a reference for the theoretical research and judicial practice of this crime. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, there are three parts: the first part uses four real cases to lead to the practical dispute of helping criminals evade punishment. The second part analyzes the dispute of helping criminals evade punishment in detail. This part is the main part of this paper, mainly from the elements of crime practice dispute, crime form practice dispute and other charges of practical dispute in three aspects to elaborate in detail. First of all, with regard to the constitutive elements of a crime, it is considered that "functionaries of state organs who have the duty to suppress criminal activities" include two categories: one is judicial personnel, the other is taxation, industry and commerce, and quality supervision. Health and other administrative law enforcement personnel and administrative supervisors. The behavior of this crime includes both acts and omissions. The perpetrator must make use of his duty to help criminals escape punishment. "escape from punishment" includes "immunity" and "mitigation". The "criminals" in this crime include those who should be investigated for violating the criminal law but who have not been put on file for investigation, suspects, defendants and those who have been found guilty by the court. Secondly, the author analyzes the controversial problem of criminal form practice, and thinks that the accomplished standard should be whether the helping act of the perpetrator hinders the judicial organs from suppressing the criminal activity. For the joint crime and the definition of the number of crimes, the judicial interpretation has made a clear provision, according to the execution can be. Finally, the author makes a brief analysis of the crime of perverting the law for favoritism, helping to forge evidence, and not transferring criminal cases to the crime of favoritism, which is difficult to distinguish from this crime in judicial practice. At the same time, the four controversial cases introduced at the beginning of this paper will be evaluated one by one in the above three issues. In the third part, the author puts forward some ideas and concrete suggestions to help criminals evade punishment.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3
本文編號：2273362
[Abstract]:Helping criminals evade punishment is a new offence in the 1997 Criminal Code, stipulated in Article 417. Because the criminal law is not clear about the crime and the judicial interpretation has not been supplemented in time, the difference in the understanding of the crime has affected its application. This paper attempts to analyze and study the practical controversy of helping criminals evade punishment, hoping to provide a reference for the theoretical research and judicial practice of this crime. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, there are three parts: the first part uses four real cases to lead to the practical dispute of helping criminals evade punishment. The second part analyzes the dispute of helping criminals evade punishment in detail. This part is the main part of this paper, mainly from the elements of crime practice dispute, crime form practice dispute and other charges of practical dispute in three aspects to elaborate in detail. First of all, with regard to the constitutive elements of a crime, it is considered that "functionaries of state organs who have the duty to suppress criminal activities" include two categories: one is judicial personnel, the other is taxation, industry and commerce, and quality supervision. Health and other administrative law enforcement personnel and administrative supervisors. The behavior of this crime includes both acts and omissions. The perpetrator must make use of his duty to help criminals escape punishment. "escape from punishment" includes "immunity" and "mitigation". The "criminals" in this crime include those who should be investigated for violating the criminal law but who have not been put on file for investigation, suspects, defendants and those who have been found guilty by the court. Secondly, the author analyzes the controversial problem of criminal form practice, and thinks that the accomplished standard should be whether the helping act of the perpetrator hinders the judicial organs from suppressing the criminal activity. For the joint crime and the definition of the number of crimes, the judicial interpretation has made a clear provision, according to the execution can be. Finally, the author makes a brief analysis of the crime of perverting the law for favoritism, helping to forge evidence, and not transferring criminal cases to the crime of favoritism, which is difficult to distinguish from this crime in judicial practice. At the same time, the four controversial cases introduced at the beginning of this paper will be evaluated one by one in the above three issues. In the third part, the author puts forward some ideas and concrete suggestions to help criminals evade punishment.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 王燕飛;幫助犯罪分子逃避處罰罪探疑[J];福建公安高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報;2005年02期
2 馬長生;羅開卷;;幫助犯罪分子逃避處罰罪疑難問題探析[J];法律適用;2009年09期
3 肖中華;;瀆職罪法定結(jié)果、情節(jié)在構(gòu)成中的地位及既遂未遂形態(tài)之區(qū)分[J];法學(xué);2005年12期
4 薛進展;閆艷;張銘訓(xùn);;瀆職罪若干最新疑難問題的司法認定[J];廣州市公安管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年04期
5 秦蜻;;論幫助犯罪分子逃避處罰罪的既遂形態(tài)[J];重慶工商大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2013年04期
6 龔培華;;瀆職罪立法及當(dāng)前司法中的熱點問題[J];華東刑事司法評論;2002年01期
7 談麗華;蔡永彤;;刑法中國家工作人員認定的難點與消解——以幫助犯罪分子逃避處罰案例為考察范本[J];河南公安高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報;2009年03期
8 李士勝,顧堅;適用幫助犯罪分子逃避處罰罪的問題及對策[J];檢察實踐;2002年03期
9 羅開卷;姜國平;;幫助犯罪分子逃避處罰罪法條解析與評判[J];北京人民警察學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年01期
10 葉建豐;看守所民警出具假立功證明致犯罪嫌疑人輕判應(yīng)定何罪[J];檢察實踐;2005年02期
，本文編號：2273362
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2273362.html
教材專著
