【摘要】：根據(jù)《刑法》第67條的規(guī)定,自首是指犯罪行為人犯罪以后主動投案,如實供述自己的罪行,或者被采取強制措施的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人和正在服刑的罪犯,如實供述司法機關(guān)還未掌握的本人其他罪行。自首不僅有利于感召犯罪行為人主動投案,激勵犯罪行為人悔過自新,減少因犯罪而造成的社會不安定因素,而且有助于迅速偵破刑事案件,及時懲治犯罪,提高刑法在懲治和預(yù)防犯罪中的作用。 隨著我國機動車擁有量的逐年攀升,交通肇事犯罪已然躍居安全事故類犯罪之首,極大地影響著人們的生活。一般認(rèn)為,犯罪行為人在交通肇事后立即報警,積極救助傷者并保護(hù)事故現(xiàn)場的行為,在符合自首條件的情況下可以成立自首。司法實踐中,大部分交通肇事的行為人履行如上義務(wù)且如實供述自己罪行的,也都被認(rèn)定為自首而給予了從寬處罰。而浙江省高級人民法院《關(guān)于審理交通肇事刑事案件若干意見》以構(gòu)成重復(fù)評價為由將交通肇事罪排除在自首制度的適用范圍之外,引起學(xué)界廣泛爭議。 自首作為我國刑法總則規(guī)定的一項重要刑罰制度,在改造和預(yù)防犯罪方面發(fā)揮著不可替代的作用,更體現(xiàn)了寬嚴(yán)相濟刑事政策的精神,如無例外情形,應(yīng)當(dāng)無條件地適用于分則每一個罪名,交通肇事罪也不例外�！兜缆方煌ò踩ā返�70條規(guī)定的報警、救助傷者并保護(hù)現(xiàn)場等義務(wù),是行政法律部門為交通肇事的行為人設(shè)定的行政義務(wù),而非刑法上的義務(wù)。行為人履行此項義務(wù)不直接等同于自首,但在符合自首條件時能夠成立自首,這不違反刑法禁止重復(fù)評價原則；并且,犯罪行為人在交通肇事后未履行行政義務(wù),但事后主動投案并如實供述自己的罪行,也有成立自首的空間,不過在量刑時要考慮行為人主觀惡性以及社會危害性程度的大小,決定是否給予從寬處罰,這符合罪刑相適應(yīng)原則。 將自首制度適用于交通肇事罪既能保護(hù)被害人,又有利于犯罪行為人,還能有效促進(jìn)刑罰目的的實現(xiàn),意義十分深遠(yuǎn)。本文結(jié)合我國當(dāng)前關(guān)于交通肇事罪的立法現(xiàn)狀及司法實踐,通過評述理論界和司法界的主流意見,從全新的角度提出自己的觀點,力求豐富這一問題研究,更期待打破同案異判的尷尬局面。
[Abstract]:According to the provisions of article 67 of the Criminal Law, voluntary surrender refers to a suspect, a defendant and a criminal serving a sentence after the perpetrator has committed a crime and gives a true confession of his or her crime, or the criminal suspect, the accused person and the offender who is serving a sentence after he or she has taken coercive measures, A truthful confession of other crimes that the judiciary has not yet mastered. Surrender is not only conducive to soliciting the criminal actor to surrender on his own initiative, encouraging the criminal actor to repentance, reducing the social instability caused by the crime, but also helps to quickly detect the criminal case and punish the crime in a timely manner. Improve the role of criminal law in the punishment and prevention of crime. With the increase of the number of motor vehicles in our country, the crime of traffic accident has leapt to the top of the crime of safety accident, which greatly affects people's life. It is generally believed that the perpetrator should report to the police immediately after the traffic accident, actively help the injured and protect the scene of the accident, and can set up a voluntary surrender under the condition of meeting the conditions of voluntary surrender. In judicial practice, most of the perpetrators of traffic accidents perform the above obligation and confess their crimes truthfully, they are also recognized as surrender and given lenient punishment. On the other hand, Zhejiang Provincial higher people's Court excluded the crime of traffic accident from the scope of application of the voluntary surrender system on the grounds of repeated evaluation, which caused widespread controversy in the academic circles. As an important penalty system stipulated by the general provisions of the criminal law of our country, surrender plays an irreplaceable role in reforming and preventing crime, and embodies the spirit of the criminal policy of combining leniency and severity, such as without exception, It shall apply unconditionally to each and every crime, and the crime of causing a traffic accident is no exception. Under Article 70 of the Law on Road Traffic Safety, it is the duty to report to the police, to help the injured and to protect the scene, etc. It is the administrative obligation, not the criminal obligation, set by the administrative and legal department for the actor who caused the traffic accident. The performance of this obligation by the perpetrator is not directly equivalent to surrender, but can be established when the conditions for surrender are met, which is not in violation of the principle of prohibition of repeated evaluation in the criminal law; Moreover, the perpetrator did not fulfill his administrative obligation after the traffic accident, but after the incident, he surrendered voluntarily and confessed his crime truthfully, and there was also room to set up a voluntary surrender. However, it is necessary to consider the subjective malignancy of the perpetrator and the degree of social harm, and decide whether to give leniency punishment, which is in line with the principle of adapting crime and punishment. Applying the system of surrender to the crime of traffic accident can not only protect the victim, but also benefit the perpetrator of the crime, but also can effectively promote the realization of the purpose of penalty, the significance is very far-reaching. Combined with the current legislative situation and judicial practice of traffic accident crime in China, this paper reviews the mainstream opinions of the theoretical and judicial circles, and puts forward its own viewpoint from a brand-new angle in order to enrich the research on this issue. We are looking forward to breaking the awkward situation of the same case.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：江西財經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3;D924.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張陽;;關(guān)于自首中“如實供述罪行”的幾點思考[J];中國人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2009年01期

2 李偉迪;;如實供述同種罪不以自首論司法解釋的無效性[J];文史博覽(理論);2010年05期

3 戴勇;;自首中“如實供述罪行”的準(zhǔn)確把握[J];安徽警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年06期

4 張麗;;巨額財產(chǎn)來源不明罪自首的認(rèn)定[J];滄桑;2011年01期

5 豆忠娟;;論自首中的“如實供述自己的罪行”[J];中國檢察官;2012年07期

6 張陽;;論自首中“如實供述”的司法認(rèn)定[J];河南財經(jīng)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報;2013年02期

7 張坡;;初查中被調(diào)查人如實供述認(rèn)定為自首的思考[J];市場周刊(理論研究);2013年07期

8 蘇公聞;卓然;;淺論制定和運用訊問對策應(yīng)遵循的原則[J];公安理論與實踐;1994年04期

9 王偉華;;如實供述同種余罪應(yīng)認(rèn)定為自首[J];山東審判;2008年05期

10 陳正勇;;小議經(jīng)偵訊問技巧[J];公安學(xué)刊(浙江警察學(xué)院學(xué)報);2009年04期

相關(guān)會議論文 前1條

1 陳柱釗;;如實供述罪行+退贓數(shù)額特別巨大=減輕處罰?!——“因如實供述罪行避免特別嚴(yán)重后果發(fā)生”之實踐應(yīng)用[A];建設(shè)公平正義社會與刑事法律適用問題研究-全國法院第24屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會獲獎?wù)撐募ㄏ聝裕C];2012年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 王婧 翟二闖;嫌疑人一經(jīng)傳喚即如實供述，是否自首[N];檢察日報;2005年

2 最高人民法院刑事審判第二庭;一審翻供二審如實供述不認(rèn)定為自首[N];人民法院報;2004年

3 徐正清;供述不清楚算不算立功？[N];江蘇法制報;2007年

4 馬曉明;“坦白情節(jié)”在司法實踐中的適用[N];江蘇法制報;2012年

5 上海市高級人民法院刑二庭 羅開卷;坦白情節(jié)的認(rèn)定與運用[N];上海法治報;2012年

6 郭健忠;投案后作無罪辯解不影響自首認(rèn)定[N];檢察日報;2005年

7 王曉軍（作者單位系長治城區(qū)人民檢查院）;冒充肇事者 被刑拘后又如實供述應(yīng)如何處理[N];科學(xué)導(dǎo)報;2006年

8 河南省平頂山市人民檢察院 王曉民;一審判決前如實供述不應(yīng)一概認(rèn)定為自首[N];檢察日報;2010年

9 山東省濟南市中級人民法院 瞿守印;電話傳喚到案如實供述的應(yīng)認(rèn)定為自首[N];人民法院報;2011年

10 上海市第二中級人民法院 黃伯青;坦白在實踐中的若干問題及應(yīng)對[N];人民法院報;2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 劉璐;論自首中的“如實供述”[D];鄭州大學(xué);2012年

2 譚靚;論我國刑罰制度中的“如實供述”[D];湘潭大學(xué);2014年

3 張樂濤;坦白制度研究[D];江西財經(jīng)大學(xué);2012年

4 史國榮;自首認(rèn)定若干問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2009年

5 劉正;自首若干問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年

6 王娜;自首認(rèn)定的實踐難題及其解決[D];遼寧大學(xué);2012年

7 顏長青;論自首的認(rèn)定[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2012年

8 鄢志剛;我國刑法中坦白制度研究[D];南昌大學(xué);2013年

9 孔祥來;自首若干實務(wù)問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2005年

10 王上平;自首認(rèn)定中的若干問題研究[D];四川大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號：2438623