（間接）故意殺人罪和故意傷害（致死）罪比較研究—付萬鑫致人死亡案的法律分析
發(fā)布時間：2019-05-15 23:30
【摘要】：(間接)故意殺人罪與故意傷害(致死)罪直接侵害的是人的生命權(quán)和身體健康權(quán),不但人身危險性較大,而且對被害人身體和生命造成的傷害有時是無法彌補的。行為人若實施了故意殺人或故意傷害行為,因這兩種行為在不同方面都具有一定的相似性,導(dǎo)致司法辦案中時常會對這兩個罪名的定性上產(chǎn)生錯誤。一直以來對故意殺人罪與故意傷害罪進行區(qū)別,是依據(jù)刑法條文的規(guī)定對侵害行為做出準確的處罰,也是對罪刑法定及罪責(zé)刑相適應(yīng)這兩個刑法基本原則的順應(yīng)。只有較為準確地將故意殺人罪與故意傷害罪有所界定,才能使刑法規(guī)定的罪名正確適用到具體案件中,并按照相關(guān)規(guī)定來對犯罪行為進行法律制裁。實踐中,比較二罪的法定最高刑是相同的(二罪的法定最高刑都是死刑),公檢法的辦案人員就會對此類案件不認真區(qū)分和研究。這樣的辦案思維不僅不順應(yīng)罪刑法定與罪責(zé)刑相適應(yīng)原則的要求,也會發(fā)生案件訴判不一、輕罪重判或重罪輕判情況的增加。本文通過對付萬鑫致人死亡案的分析,結(jié)合司法實踐,綜合全案,通盤分析被告人的主觀心態(tài),尤其考慮案發(fā)原因,被告人的認知能力、被害人的體質(zhì)特征、侵害的部位與實施行為的力度,所實施的危害行為方式等多種因素進行治罪,對如何把握和判斷到底是構(gòu)成(間接)故意殺人罪還是構(gòu)成故意傷害(致死)罪,提出合理化的建議。本選題的研究內(nèi)容包括以下幾個方面,其中第二、第三方面是研究的重點,具體如下:第一,本案的討論分析。通過對付萬鑫致人死亡一案案情的簡要介紹,引出本案二種不同的爭議觀點,進而分別對每一種觀點進行概括梳理,分析其中涉及的法律問題。第二,比較分析。針對該案例引出的二種觀點,即付萬鑫的行為構(gòu)成(間接)故意殺人罪還是故意傷害(致死)罪?對以上爭議焦點分別進行系統(tǒng)的比較論證分析,從而闡明二者之間的區(qū)別及如何定性。第三,(間接)故意殺人罪和故意傷害(致死)罪區(qū)別標準的討論研究。第四,對于本案認定何罪的分析。結(jié)論部分是通過前面對案例詳細的論證基礎(chǔ)上,對付萬鑫的行為構(gòu)成何罪進行整體評價,提出對司法審判實踐的一些建議,以期對實務(wù)工作有所裨益。
[Abstract]:(indirect) intentional homicide and intentional injury (death) directly infringe on the right to life and the right to health of the human body, which is not only dangerous, but also can not make up for the harm caused to the body and life of the victim. If the perpetrator carries out intentional murder or intentional injury, because the two behaviors are similar in different aspects, resulting in the judicial handling of cases will often lead to qualitative errors between the two charges. For a long time, the difference between intentional homicide and intentional injury is to make accurate punishment for infringement according to the provisions of criminal law, and to conform to the two basic principles of criminal law, namely, the legality of crime and punishment and the adaptation of crime and responsibility punishment to these two basic principles of criminal law. Only by accurately defining the crime of intentional homicide and the crime of intentional injury can the charges stipulated in the criminal law be correctly applied to specific cases and the criminal acts should be punished according to the relevant provisions. In practice, the legal maximum penalty of the two crimes is the same (the legal maximum penalty of the second crime is the death penalty), the public security bureau, the procuratorate, the court case handling personnel will not seriously distinguish and study this kind of cases. Such a thinking of handling cases not only does not comply with the requirements of the principle that the punishment of crime and punishment is consistent with the principle of punishment for crimes, but also results in different cases of misdemeanour and the increase of felony or misdemeanour. Through the analysis of Wanxin's death case, combined with judicial practice, this paper comprehensively analyzes the subjective state of mind of the defendant, especially considering the cause of the case, the cognitive ability of the defendant and the physical characteristics of the victim. The part of infringement and the strength of the act of implementation, the way of harmful behavior and other factors to punish the crime, how to grasp and judge whether it constitutes (indirect) intentional homicide or constitutes intentional injury (death) crime. Put forward reasonable suggestions. The research content of this topic includes the following aspects, of which the second and the third is the focus of the study, as follows: first, the discussion and analysis of this case. By briefly introducing the case of Wanxin causing death, this paper leads to two different controversial viewpoints in this case, and then summarizes and combs each point of view and analyzes the legal issues involved in it. Second, comparative analysis. In view of this case leads to two views, that is, Fu Wanxin's behavior constitutes (indirect) intentional homicide or intentional injury (death) crime? The above controversial focus is systematically compared and analyzed, so as to clarify the difference between the two and how to qualitatively. Third, the discussion and research on the distinction standard between intentional homicide and intentional injury (death). Fourth, the analysis of what crime is found in this case. The conclusion part is on the basis of the previous detailed argumentation of the case, to deal with the crime of Wanxin's behavior, and put forward some suggestions for the judicial trial practice, in order to be beneficial to the practical work.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.3
本文編號：2477847
[Abstract]:(indirect) intentional homicide and intentional injury (death) directly infringe on the right to life and the right to health of the human body, which is not only dangerous, but also can not make up for the harm caused to the body and life of the victim. If the perpetrator carries out intentional murder or intentional injury, because the two behaviors are similar in different aspects, resulting in the judicial handling of cases will often lead to qualitative errors between the two charges. For a long time, the difference between intentional homicide and intentional injury is to make accurate punishment for infringement according to the provisions of criminal law, and to conform to the two basic principles of criminal law, namely, the legality of crime and punishment and the adaptation of crime and responsibility punishment to these two basic principles of criminal law. Only by accurately defining the crime of intentional homicide and the crime of intentional injury can the charges stipulated in the criminal law be correctly applied to specific cases and the criminal acts should be punished according to the relevant provisions. In practice, the legal maximum penalty of the two crimes is the same (the legal maximum penalty of the second crime is the death penalty), the public security bureau, the procuratorate, the court case handling personnel will not seriously distinguish and study this kind of cases. Such a thinking of handling cases not only does not comply with the requirements of the principle that the punishment of crime and punishment is consistent with the principle of punishment for crimes, but also results in different cases of misdemeanour and the increase of felony or misdemeanour. Through the analysis of Wanxin's death case, combined with judicial practice, this paper comprehensively analyzes the subjective state of mind of the defendant, especially considering the cause of the case, the cognitive ability of the defendant and the physical characteristics of the victim. The part of infringement and the strength of the act of implementation, the way of harmful behavior and other factors to punish the crime, how to grasp and judge whether it constitutes (indirect) intentional homicide or constitutes intentional injury (death) crime. Put forward reasonable suggestions. The research content of this topic includes the following aspects, of which the second and the third is the focus of the study, as follows: first, the discussion and analysis of this case. By briefly introducing the case of Wanxin causing death, this paper leads to two different controversial viewpoints in this case, and then summarizes and combs each point of view and analyzes the legal issues involved in it. Second, comparative analysis. In view of this case leads to two views, that is, Fu Wanxin's behavior constitutes (indirect) intentional homicide or intentional injury (death) crime? The above controversial focus is systematically compared and analyzed, so as to clarify the difference between the two and how to qualitatively. Third, the discussion and research on the distinction standard between intentional homicide and intentional injury (death). Fourth, the analysis of what crime is found in this case. The conclusion part is on the basis of the previous detailed argumentation of the case, to deal with the crime of Wanxin's behavior, and put forward some suggestions for the judicial trial practice, in order to be beneficial to the practical work.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.3
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 冷大偉;;犯罪故意“明知”問題探析[J];煙臺大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2015年05期
2 林婷;;故意傷害(致死)罪與(間接)故意殺人罪的司法辨析[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(中旬);2013年06期
3 王壹;;故意殺人罪和故意傷害罪比較分析[J];長春工程學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2013年01期
4 李燕華;;淺談如何界定故意殺人及故意傷害致死——從江某強不服法院判決刑事申訴案說起[J];法制與社會;2012年22期
5 季文生;朱士闊;;故意傷害(致死)罪與(間接)故意殺人罪的司法辨析[J];中國檢察官;2012年10期
6 馬曉途;;論故意殺人罪和故意傷害罪的區(qū)別認定[J];法制與社會;2009年34期
7 單琴;;論故意殺人罪和故意傷害罪的界限[J];法制與社會;2007年01期
8 袁秀巖;邵磊;;論故意殺人罪與其他相關(guān)犯罪的區(qū)別[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年06期
9 張明楷;故意傷害罪探疑[J];中國法學(xué);2001年03期
10 邱玉村,張?zhí)?故意傷害致死與間接故意殺人認定新議[J];人民司法;2001年06期
，本文編號：2477847
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2477847.html
