本文選題：犯罪　切入點(diǎn)：本質(zhì)　出處：《華東政法學(xué)院》2004年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：傳統(tǒng)社會(huì)危害理論認(rèn)為國(guó)家把某種行為設(shè)定為犯罪的原因是國(guó)家認(rèn)為某種行 為危害了社會(huì)即具有社會(huì)危害性。一般違法行為也有社會(huì)危害性,社會(huì)危害性是一 般違法行為和犯罪共同具有的特征,犯罪與一般違法行為的區(qū)別在于社會(huì)危害性程 度不同,即犯罪行為具有嚴(yán)重程度的社會(huì)危害性。行為社會(huì)危害性的有無(wú)以及嚴(yán)重 程度并不是固定不變的,它會(huì)隨著社會(huì)大環(huán)境的變化以及社會(huì)發(fā)展而不斷有所改變。 我國(guó)的傳統(tǒng)社會(huì)危害性理論認(rèn)為認(rèn)定行為的社會(huì)危害性時(shí)要結(jié)合行為人的人身危險(xiǎn) 性。社會(huì)危害性理論中所稱(chēng)的社會(huì)危害已經(jīng)是廣義的、包含了犯罪人的人身危險(xiǎn)性。 社會(huì)危害理論在刑法理論體系中處于核心的地位。1、它是犯罪構(gòu)成的基礎(chǔ)。2、它 是解決是否構(gòu)成排除社會(huì)危害性行為的關(guān)鍵。3、它是確定犯罪過(guò)程中各犯罪形態(tài)以 及各種共同犯罪人不同刑事責(zé)任的根據(jù)。 在全球化語(yǔ)境和社會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)型背景下,社會(huì)危害理論受到了各種挑戰(zhàn)。首先在沒(méi)有 統(tǒng)治與被統(tǒng)治階級(jí)的當(dāng)代中國(guó),社會(huì)危害性行為是統(tǒng)治階級(jí)認(rèn)為的危害其統(tǒng)治秩序 II WP=4 的行為的定義是否足以妥當(dāng)?shù)乇硎錾鐣?huì)危害性受到質(zhì)疑。其次,中國(guó)除了處于信息 化之外還處于工業(yè)化的進(jìn)程之中,工業(yè)化和信息化的雙重作用使得社會(huì)的轉(zhuǎn)型更加 劇烈,社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)中各要素之間正重新分化組合,社會(huì)危害性行為的范圍必然隨之調(diào) 整。對(duì)于社會(huì)危害性行為范圍外展的傾向,社會(huì)危害性理論必須有理論上的回應(yīng)。 再次,隨著國(guó)際刑罰權(quán)是否存在和需要問(wèn)題的出現(xiàn),社會(huì)危害性行為評(píng)價(jià)的國(guó)家主 權(quán)原則也受到?jīng)_擊。 針對(duì)以上情況,有學(xué)者提出了社會(huì)危害性的社會(huì)主義生產(chǎn)力標(biāo)準(zhǔn)學(xué)說(shuō)、社會(huì)危 害性的主流價(jià)值說(shuō)、社會(huì)危害的全球性說(shuō)。但這些學(xué)說(shuō)都存在一定程度的問(wèn)題。 國(guó)家對(duì)社會(huì)危害性特別是嚴(yán)重的社會(huì)危害性(犯罪的社會(huì)危害性)的認(rèn)識(shí)是否 合適和妥當(dāng)就始終是個(gè)問(wèn)題。嚴(yán)重的社會(huì)危害性(犯罪的社會(huì)危害性)的認(rèn)識(shí)的偏 差往往使得犯罪的認(rèn)定對(duì)人類(lèi)的自由造成限制。由于人類(lèi)社會(huì)的終極目標(biāo)是實(shí)現(xiàn)完 全的自由,而國(guó)家、刑罰、犯罪都是為了實(shí)現(xiàn)這一人類(lèi)的終極價(jià)值。嚴(yán)重的社會(huì)危 害性認(rèn)識(shí)的終極價(jià)值當(dāng)然也是最終實(shí)現(xiàn)人類(lèi)的完全自由。人類(lèi)的文明必然是多元性 的,為了人類(lèi)文明的多元性免受西方強(qiáng)勢(shì)話語(yǔ)的侵蝕,我們反對(duì)建立一個(gè)世界政府。 世界政府之不成立當(dāng)然意味著社會(huì)危害性的主權(quán)原則的堅(jiān)持。
[Abstract]:The traditional theory of social harm believes that the state has set some behavior as a crime because the state thinks a certain line.
In order to harm the society, it is social harmfulness. The general illegal acts also have social harmfulness, and the social harmfulness is one.
The common characteristics of illegal acts and crimes are common, and the difference between crime and general illegal acts lies in the social harmfulness
The degree is different, that is, the social harmfulness of the crime, the social harmfulness of the behavior and the severity of the social harmfulness.
The degree is not fixed, it will change with the change of the social environment and the development of the society.
The traditional social harmfulness theory of our country believes that the social harmfulness of cognizance behavior should be combined with the personal danger of the perpetrator
The social harmfulness in the theory of social harmfulness is already generalized, including the personal danger of the criminal.
The theory of social harm is at the core of the theory of criminal law,.1, which is the foundation of the constitution of the crime.2.
It is the key.3 to solve the problem of eliminating social harmfulness, and it is to determine the form of crime in the process of crime.
And the basis for the different criminal responsibilities of the various joint offenders.
In the context of globalization and social transformation, the theory of social harm has been challenged.
The contemporary China of the ruling class and the ruling class, the social harmfulness is considered by the ruling class to jeopardize its ruling order.
II
WP=4
Whether the definition of the behavior is enough to express the social harmfulness of the local state is questioned. Secondly, China is in the information.
It is still in the process of industrialization, and the dual role of industrialization and information makes the transformation of society more
The range of social structure is being redivided, and the scope of social harmfulness must be adjusted accordingly.
The social harmfulness theory must have a theoretical response to the tendency of the abduction of the scope of social harmfulness.
Thirdly, with the existence of the international penalty right and the emergence of the need, the state owner of the evaluation of social harmfulness
The principle of right has also been impacted.
In view of the above situation, some scholars have put forward the social harmfulness of the socialist productive forces standard theory and the social danger.
The mainstream value of the harmfulness is the global theory of social harm, but these theories have a certain degree of problem.
Whether the state is aware of the social harmfulness, especially the serious social harmfulness (the social harmfulness of the crime)
Appropriate and appropriate is always a problem. The understanding of the serious social harmfulness (the social harmfulness of the crime)
The difference often makes the determination of crime limit the freedom of human beings. The ultimate goal of human society is to finish it.
All freedom, and the state, punishment, and crime are all for the ultimate value of the human being.
The ultimate value of the harmful knowledge is, of course, the ultimate realization of human freedom. Human civilization is bound to be pluralistic.
In order to protect the diversity of human civilization from the erosion of the strong Western words, we are opposed to the establishment of a world government.
The failure of the world government, of course, means the insistence of the principle of sovereignty for social harmfulness.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2004
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D917

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 陳興良;入罪與出罪:罪刑法定司法化的雙重考察[J];法學(xué);2002年12期

2 陳興良;社會(huì)危害性理論——一個(gè)反思性檢討[J];法學(xué)研究;2000年01期

3 胡水君;全球化背景下的國(guó)家與公民[J];法學(xué)研究;2003年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1637005