本文選題：犯罪參與 + 單一制��； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國《刑法》第25條對共同犯罪采取了極為簡要的規(guī)定方式,而正是這簡單明了的法條規(guī)定,給刑事司法實踐與刑法理論研究帶來極大的挑戰(zhàn):何為“共同”、何為“共同故意”、何為“共同故意犯罪”,都是需要進一步解釋的問題。面對這些問題,不同學(xué)者基于不同的立場與視角可能得出不同的結(jié)論,而這也直接導(dǎo)致了“犯罪共同說”與“行為共同說”理論的分野。當(dāng)然,這只是共同犯罪疑難問題研究的冰山一角。而要解決這些問題,犯罪參與體系歸屬的確定可能是更為重要的前置性問題。犯罪參與理論研究的是,在多數(shù)人共同實施犯罪行為的情形中,究竟什么人是應(yīng)該對法益侵害結(jié)果負責(zé)的“真正行為人”(即所謂的“正犯”)。當(dāng)今各國不同的刑事立法中,存在“區(qū)分制”和“單一制”的對立:前者認為應(yīng)該對各犯罪參與人作出正犯與參與的劃分,并據(jù)此產(chǎn)生刑罰給予上的差異,即在定罪階段同時解決量刑問題;而單一制則更加重視行為與刑法所保護利益的關(guān)聯(lián)性,確定了真正行為人后,其該在多大程度上承擔(dān)法益侵害的刑事責(zé)任則應(yīng)是量刑階段需要解決的問題。毫無疑問,犯罪參與體系歸屬的確定是共同犯罪問題研究的開端與前提。以司法論為研究視角,依據(jù)我國《刑法》第25條——第29條的規(guī)定,從“立法原意”、立法特點、法條關(guān)系、立法動態(tài)和共同犯罪人的分類等角度來看,我國現(xiàn)行《刑法》在犯罪參與問題上采用了與單一制國家較為相似的立法模式。而且以單一制為視角,也可以合理解決共同犯罪研究中最為復(fù)雜的利用他人犯罪問題,這也從另一個方面論證了上述結(jié)論的科學(xué)性與合理性。
[Abstract]:Article 25 of the Criminal Law of our country has adopted the extremely brief stipulation way to the joint crime, and it is this simple and clear stipulation of the law, bring the great challenge to the criminal judicial practice and the study of the theory of criminal law: what is "common"? What is "joint intent" and "joint intentional crime" are questions that need further explanation. In the face of these problems, different scholars may draw different conclusions on the basis of different positions and perspectives, which directly leads to the separation of the theory of "common crime" and "common theory of behavior". Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg in the study of the problem of joint crime. In order to solve these problems, the determination of the ownership of the criminal participation system may be more important. What the theory of criminal participation studies is that in the situation where most people commit a crime jointly, who is the "real perpetrator" (that is, the so-called "principal offender") who should be responsible for the result of legal interest infringement? In the present criminal legislation of different countries, there exists the opposites of "distinction system" and "single system": the former thinks that each criminal participant should be divided into the principal offender and the participant, and according to this, the difference of punishment is produced. That is, to solve the problem of sentencing at the same time in the conviction stage, while the single system pays more attention to the relationship between the behavior and the interests protected by the criminal law, and determines the real perpetrator. To what extent it should bear the criminal responsibility of legal interest infringement should be the problem to be solved in sentencing stage. There is no doubt that the determination of the ownership of crime participation system is the beginning and premise of joint crime research. From the angle of view of judicial theory, according to the provisions of Article 25-Article 29 of the Criminal Law of China, from the perspectives of "legislative intent", legislative characteristics, relationship between articles of law, legislative dynamics and classification of joint offenders, etc. China's current Criminal Law adopts a legislative model similar to that of a single country on the issue of criminal participation. Moreover, from the perspective of single system, the most complex problem of using others in the study of joint crime can be solved reasonably, which proves the scientific and reasonable conclusion from another aspect.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(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 劉明祥;;論中國特色的犯罪參與體系[J];中國法學(xué);2013年06期

2 錢葉六;;中國犯罪參與體系的性質(zhì)及其特色——一個比較法的分析[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2013年06期

3 閻二鵬;;共犯行為正犯化及其反思[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2013年03期

4 譚X;;單一制正犯體系之質(zhì)疑——兼論我國犯罪參與體系的歸屬[J];法治研究;2013年02期

5 江溯;;日本刑法上的被害人危險接受理論及其借鑒[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2012年06期

6 江溯;;《奧地利刑法典》犯罪參與體系研究[J];刑法論叢;2012年01期

7 閻二鵬;;犯罪參與類型再思考——兼議分工分類與作用分類的反思[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2011年05期

8 任海濤;;犯罪參與論諸概念邏輯關(guān)系之辨正[J];法學(xué)論壇;2010年06期

9 于志剛;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)犯罪與中國刑法應(yīng)對[J];中國社會科學(xué);2010年03期

10 胡選洪;;論共同犯罪的立法模式及根源——兼與王志遠博士商榷[J];刑法論叢;2010年01期

，

本文編號：1869554