本文選題：被脅迫行為 + 緊急避險(xiǎn)　； 參考：《蘭州大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：被脅迫行為是刑法上一種獨(dú)特的行為類型,其基于人的脅迫產(chǎn)生,被脅迫行為人為了防止威脅內(nèi)容的實(shí)現(xiàn)而實(shí)施犯罪行為。正是由于威脅的介入,使得這類行為與刑法中規(guī)定的其他行為都存在著或多或少的差異。在兩大法系內(nèi)存在著諸多爭(zhēng)議。英美法系刑法當(dāng)中,被脅迫行為在符合一定的條件下即構(gòu)成可寬恕辯護(hù)事由或合法辯護(hù)事由,在大陸法系刑法當(dāng)中,大多將被脅迫行為同緊急避險(xiǎn)相聯(lián)系,將其納入緊急避險(xiǎn)的研究范疇之內(nèi)。被脅迫行為在我國(guó)刑法當(dāng)中沒(méi)有單獨(dú)的概念,對(duì)其研究主要集中在刑法中緊急避險(xiǎn)和脅從犯當(dāng)中。脅從犯作為我國(guó)刑法所獨(dú)有的概念,為法律明文所規(guī)定,這不同于兩大法系關(guān)于被脅迫行為的規(guī)定。這就存在一個(gè)問(wèn)題即脅從犯的存在大幅縮減了被脅迫行為作為緊急避險(xiǎn)在實(shí)踐當(dāng)中的適用范圍,這有害于法律的穩(wěn)定性與公信力。作為緊急避險(xiǎn)時(shí),被脅迫行為是不具有期待可能性的合法行為,而作為脅從犯時(shí),被脅迫行為又是可以減輕或免除處罰的共同犯罪行為,這在適用上易產(chǎn)生定罪及量刑上的爭(zhēng)議。筆者嘗試從被脅迫行為概念入手,將被脅迫行為在兩大法系立法及理論成果進(jìn)行對(duì)比評(píng)析,將出于脅迫的緊急避險(xiǎn)與脅從犯相關(guān)理論比較,進(jìn)而完善被脅迫行為的相關(guān)理論,以期厘清被脅迫行為在刑法中的定位問(wèn)題,為完善被脅迫行為在我國(guó)刑法中的相關(guān)規(guī)定提出自己的見(jiàn)解。本文擬圍繞被脅迫行為的法律性質(zhì)及法律定位的核心問(wèn)題,分為四個(gè)部分進(jìn)行論述。第一部分界定被脅迫行為的基本概念、構(gòu)成要件等。具體分析被脅迫行為被刑法寬恕的法律依據(jù)。第二部分分析兩大法系刑法中關(guān)于被脅迫行為的規(guī)定,得出被脅迫行為在不同法系立法中的不同之處,為下文具體分析被脅迫行為做鋪墊。第三部分具體分析被脅迫行為在兩大法系刑法理論研究中的理論區(qū)別,并對(duì)理論爭(zhēng)議進(jìn)行評(píng)析,得出二元論的被脅迫行為法律性質(zhì)定性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。第四部分區(qū)別我國(guó)立法當(dāng)中被脅迫行為在脅從犯與緊急避險(xiǎn)當(dāng)中的表現(xiàn),分析脅從犯與緊急避險(xiǎn)相關(guān)規(guī)定的區(qū)別。通過(guò)前文的分析,反思我國(guó)被脅迫行為在刑法中的相關(guān)規(guī)定,對(duì)目前存在的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行思考并提出相應(yīng)的建議。
[Abstract]:Coerced behavior is a unique type of behavior in criminal law, which is based on human coercion, and the coerced actor carries out criminal acts in order to prevent the realization of threatening content. Because of the intervention of threat, there are more or less differences between these acts and other acts stipulated in criminal law. There are many disputes in the two legal systems. In the criminal law of Anglo-American legal system, the act of being coerced under certain conditions can be condoned or justified. In the criminal law of the civil law system, most of the acts of coercion are related to the emergency avoidance. It is included in the study of emergency risk aversion. There is no separate concept of coerced behavior in Chinese criminal law. As a unique concept in the criminal law of our country, coerced crime is stipulated in the law, which is different from the provisions of the two major legal systems on coerced acts. There is a problem that the existence of coerced offenders greatly reduces the scope of application of coerced acts as an emergency to avoid risks in practice, which is harmful to the stability and credibility of the law. As an emergency to avoid danger, the act of being coerced is a lawful act without the possibility of expectation, while as an accomplice, the act of being coerced is a joint criminal act which can be mitigated or exempted from punishment. This is prone to conviction and sentencing controversy in the application. The author tries to start with the concept of coerced act, compares the legislative and theoretical achievements of coerced act in two legal systems, compares the relevant theories of emergency risk avoidance and coerced crime out of coercion, and then perfects the relevant theory of coerced behavior. In order to clarify the orientation of coerced acts in the criminal law, in order to improve the relevant provisions of coercive acts in our criminal law, put forward their own views. This paper focuses on the legal nature of coerced acts and the core issues of legal positioning, which is divided into four parts. The first part defines the basic concept of coerced acts, the constitutive elements and so on. Specific analysis of the legal basis for forgiving the act of coercion by the criminal law. The second part analyzes the provisions on coerced acts in the criminal law of the two legal systems, and draws the differences of the coerced acts in the legislation of different legal systems, which pave the way for the concrete analysis of the coerced acts below. The third part analyzes the theoretical differences of coerced acts in the theoretical study of criminal law in the two major legal systems, and analyzes the theoretical disputes, and draws the qualitative standard of the legal nature of dualism. The fourth part distinguishes the behavior of coerced behavior between coerced crime and emergency risk avoidance in our legislation, and analyzes the difference between coerced crime and emergency risk avoidance. Through the above analysis, this paper reflects on the relevant provisions of the criminal law of the coerced behavior in our country, thinks about the existing problems and puts forward the corresponding suggestions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D924.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳璇;;生命沖突、緊急避險(xiǎn)與責(zé)任阻卻[J];法學(xué)研究;2016年05期

2 何承顏;;被脅迫行為的刑法定性——兼論脅從犯與緊急避險(xiǎn)的區(qū)分[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2016年04期

3 錢葉六;;期待可能性理論的引入及限定性適用[J];法學(xué)研究;2015年06期

4 邢綃紅;;韓國(guó)刑法中對(duì)被脅迫行為的規(guī)定及其對(duì)中國(guó)的啟示[J];延邊大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年03期

5 魏漢濤;;反思被迫行為與緊急避險(xiǎn)的關(guān)系[J];昆明理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年06期

6 姜程亮;;被迫行為在我國(guó)刑法中的定位問(wèn)題探析[J];吉林省教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年10期

7 鄧定永;;論脅從犯在共犯人分類中的歸屬[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(法學(xué)版);2010年05期

8 李世宇;王斐;;被脅迫強(qiáng)奸殺人行為的法理辨析[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2010年16期

9 張坤;;被迫行為在我國(guó)和大陸法系犯罪論體系中的應(yīng)然地位[J];福建警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年04期

10 曹堅(jiān);;脅從犯問(wèn)題研究[J];北京人民警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年04期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 于洋;論刑法中的被脅迫行為[D];山東大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號(hào)：1906303