竞技体育伤害之刑民界限

发布时间：2018-02-25 17:28

本文关键词： 竞技体育伤害刑民界限人权罪过　出处：《上海体育学院学报》2017年02期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：竞技体育伤害的刑民纷争局限于客观危害的限度考量,纠葛于行业自治、民法调整和刑法规制的艰难抉择,徘徊于规范违反、法益侵害和社会相当性的标准认定,陷入客观危害定性竞技体育伤害刑民范畴的误区,难以溯源竞技体育伤害可归责于行为人的刑法非难基础。竞技体育伤害当否刑法调整包含客观危害和主观罪过,是两者的辩证统一。客观危害是行为人主观罪过的内容及其实现程度,主观罪过是客观危害得以发生的支配力量。竞技体育伤害的刑民区分在客观上以是否侵害全体公民人权为根据,在客观危害归咎于行为人的判断上以是否包含行为控制为依托,在该当刑法惩罚上以是否具备主观罪过为核心。具体而言,故意和合规过失是竞技体育伤害刑民规制的分水岭;合规过失和违规过失是民法和行政法调整的遵循圭臬;合规故意与轻微伤害是适用刑事和解的前提基础;以刑制罪是此罪与彼罪的决断依据。
[Abstract]:The criminal disputes of sports injury are limited to the limit consideration of objective harm, entangled in the difficult choice of industry autonomy, civil law adjustment and criminal law regulation, hovering in the standard of standard violation, legal interest infringement and social equivalence. It is difficult to trace the source of sports injury to the criminal law basis of the perpetrator. Whether the criminal law should be adjusted for the sports injury includes objective harm and subjective crime, and it is difficult to trace the source of the injury to the criminal law. Objective harm is the content of the subjective sin of the perpetrator and the degree of its realization. Subjective crime is the dominant force of the occurrence of objective harm. The distinction between criminal and civilian of sports injury is objectively based on whether the human rights of all citizens are infringed upon, and whether the judgment of objective harm is attributed to the perpetrator is based on whether or not the criminal behavior control is included. Specifically speaking, intentional and compliance negligence is the watershed of the regulation of sports injury criminal law, compliance fault and compliance fault is the norm of the adjustment of civil law and administrative law. Compliance with intent and minor injury is the premise of criminal reconciliation, and the crime of punishment is the decisive basis of this crime and the other crime.
【作者单位】：重庆大学法学院;
【基金】：国家社会科学基金资助青年项目(16CFX025)
【分类号】：D923;D924

【相似文献】