见危不救入罪研究

发布时间：2018-03-17 05:26

本文选题：见危不救　切入点：道德义务　出处：《安徽大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：近年来,“见危不救”事件被频繁报道,潜伏已久的“见危不救”以日益趋于严重的姿态浮出水面,引起社会的广泛关注。见危不救造成的重大损害结果和恶劣的社会影响,已经深深地刺痛了人们的心。见危不救作为一项道德义务迈入刑法中义务的行列,一直备受争议褒贬不一。目前国外很多国家已将见危不救行为纳入刑法的调整范畴,而我国却依旧寄希望于人们的高尚道德素质来见义勇为。本文从近几年社会上发生的见危不救案例入手,着眼于我国的实际情况,通过分析见危不救中“危”字的内涵与外延,总结出见危不救的概念。并对我国见危不救入罪的可行性与必要性进行了论述。进而提出了立法建构。从可行性角度看,见危不救入罪并不违背刑法的谦抑性原则。见危不救入罪能够带来明显的社会效果。见危不救入罪后,见危不救行为将面临法律和道德的双重谴责。见危不救入罪具有不可替代性,而且见危不救入罪也不会付出昂贵的代价。而且国外用刑法规制见危不救取得的积极效果,已证明见危不救罪的刑罚处罚所产生的法律和社会效益远远大于其所产生的消极作用。从社会学视角看,基于社会连带,个人对一般人尤其是处于危难中的他人也负有救助义务。这种义务不仅是道义上的,而且也是法律上的。道德和法律都属于制度经济学所界定的制度范畴。所不同的是道德属于内在制度,法律属于外在制度。外在制度通常作为必要的强制性的后盾服务于社会的内在制度,且它们也可以取代内在制度,见危不救行为一直属于道德约束的范畴,如今要将其上升为法律范畴,这就涉及到外在制度取代内在制度的问题,在制度经济学看来,在外在制度所带来的利益更大,且没有破坏社会和谐的基础上,外在制度取代内在制度便具有可行性和必要性。从必要性角度分析,首先见危不救具有普遍性和严重的社会危害性。其次见危不救入罪符合社会现实的需要。通过上述科学的分析,我们可知目前在我国见危不救行为入罪是可行的,而且是必要的。我国古代就有关于见危不救的立法规定,从春秋战国时期到清朝都有所规定。虽然各个朝代的具体规定有所不同,但有一点是共同的,那就是各朝代为了统治的延续和朝代发展的长治久安,都在各自的法律中对见危不救这种不道德的行为做出了惩罚性规定。目前国外一些国家,例如西班牙、瑞士、德国等也都在各自的刑法典中规定见危不救罪。关于见危不救罪的立法构建,在罪名方面文章认为我国可以借鉴俄罗斯刑法的规定,将罪名设定为“见危不救罪”。之所以选择这个罪名是考虑到将重大道德义务上升为法律义务,我们必须严格控制其适用范围,以免不适当的扩大刑法的规制领域,侵犯公民的权益。法定刑方面,考虑到我国刑罚体系的系统性,轻罪的刑罚大都在三年以下有期徒刑,所以见危不救罪的法定最高刑应以三年有期徒刑为限,并且可以将拘役和管制刑也作为见危不救法定刑的一个刑种。关于见危不救罪的犯罪构成,文章也从犯罪构成的四要素入手,逐一进行了分析。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the "save" events are frequently reported, long latent "save" to become increasingly serious attitude surfaced, caused widespread concern in the community. The major damage caused by the danger is not saved and bad social impact, has deeply hurt people's hearts. Save as a moral obligation into criminal law obligations in the ranks, has been controversial. At present, many foreign countries have been mixed to save behavior into the adjustment scope of the criminal law, but our country is still in the hope that people's noble moral quality to courageous. This happened in recent years, the non rescue case with the actual situation, focusing on China, through the analysis of the "crises" save the word connotation and denotation, summed up the concept of not rescuing the people in danger. The necessity and feasibility of our country fail to rescue the crime is discussed. And then the legislative construction is put forward.
From the perspective of feasibility, the principle of modesty save crime does not violate the criminal law. The crime of not rescuing the people in danger can bring obvious social effect. Save the crime, save behavior will face the dual legal and moral condemnation. Save the crime can not be replaced, and the save the crime will not pay a high price. And the positive effect of foreign made by criminal law does not save the danger, has been shown to save the crime penalty caused by legal and social benefits far outweigh the negative effects produced by it. From the perspective of sociology, based on social solidarity, especially personal to ordinary people in the midst of a crisis of others also have a duty to rescue. This is not only a moral obligation, but also the law. Morality and law belong to the category of system defined by institutional economics. The difference is the inner moral The legal system, belongs to the external system. Internal external institutions usually as necessary compulsory backing service to the society, and they can also replace the internal system, save behavior belongs to moral category, now its rise to the legal category, which relates to the external system to replace the internal system, it seems in the institutional economics, the external system of the benefits of more basic and not undermine social harmony, external system instead of internal system has the necessity and feasibility analysis. From the point of necessity, first save the universal and serious social harm. Then save to meet the needs of social crime reality. Through the analysis of the science, we know that at present in our country fail to rescue the crime is feasible, but also necessary.
In ancient China there are legislative provisions about not rescuing the people in danger, from the spring and Autumn period to the Qing Dynasty have been stipulated. Although the specific provisions of various dynasties have different, but have one thing in common, that is to rule the continuation of the dynasties and dynasties development in their long period of stability, the law to save such immoral behavior made the punitive provisions. At present, some foreign countries, such as Spain, Switzerland and Germany are also in the criminal law in the respective provisions of not rescuing the people in danger of sin.
On the construction of the legislation of the crime of not rescuing the people in danger, in the charges we think that China can learn from the provisions of the criminal law of Russia, the charges set to "save" the crime. The reason for choosing this accusation is considering the important moral obligation into legal obligations, we must strictly control the scope of application, so as to avoid the inappropriate expansion of criminal law the regulation field, violations of the rights of the citizen. Legal punishment, taking into account the system of penalty system in our country, the punishment of imprisonment is a misdemeanor in the following three years, the maximum statutory penalty so save crime should be limited to three years imprisonment, criminal detention and criminal control and can also act as save a penalty penalty. For not rescuing the people in danger of crime, starting with the four elements of the article is from the crime constitution, analyzed one by one.

【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.1

【参考文献】