相约自杀行为刑事责任的研究

发布时间：2018-04-01 14:23

本文选题：相约自杀　切入点：先行行为　出处：《沈阳师范大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：生命权是个人法益的重要组成部分,为了保护本人的生命利益,应当否定法益主体对自己生命的自我决定权,自杀行为本身具有法益侵害性,只是因为刑罚无法有效地威慑既遂的自杀者或者不能期待未遂的自杀者违背意志继续生活,从而免除其刑事责任。[1]然而实践中的自杀案件往往非常复杂,尤其当本文论述的相约自杀行为出现时,需要对其进行深入探究。因立法空白,现实中此类案件的司法判决不尽相同。本文在论证相约自杀行为侵害的根本法益是个人生命权的基础上,对不同类型相约自杀中的未死者的刑事责任等具有争议性的疑难问题进行研究。本文分为三个章节,以案例为切入点,论述相约自杀的刑事责任问题:通过介绍双方自愿型相约自杀,对不作为犯罪中的先行行为成为作为义务来源问题进行探讨。首先从理论及司法实践的角度明确先行行为引起不作为犯罪的成立要件。其次在学界最具争议的先行行为范围的界定上,从客观法律评价的层面上出发认为先行行为的认定不应受其行为性质的影响,提出先行行为的判断标准。最后从刑法因果关系的角度来论证先行行为成为作为义务的合理性与必然性。通过介绍被害人承诺型相约自杀,对被害人承诺的杀人行为进行研究。列举被害人承诺的正当性依据,分析被害人承诺排除犯罪性的主要构成要件,特别在客体要件中重点分析了被害人并无生命权的处分权,因此行为人实施经承诺的杀人行为,仍构成故意杀人罪,不过因有被害人的承诺且是在相约自杀的特定情形下,因此在量刑上可以从轻处罚。通过介绍教唆、帮助型相约自杀,对教唆和帮助行为的追责路径进行探究。首先提出教唆和帮助他人自杀的行为具有可罚性,其次目前刑法文本中对此无明确规定,因而提出三种不同追责路径,逐一对其利弊进行探讨,排除直接故意杀人罪、不作为故意杀人罪以及故意杀人罪的间接正犯为追责路径后,最终主张相约自杀中教唆和帮助行为应依故意杀人罪共犯的路径进行追责。
[Abstract]:The right to life is an important part of personal interests, in order to protect the interests of my life, should deny the legal interests of the main life of their right to self-determination, Dutch act act itself is infringement of legal interest, just because the penalty can not effectively deter crime Dutch act or cannot be expected to attempt Dutch act against the will of people continue to live, so exempt from criminal responsibility in the practice of Dutch act however.[1] cases are very complex, especially when the same Dutch act behavior, need to be further explored. Due to the legislative blank, this kind of case in reality a judicial decision is not the same. This paper argues against the fundamental interests of Dutch act similar behavior is the basis of personal right of life on the study of problems of different types of controversial in the Dutch act meet the criminal responsibility. This article is divided into three chapters, in the case of cases The starting point, discusses the problem of criminal responsibility of the Dutch act similar: through the introduction of voluntary type similar Dutch act of omission, the crime behavior in advance to become as a source of obligations are discussed. Firstly the advance behavior theory and from the perspective of judicial practice caused not established as elements of a crime. Secondly in defining the range of the first academic behavior most the dispute on the evaluation objective from the legal level of that behavior should not be identified to influence the nature of the behavior, judgment standard advance behavior. Finally, from the point of view to prove the causal relationship between the antecedent act as the rationality and inevitability of the obligation. Through the introduction of the victim commitment type of murder Dutch act together. The behavior of victim's commitment. List the legitimate basis of the victim, the victim's commitment is mainly composed of elements analysis of decriminalization,. Don't focus on the analysis of the elements of the object in the victim has no right to dispose of the right to life, so the behavior of the implementation of the killings committed, still constitute intentional homicide, but because of the promise of the victim is in a particular situation and meet the Dutch act, so in sentencing can be given a lighter punishment. Through the introduction of abet, help meet to instigate and help Dutch act, behavior responsibility path inquiry. First proposed abetting and helping others Dutch act behavior can be punished, the present criminal law is no clear provisions in the text, and put forward three different accountability path, one by one to discuss its advantages and disadvantages, eliminate direct intentional homicide, not as intentional homicide the crime of intentional homicide and indirect criminal responsibility for path, finally advocate meet and help Dutch act in abetting behavior should be accountable in accordance with the path of intentional homicide of an accomplice.

【学位授予单位】：沈阳师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】