“致人重伤、死亡”的立法问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-12 11:54

本文选题：致人重伤、死亡 + 罪数形态　；参考：《湖南师范大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：“致人重伤、死亡”或相类似的罪状,表达的是对生命、健康法益侵犯而常出现的危害结果,在刑法分则中出现了48次,但其规范性质不同,分别有着自己的规范价值,既影响定罪,又影响量刑：一种是作为基本犯犯罪构成要件的结果要素；一种是作为结果加重犯犯罪构成要件中的加重危害结果；一种是作为转化犯中新构成犯罪的犯罪构成要件结果要素；还有一种则是作为包容犯中犯罪构成要件结果要素。正是由于“致人重伤、死亡”危害结果是否由基本犯中的行为导致,犯罪行为造成了何种类别和程度的伤害亦或是死亡,行为与危害结果是否超出了基本犯罪的犯罪性质,对作为危害结果的重伤、死亡所包含的主观罪过要求的不同,犯罪行为本身是否具有一定特殊性和对造成危害结果的行为手段有无特殊要求,导致了当这种危害结果出现时,我国采取了不同的立法态度：要么将其作为结果加重犯对待,要么转化为另一性质更为严重的新的犯罪,极少数情况下刑法又将其明文规定为包容犯用以克服数罪并罚的限制,起到刑种升格、加重处罚之作用,有时又不遗余力仅以提示为目的将在两个主观罪过下实施的两个犯罪行为专门规定为数罪并罚,而在没有任何规定的类似情况下,根据罪刑法定原则,司法实践中我们只能依据罪数形态理论将其作为想像竞合犯以及按其他罪数不典型形态处理或根据总则规定的原则数罪并罚。如此多样的规范形式,势必与刑法的立法初衷相违背,无疑会破坏刑法条文的明确性,使其在解释和适用上产生诸多分歧,给理论和司法实践带来诸多困惑。在此,本文将运用体系解释的方法,对上述立法现象进行系统的梳理,力求做到“对于应为相同评价的事物作相同处理”,达到“性质上的相同或类似,自然要求处理模式上的同一或类似”的效果。哪一种规范价值更能体现罪刑相适应原则,更能保护好被害人和犯罪人的合法权益,便是我们立法选择的终极根据。并在此基础上,依据罪数不典型形态理论对现行刑法中“致人重伤、死亡”进行分类所形成的规范形式为视角首先确定一个立法模式,然后再确定一定的规范形式取舍标准,包括立法用语、行为对象、行为手段的特殊性要求、危害类型和程度等的外在识别标准,以及罪过形态及法定刑的内在识别标准。在保证典型一罪和典型数罪法律适用的准确性上,着重解决罪数不典型形态中“致人重伤、死亡”在立法和司法适用上混乱的难题,试图建立一个健全、合理的“致人重伤、死亡”立法体系。
[Abstract]:"causing serious injury, death" or similar crime, which expresses the harmful result of infringing on life and health laws and interests, has appeared 48 times in the special provisions of criminal law, but its normative nature is different, and each has its own normative value. It not only affects conviction, but also affects sentencing: one is the result element of the basic crime constitution, the other is the result of aggravating the crime as the result. One is the result element of the constitutive elements of the newly constituted crime and the other is the result element of the constitutive elements of the crime in the inclusive crime. It is precisely because of "causing serious injury, death" that the result of the harm is caused by the conduct of the basic offence, the type and degree of injury caused by the criminal act, or the death, and whether the act and the result of the harm exceed the criminal nature of the basic crime, For serious injury as a result of harm, death contains different subjective sin requirements, whether the criminal act itself has a certain particularity and whether there are special requirements on the means of causing the harmful result, which results in the occurrence of this kind of harm result. Our country has adopted different legislative attitudes: it is either treated as a result of aggravated crime, or transformed into a new crime of a more serious nature, and in rare cases it is explicitly stipulated in the criminal law as an inclusive crime to overcome the restrictions of impunity for several crimes. Serving to upgrade the category of punishment and increase the penalty, sometimes sparing no effort to specify, for the sole purpose of prompting, the combination of several crimes for the two criminal acts committed under two subjective offences, and in similar cases where there is no such provision, According to the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime, in judicial practice we can only treat it as an imaginative concurrence crime according to the theory of number and form of crime, and deal with it according to the atypical form of the number of other crimes or according to the principle stipulated in the general rules. Such a variety of normative forms is bound to be contrary to the original intention of the legislation of criminal law, will undoubtedly destroy the clarity of the provisions of criminal law, make it in the interpretation and application of many differences, to the theory and judicial practice brings a lot of confusion. Here, this article will use the system explanation method, carries on the systematic comb to the above legislation phenomenon, strives to "should do the same treatment to the same appraisal thing", achieves "the nature is identical or similar," Nature requires the same or similar "effect on the processing mode." Which normative value can better reflect the principle of adaptation of crime and punishment, and better protect the legitimate rights and interests of victims and offenders is the ultimate basis of our legislative choice. On this basis, according to the theory of atypical form of crime, the normative form formed by the classification of "causing serious injury and death" in the current criminal law is first determined as a legislative model, and then a certain standard of formal choice is determined. It includes the specific requirements of legislative terms, objects of conduct, means of conduct, the external identification standards of the types and degrees of harm, as well as the internal identification standards of the form of guilt and the statutory punishment. In order to ensure the accuracy of the legal application of the typical crime and the typical crime, the problem of "causing serious injury and death" in the atypical form of the crime number is solved in order to set up a sound and reasonable "serious injury" problem in the legislative and judicial application. Death legislation.
【学位授予单位】：湖南师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.11

【参考文献】