论我国醉酒犯罪的刑事责任

发布时间：2018-06-21 03:21

本文选题：醉酒犯罪 + 原因自由行为理论　；参考：《南京师范大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：“醉酒的人犯罪,应当负刑事责任”,立法规定虽然简单,但却隐藏着复杂的理论问题和棘手的实践问题,随着医学和司法精神病学对醉酒人刑事责任能力的研究,“责任能力与实行行为同时存在原则”下的醉酒犯罪的刑事责任承担陷入了理论困境,同时醉酒犯罪司法实践操作不规范、与理论不相融、处理不公正等,引起了学者们新的思考,而且相对于研究较多的理论方面,醉酒犯罪的司法实践及其处罚有必要重点研究,笔者在搜集了百余案例的基础上对我国醉酒犯罪展开了系统研究。第一,本文对醉酒犯罪面临的理论困境和实践中存在的问题逐一进行了揭露。首先,在理论上,责任原则的存在使得陷于无责任能力的醉酒犯罪的刑事责任承担陷入理论困境,我国醉酒犯罪传统的理论依据不切实际缺乏说服力,原因自由行为理论的引入从形式上突破了理论困境解决了依据问题,但是其在理论上一直存在着可罚性、重合性和适用范围的争论。有必要进一步探讨。其次,在实践中,醉酒犯罪司法程序受我国传统理论依据的影响而缺乏规范性,与现代醉酒犯罪理论依据不相融,醉酒犯罪刑事责任能力认定存在着很大的障碍,醉酒犯罪刑事处罚不公正,这些问题的解决对我国司法实践具有重要指导意义。第二,针对醉酒犯罪的理论困境和实践中存在的问题进行了逐一分析并提出了解决建议,首先,面对理论困境和我国醉酒犯罪传统理论依据不切实际时,笔者赞同引入原因自由行为理论作为我国醉酒犯罪的理论依据。其次,通过对法条的研习,结合实践中错误操作的分析,认为原因自由行为理论与我国醉酒犯罪的立法规定并不存在重合性之争,然后,考虑原因自由行为理论的法理及理论界对其适用范围的不同观点,在笔者进行了系统的论证的基础上,主张原因自由行为理论应在狭义范围内使用,并以此作为实践研究的理论基础。最后,以司法实践的精细化为主线对醉酒犯罪司法实践中出现的问题逐一解决,主张司法实践程序应当与现代醉酒犯罪的理论依据相一致,在醉酒人刑事责任能力认定方面,部分醉酒犯罪需要司法部门进行主动鉴定,规范刑事责任能力认定中法学判断和医学判断的主体,为确保鉴定的严格准确笔者建议对醉酒人刑事责任能力鉴定采取采取双重标准,并对上述观点进行了分析论证。第三,在前文基础上,对醉酒人刑事责任的具体处罚进行了系统探讨以及对与醉酒犯罪相关的死刑立即执行问题提出了笔者的观点,首先,原因自由行为下的故意、过失犯罪应当负完全刑事责任,其次,限制责任能力下的醉酒犯罪分为两种,一种为借酒壮胆型,另一种为事前无预谋型,对于醉酒壮胆型醉酒犯罪主张应当从严从重处罚,对于事前无预谋的醉酒犯罪笔者不主张从轻处罚,最后,认为醉酒犯罪中的死刑立即执行的适用应当特别谨慎,除特殊情形外一般不适用死刑立即执行。并结合案例对以上观点进行了佐证。
[Abstract]:"Drunken people should be responsible for criminal responsibility". Although the legislative provisions are simple, they are concealed with complicated theoretical and practical problems. With the study of the criminal responsibility of the medical and judicial psychiatry on the criminal responsibility of the drunken people, the criminal responsibility of the drunken crime under the principle of "responsibility and practice at the same time" In the theoretical predicament, the judicial practice of drunken crime is not standardized, it is not compatible with the theory, and the treatment of injustice has caused the new thinking of the scholars. Moreover, relative to the more theoretical aspects of the study, the judicial practice and punishment of the drunken crime are necessary to focus on the research. The writer has collected more than 100 cases on the drunken offense on the basis of collecting more than 100 cases. The crime have been studied in this paper.
First, this article exposes the theoretical dilemma faced by the drunken crime and the problems that exist in practice. First, in theory, the existence of the principle of responsibility makes the criminal responsibility of drunken crimes committed to unresponsible ability fall into a theoretical predicament. The theoretical basis of the traditional drunken crime in our country is unconvincing and unconvincing. The introduction of the theory of behavior has solved the basis of the theoretical predicament in form, but it has always existed in theory the argument of punishability, coincidence and scope of application. It is necessary to further discuss. Secondly, in practice, the judicial procedure of drunken crime is influenced by the traditional rationale of our country and lacks standard, and it is drunk with modern alcohol. Based on the theory of crime are not compatible with identification ability of criminal responsibility of drunk there is a lot of obstacles, drunken criminal penalty injustice, to solve these problems has important guiding significance to the judicial practice in our country.
Second, the theoretical predicament of drunken crime and the problems existing in practice are analyzed one by one and the solutions are put forward. First, in the face of the theoretical predicament and the unrealistic basis of the traditional theory of drunken crime in our country, the author agrees to introduce the theory of free behavior as the theoretical basis for the drunken crime in our country. Secondly, through the law of law The study, combining with the analysis of the wrong operation in practice, thinks that the theory of cause free behavior and the legislative provisions of drunken crime in our country do not have a contention of coincidence. Then, considering the different views of the theory and the theoretical circle of the theory of free behavior on the reason of its application, the author advocates the freedom of reason on the basis of the systematic argument. The behavior theory should be used in the narrow sense and take it as the theoretical basis of the practice research. Finally, with the refinement of the judicial practice as the main line to solve the problems arising in the judicial practice of drunken crime, the judicial practice procedure should be consistent with the theoretical basis of modern drunken crime, and the criminal responsibility capacity of the drunken people should be identified. On the other hand, some drunken crimes require the judicial department to carry out active identification and standardize the subject of legal judgment and medical judgment in the identification of criminal responsibility. In order to ensure the strict and accurate identification, the author recommends a double standard for the identification of the criminal responsibility ability of the drunken people and analyses the above points.
Third, on the basis of the previous article, the specific punishment of the drunken person's criminal responsibility is systematically discussed and the author's point of view is put forward for the immediate execution of the death penalty related to the drunken crime. First, the intent under the cause of free cause, the negligent crime should be completely criminal responsibility. Secondly, the crime of drunkenness under the limitation of responsibility is divided into two. One is to borrow wine and courage, and the other is not premeditated in advance. For drunken and bold drunkenness, it should be strictly punished. The author does not advocate a light punishment for the unpremeditated drunkenness crime. Finally, it is considered that the immediate implementation of the death penalty in drunken crime should be particularly cautious, except in special cases. The immediate execution of death penalty. And a case of evidence for this view.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】