寻衅滋事罪相关问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-26 01:09

本文选题：寻衅滋事罪 + 补充性　；参考：《深圳大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：寻衅滋事罪作为一个在理论界和司法实践中均颇具争议的罪名,对本罪的研究具有较大的理论意义和实践意义。本文在前人研究的基础上,通过分析寻衅滋事罪在刑法体系中的定位问题和客观行为的认定问题对寻衅滋事罪进行了梳理,主要对寻衅滋事罪具有的补充性特征和犯罪构成要件进行了详细的论述,指出其立法上的缺陷,同时就2011年公布实施的《刑法修正案(八)》对寻衅滋事罪进行的修改进行了分析,并通过案例的方式,对该罪在司法实践中的认定问题提出自己的看法。本文共有四个章节:第一章是寻衅滋事罪的概述。主要介绍了寻衅滋事罪的产生和发展,同时对该罪名在刑法体系中是一个补充性罪名的观点进行了详细论述。寻衅滋事罪从流氓罪分解而来,虽然独立后的寻衅滋事罪较之流氓罪,其客观行为方式已经在很大程度上得到了明确化,但仍保留了部分“口袋性”,学界对此诟病已久,这也导致了司法认定上的诸多困难。笔者认为,应当正视寻衅滋事罪所具有的补充性,对其进行规范和完善,使该罪在刑法体系和司法实践中最大限度发挥其作用。第二章对寻衅滋事罪的客观方面进行了分析。该罪的主体是没有什么争议的,客体的争议虽各有说法,但基本上都限定在“社会秩序”的范围内,最具争议的点在于主观方面和客观方面。关于寻衅滋事罪的主观方面,笔者首先对该罪的“流氓动机”提出了自己的看法,同时对犯罪动机在区分罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪的问题上的作用进行了肯定。关于客观方面,笔者对该罪名中的模糊性用语进行了明确界定,以期能使该罪的司法认定更具有操作性。第三章笔者对2011年公布实施的《刑法修正案(八)》对寻衅滋事罪进行的修改进行了分析,充分肯定了其进步意义,同时也对此次修改的不足之处提出了自己的看法。刑修(八)增加了该罪的行为方式和关于“纠集他人多次的”的规定,同时将该罪法定刑提高至十年,并增加了罚金刑,使该罪在行为方式和量刑上得到了完善。但是,此次修改并没有对寻衅滋事罪的特征加以明确,语言的规范化、明确化等仍然欠缺。第四章笔者首先指出了寻衅滋事罪在司法认定上的困境,并指出应对这种困境,需要司法者以理性的态度对待寻衅滋事罪的补充性,贯彻好罪刑法定原则。然后,以案例的方式,结合前文对寻衅滋事罪犯罪动机的分析和客观方面的界定,以寻衅滋事罪与故意伤害罪、寻衅滋事罪与抢劫罪为范例,提出寻衅滋事罪的认定是一个需要进行全方位综合判断的过程。司法实践中应严格把控好寻衅滋事的客观方面,并辅之以动机来进行判断,使寻衅滋事罪与其他相关犯罪相区分。
[Abstract]:As a controversial crime in theory and judicial practice, the crime of provoking trouble has great theoretical and practical significance. On the basis of previous studies, this paper combs the crime of provoking and causing trouble by analyzing the problem of the orientation of the crime of provoking and causing trouble in the criminal law system and the problem of the identification of objective behavior. This paper mainly discusses the supplementary characteristics and constitutive elements of the crime of provoking and causing trouble in detail, and points out the defects in its legislation. At the same time, this paper analyzes the revision of "Criminal Law Amendment (8)" published and implemented in 2011, and puts forward his own views on the cognizance of the crime in judicial practice through the way of case. There are four chapters in this paper: the first chapter is the summary of the crime of provoking and causing trouble. This paper mainly introduces the emergence and development of the crime of provoking and causing trouble, and at the same time, discusses in detail the viewpoint that the crime is a supplementary charge in the criminal law system. The crime of provoking and causing trouble has been broken down from the crime of hooliganism. Although the objective behavior of the crime after independence has been largely clarified as compared with the crime of hooliganism, some "pockets" have still been retained, which has long been criticized by the academic community. This has also led to many difficulties in judicial determination. The author believes that we should face up to the supplementary nature of the crime of provoking and causing trouble, standardize and perfect it, and make the crime play its role to the maximum extent in the criminal law system and judicial practice. The second chapter analyzes the objective aspects of the crime of provoking trouble. The subject of the crime is not controversial. Although the object dispute has its own theories, it is basically limited to the scope of "social order". The most controversial point lies in the subjective and objective aspects. On the subjective aspect of the crime of provoking trouble, the author first puts forward his own views on the "rogue motive" of the crime, and at the same time affirms the role of the criminal motive in distinguishing the crime from the non-crime and the problem of the crime and the crime. On the objective aspect, the author defines the ambiguity of the crime in order to make the judicial cognizance of the crime more operable. In the third chapter, the author analyzes the revision of "Criminal Law Amendment (8)" published and implemented in 2011, and fully affirms its progressive significance. At the same time, the author also puts forward his own views on the shortcomings of this revision. Criminal revision (8) increases the behavior mode of the crime and the stipulation of "gathering others many times", at the same time, raises the legal penalty of the crime to ten years, and increases the fine penalty, which makes the crime perfect in its behavior and sentencing. However, the amendment does not clarify the characteristics of the crime of provocation, language standardization, clarity and so on is still lacking. In the fourth chapter, the author points out the dilemma in the judicial cognizance of the crime of provoking and causing trouble, and points out that to deal with this dilemma, it is necessary for the judiciary to deal with the supplement of the crime of provoking and causing trouble in a rational manner, and to carry out the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime. Then, in the form of a case, combining with the previous analysis of the motive and objective aspects of the crime of provoking and causing trouble, and taking the crime of provoking and causing trouble and intentional injury, the crime of provoking and causing trouble and the crime of robbery as an example, The identification of the crime of provoking and causing trouble is a process that needs comprehensive judgment. In judicial practice, we should strictly control the objective aspects of provoking and causing trouble, and make a judgment with motive so as to distinguish the crime of provoking and causing trouble from other related crimes.
【学位授予单位】：深圳大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】