论被迫行为

发布时间：2018-08-03 07:48

【摘要】：被迫行为是指在受胁迫的状态下,行为人只能按照胁迫人意思实施的一类行为。在此种情况下,行为人面对死亡、重伤的威胁,自由意志较低,实施的行为并非在其本意的支配下,因此刑法不能简单地依照法条来判处行为人有罪。2015年发生的一起刑事案件中,章某被绑架胁迫杀人,当时就引起大家的广泛关注,章某的行为到底该解释为何种行为?需不需要承担责任?有认为属于胁从犯,有认为符合紧急避险的要件,有认为行为人遭受了不可抗力,也有人提到了间接正犯。非出于行为人本身的意愿,但因为处于一个被胁迫的状态而不得不这么去做,本文认为被迫行为理论恰恰很能概括此种行为,行为本身的违法性毋庸置疑,却不具备有责性。此时,如果直接按照刑法规定,特别是对行为人一方来讲难以达到公正的效果。本文以该案例为出发点,一步步论证在我国刑法体系中确立被迫行为独立地位的意义何在。本文主要使用案例分析法和对比研究法,用一个案例引出对下文被迫行为的讨论,通过对比英美法系、大陆法系以及我国相关理论,以此探讨被迫行为的理论基础、成立条件、如何定性和如何定位等问题,并与紧急避险和胁从犯理论进行比较研究,逐一分析理论间的异同点,从而论证被迫行为对我国司法实践的借鉴意义,以及在我国刑法体系中有效融入被迫行为的必要性。本文先比较英美法系、大陆法系与我国的各自规定,被迫行为理论最开始作为一种可以辩护的理由出现在英美法系,但对于程度、方式、对象等方面并没有统一的定论,美国各个州的规定都不尽相同;德国刑法中的紧急避险理论分为两类,一类是合法化的,一类是阻却责任的,被胁迫实施的行为归类到阻却责任紧急避险理论中;韩国刑法不同于英美刑法,而是将被胁迫实施的行为规定在超法规的责任阻却事由中。我国学者有以下几种观点,有认为被胁迫可以解释为是一种不可抗力的状态,有认为行为人处于意志完全丧失的状态,有认为行为人的行为属于一种紧急避险,也有认为行为人的行为用胁从犯理论就可以说得通。本文对上述各种理论学说进行对比论证,指出不合理的地方,从而对被迫行为进行一个总结性的概括。我国有些学者认为被胁迫实施的犯罪行为属于胁从犯或紧急避险,因此本文另一个重点就是将被迫行为与紧急避险、胁从犯进行深入比较。紧急避险要求保护的法益与侵害的法益之间有一个衡量的界限,而被迫行为不需要顾虑这些;如果避险人考虑的是他人、集体、国家的利益而实施的避险行为,那么刑法是积极鼓励支持的,但被迫行为存在违法性,对于违反法律的行为刑法不会鼓励肯定,这些是紧急避险与被迫行为的区别。胁从犯归属于共犯理论,所起作用比从犯、主犯要小,成立胁从犯不要求当场性、紧迫性,不要求遭受的是死亡、重伤的胁迫,不要求行为人必须是在较低程度自由意志的情形下实施犯罪行为,这些是胁从犯与被迫行为的区别。当把被迫行为阐释清楚之后,本文开头的案例如何解决就迎刃而解了。章某受到死亡的胁迫,他只能选择遵从几个胁迫人的要求杀害被害人,刑法难以要求章某能英雄般地牺牲自己而坚决不去杀害被害人,章某只是做出了一般人都会做的选择,因此不需要承担刑事责任。因此,在我国刑法体系中确立被迫行为的独立地位,既有助于解决司法实务中的类似案件,也能保证公正对待行为人、第三人,维护刑法的权威性以及社会的稳定性。
[Abstract]:Forced act refers to a kind of behavior that the perpetrator can only carry out in accordance with the meaning of the coercion under the condition of coercion. In this case, the perpetrator is facing death, the threat of serious injury, the lower free will, and the act of carrying out the act is not under the control of its original intention, so the criminal law can not be simply sentenced to the perpetrator for.2015 years of crime in accordance with the law. In a criminal case of birth, Zhang was kidnapped and homicide, which caused wide attention at that time. What was the explanation for the behavior of Zhang? It is not out of the will of the perpetrator itself, but because it is forced to do so in a state of coercion, this article holds that the theory of forced behavior can precisely summarize such behavior. The illegality of the act itself is unquestionable, but not accountable. At this time, it is difficult to reach the criminal law, especially for the perpetrator. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the significance of establishing the independent status of forced behavior in the criminal law system of our country. This article mainly uses case analysis and comparative study, and uses a case to lead to the discussion of the forced behavior below, through the related theory to the Anglo American legal system, the continental law system and our country. On the basis of this, it discusses the theoretical basis of forced behavior, the establishment of conditions, how to determine the quality and how to locate it, and compare it with the theory of emergency avoidance and coercion, and analyze the similarities and differences of the theory one by one, so as to demonstrate the significance of the forced behavior to our judicial practice, and to effectively integrate the forced behavior into the criminal law system of our country. It is necessary to compare the rules of the Anglo American law system, the continental law system and our country, and the theory of forced behavior first appeared in the Anglo American legal system as a justification, but there is no uniform conclusion on the degree, the way, the object and other aspects. The emergency avoidance theory in the German Criminal Law It is divided into two categories: one is legalized, the other is hindered by the responsibility, and the coercive action is classified into the theory of emergency avoidance. The Korean criminal law is different from the Anglo American criminal law, but the act of coercion under the responsibility of the super statute. It is interpreted as a state of force majeure. There is a state that the perpetrator is in a state of total loss of will. The behavior of the actor is considered as an emergency avoidance, and the behavior of the perpetrator is considered to be effective by the theory of coerced offender. Some scholars in our country think that the coerced criminal acts are coerced offenders or emergency avoidance, so the other focus of this article is to compare the forced act with the emergency avoidance and the coerced offender. There is a limit between the legal interest of the emergency protection requirement and the legal benefit of the infringement, But forced behavior does not need to worry about these; if the risk avoidance person considers the avoidance of other people, collectives, and the interests of the state, the criminal law is an active encouragement, but the act of coercion is illegal and does not encourage affirmation of the criminal law that violates the law. This is the difference between emergency and forced behavior. The theory of accomplice is more important than an accomplice, the principal offender should be smaller, the coercion is not required to be on the spot, the urgency is not required to suffer the death, the stress of the serious injury, and the perpetrator must be committed to the crime under the lower free will, which is the difference between the offender and the forced act. After the death of the case, he can only choose to kill the victim in accordance with the demands of a few coercion. The criminal law is difficult to claim that the chapter can sacrifice himself heroic and not to kill the victim. Therefore, the establishment of the independent status of forced behavior in the criminal law system of our country will not only help to solve similar cases in the judicial practice, but also guarantee the fair treatment of the perpetrator, third people, the authority of the criminal law and the stability of the society.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.1

【参考文献】