避险行为对被避险人的法律效果——以紧急避险的正当化根据为中心

发布时间：2018-08-11 18:18

【摘要】：《刑法》第21条上的避险行为,分为正当的紧急避险(第1款)、免除刑罚的避险行为(第2款)和减轻处罚的避险行为(第2款)。如果被告人不得已的避险行为旨在保护明显更优越的公共利益、人身权利或更大的财产利益,那么,其避险行为处于必要限度内,可期待被避险人忍耐相应的避险行为。必要限度内的避险行为是正当行为。紧急避险的正当化根据,不应局限于功利主义的法益权衡说,而应引入公平视角,进而采取限制的社会连带说。限制的社会连带是被避险人对避险行为负有忍耐义务,进而不再实施防卫或转嫁危险的学理根据。如果避险行为所保全的利益并不明显优于被损害的利益,或者会产生与《刑法》第20条第3款所列暴力犯罪相等同的效果,则难以期待被避险人忍耐相应的避险行为,此时可采取反抗措施。
[Abstract]:The article 21 of the Criminal Code includes the acts of avoiding risks which are justified and urgent (paragraph 1), those that are exempted from punishment (paragraph 2) and those which are mitigated (paragraph 2). If the defendant has to avoid risks in order to protect the obvious superior public interests, personal rights or greater property interests, then, the safe haven behavior is within the necessary limits, can be expected to be hedged to tolerate the corresponding risk-averse behavior. The act of avoiding risks within the limits of necessity is justified. The justification of emergency risk avoidance should not be limited to the utilitarian balance of legal interests, but should introduce the perspective of equity and then adopt the restricted social theory of joint and several. The limited social joint and error is the theoretical basis for the hedged person to bear the duty to avoid the risk, and then not to carry out defense or to pass on the danger. If the benefit protected by a safe haven is not significantly superior to that of the injured interest, or if it will have the same effect as the violent crime set out in article 20, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code, it is difficult to expect the person to tolerate the corresponding safe haven, Resistance can be taken at this time.
【作者单位】：中国人民大学法学院;
【基金】：教育部留学回国人员科研启动项目“刑法中抽象危险的法理研究”(SEA201500008)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D924.1

【相似文献】