抢劫杀人行为数罪化研究

发布时间：2018-08-13 09:52

【摘要】：抢劫过程中发生杀人现象并不少见,抢劫而杀人的受刑法规范制裁,刑罚的裁量上大体一致,罪名上则有一罪与两罪对待。这种在罪的认定或罪名宣告上的区别对待,在实务中难免引起疑虑。一般认为,出于多个犯意的数行为比出于一个犯意的一行为,更显示出行为人对法的敌对。然而,抢劫杀人在罪责的事实评价上与理论并不吻合,一行为之抢劫杀人,更突显行为人对法的敌对,在主观上更具有非难可能性,应接受更重的罪与罚的评价。又,抢劫杀人在只剩一方行为人的情况下,如何认定其主观,无非任由行为人之说辞,作此区分显然并不适当。抢劫罪名相对于其他财产侵害类犯罪,其危险性与危害性要求,行为人应当承受在这一行为下所实施危险行为所可能招致更重的罪责评价。从法益保护来看,相对于其他财产型犯罪,抢劫罪的强制行为手段直接指向被受害人,抢劫行为独特的人身危险性,是区别于其他财产类犯罪的重要特征。抢劫罪名予以规范,并非不恰当,对抢劫时故意杀人行为进行立法上的评价也是必然选择。然而,对生命法益的保护,故意杀人罪名可以提供充分的保护,抢劫规范来保护生命法益,并不显得多高明,抢劫时故意杀人的情形对杀人行为并不显得其特殊。所以在杀人罪名下进行评价和量刑可能更适当。针对抢劫时的杀人现象,多数国家在刑法中明文以结果加重犯的形式规定“抢劫致人死亡”条款或以结合犯的形式规定“抢劫杀人”。这种规范形式并不仅仅限于将杀人作为抢劫手段的抢劫杀人。行为人在抢劫之际造成他人死伤的情况很多,为了对生命、身体进行特别保护,将抢劫过程中的杀人行为归入抢劫罪名下规范,立法上做到了充分的保护。本文所论述之抢劫杀人,是指抢劫行为与杀人行为在时间、地点上相关联的抢劫杀人,具体而言,先杀人后夺取财物,已夺取财物又杀人、再杀人,皆包括于内。在罪数问题上有评价之罪数与适用之罪数两种理解,其目的皆为刑罚的实现。评价上之罪数,属于犯罪成立阶段的问题,其意义在于犯罪评价上如何避免评价过剩或评价不足的现象。罪的认定对于罚的适用具有指导意义,抢劫杀人若为一罪,即适用“抢劫致人死亡”款项;若为数罪,则适用“杀人罪”与“抢劫罪”,或想象竞合或实质竞合。有关其罪数上的评价其标准并不一致,有意思说、行为说、法益说、构成要件说。然,这些标准在罪数的认定上并不一致,也不能提供刑罚适用的决定性依据。就某一行为,并不能决定在适用刑法时其必须为一罪或数罪之规定。但通过明确犯罪个数的标准有益于犯罪成立本质的理解,有利于刑法规范的认识。抢劫杀人行为的法律效果,即为刑法目的的实现,也是罪的评价意义所在,“无刑罚则无犯罪”。刑罚的适用主要是通过法条的解释与适用,以期符合法律规定的目的。在法条的解释上,以抢劫杀人是否可以作为抢劫罪的结果加重犯为最初解释从而优先适用。结合我国相关条文理解,抢劫杀人并不是刑法意义上的结果加重犯,而是一种法定刑升格情形。抢劫过程中的杀人行为也不是抢劫吸收杀人行为的法条竞合,特别适用“抢劫致人死亡”款项,从而排斥杀人罪名的适用。最后,按照以犯意数决定行为数的传统区分理论,对抢劫杀人行为做出一行为与两行为的划分。在罪的认定上以其侵犯两个法益触犯两个罪名,成立两个犯罪。在法律效果上,一行为成立两个犯罪与两行为成立两个犯罪一样,同样可以适用两个刑罚。从而在罪与罚上达到统一的认识与适用。刑法立法所采用的是行为刑法,刑罚的决定不能不以犯罪行为的内容以及评价为基础。一并数罪并罚,符合“相同行为相同对待,不同行为不同对待”的公平原则。抢劫杀人行为在刑法规范上以杀人罪与抢劫罪数罪并罚,主观上能够实现罪责相当。实施抢劫杀人的行为人,可以预知其行为应当受抢劫罪名刑罚评价,也将受杀人罪名的刑罚评价,人民则从此种犯罪之性质,预知刑法将对抢劫行为、杀人行为予以禁止。在刑罚上,无论是从相对预防的观点,还是从绝对的应报的观点来看,触犯数罪的刑罚也应该重于只犯抢劫罪的刑罚。本选题的研究空间,主要在于罪数的评价标准较难把握,通过对抢劫杀人行为具体细致的分析,将有助于理论上的依据与实务相衔接,从而对罪质与罪的处罚有合理的认识。
[Abstract]:Murder is not uncommon in the course of robbery. Murder by robbery is punished by the criminal law, the penalty is generally the same, the charges are treated as one crime and two crimes. However, the factual evaluation of robbery and homicide is not consistent with the theory. The robbery and homicide of one act highlights the hostility of the perpetrator to the law. Subjectively, it is more probable that the perpetrator is accused of crimes and punishments. Moreover, the robbery and homicide of one party is left to the perpetrator. In this case, it is obviously not appropriate to distinguish between the subjective and the arbitrary.
Compared with other crimes of property infringement, the crime of robbery is more dangerous and harmful, and the perpetrator should bear the risk that the dangerous act may cause more serious responsibility evaluation. Unique personal danger is an important characteristic distinguished from other property crimes. It is not inappropriate to regulate the charges of robbery, and it is inevitable to make legislative evaluation of intentional homicide in robbery. However, to protect the interests of life law, the charges of intentional homicide can provide adequate protection, and the norms of robbery can protect the interests of life law. It does not seem wise, and the case of intentional homicide in robbery does not seem to be specific to homicide, so it may be more appropriate to evaluate and sentence homicide.
In view of the homicide phenomenon during robbery, most countries stipulate the clause of "robbery causing death" in the form of aggravated consequential offense or "robbery and homicide" in the form of joint offense in criminal law. The robbery and homicide discussed in this paper refers to the robbery and homicide related to the time and place of the robbery and homicide, specifically, first killing and then seizing property. Capturing property and killing people and killing people are all inside.
The purpose of the two understandings of the number of crimes to be evaluated and the number of crimes to be applied is the realization of penalty. One crime, that is, the application of "robbery to death" funds; if the number of crimes, then the application of "homicide" and "robbery", or imaginary concurrence or substantive concurrence. The decisive basis for the application of penalty. As for an act, it can not be decided that it must be a crime or several crimes in the application of criminal law. However, it is beneficial to understand the nature of the establishment of a crime and to understand the norms of criminal law by defining the standard of the number of crimes.
The legal effect of robbery and homicide is the realization of the purpose of criminal law and the evaluation meaning of the crime. According to the understanding of the relevant provisions in our country, robbery and homicide is not a result of aggravated crime in the sense of criminal law, but a legal case of escalation of punishment. Finally, according to the traditional distinction theory that the number of acts is determined by the number of intentions, the author makes a distinction between one act and two acts of robbery and homicide. To apply two penalties, so as to achieve a unified understanding and application in crime and punishment.
The legislation of criminal law adopts behavioral criminal law, and the decision of penalty must be based on the content and evaluation of criminal acts. The combined punishment of several crimes conforms to the principle of "the same act is treated the same, different acts are treated differently". The perpetrator of robbery and homicide can be foreseen to be punished for robbery and to be punished for homicide. The people, according to the nature of the crime, predict that the criminal law will prohibit robbery and homicide. From the point of view of the newspaper, the penalty for committing a number of crimes should also be heavier than the penalty for committing robbery.
The research space of this topic mainly lies in the difficulty in grasping the evaluation criteria of the number of crimes. Through the detailed analysis of robbery and homicide, it will be helpful to link up the theoretical basis with practice, and thus have a reasonable understanding of the nature of the crime and the punishment of the crime.
【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】：D924.1

【参考文献】