介入因素下刑法因果关系问题研究
发布时间：2018-11-28 19:30
【摘要】：刑法因果关系的判断问题在刑法理论界的争议颇多，各种学说也是层出不穷，纵观大陆法系，对于条件说、相当因果关系说与客观归责理论到底何种学说占据统治地位，不同国家的学者有着不同的观点，甚至在同一国家理论界与司法实践中也存在分歧。在我国，相当因果关系说与客观归则理论到底哪一学说才是理论界的通说至今仍存在激烈的讨论，而说到因果关系判断最有争议的一个难题，就不得不提到介入因素存在时的因果关系判断问题。本文通过三个在实践中较有代表性的疑难案例引出对存在介入因素时的刑法因果关系判断的难题，三个案例的介入因素类型分别为被害人自身行为介入、第三人行为介入以及自然因素介入三种最常见的情况。这些案例，涉及到在危害行为和危害结果处于正常联系的情况下，是否会由于其他因素的介入而使正常的因果联系被中断的问题。也就是介入因素下的因果关系问题。对于介入因素下刑法因果关系的判断问题虽然不同学说所主张的判断标准各不相同，但也存在相互借鉴的价值，通过对这些因果关系学说的介绍和分析比较可以看出，在中国当今司法实践领域的因果关系判断中，，客观的相当因果关系说的主张更为合理，该学说很好的继承了条件说的优势，使因果关系的判断更为客观和容易；又在介入因素存在的情况下将社会经验引入因果关系相当性的判断中来，这样的做法一方面弥补了条件说原因范围过于宽泛的弊端，同时克服了主观和折中的相当因果关系说将主观归责与因果关系判断相混淆的弊端。客观的相当因果关系说主张将先行行为对危害结果作用大小、介入因素的异常情况以及介入因素对危害结果作用大小，这三方面的因素综合考虑依据少数服从多数的原则最终得出因果关系的判断结果。文章的最后也试图通过这样一种因果关系的判断方法来解决开篇案例中提出的不同类型的因果关系判断问题，并最终得出了解决实践中疑难案例的答案。
[Abstract]:The judgment of criminal law causality is controversial in the criminal law theoretical circle, and various theories emerge endlessly. Throughout the continental law system, for the condition theory, the theory of equivalent causality and the objective imputation theory occupy the dominant position. Scholars in different countries have different views, even in the same country in theory and judicial practice. In our country, the theory of considerable causality and the theory of objective return is still under heated discussion in the theoretical circle, but speaking of the most controversial problem in the judgment of causality, We have to mention the problem of causality judgment when intervention factors exist. Through three representative difficult cases in practice, this paper leads to the difficult problem of judging the causality of criminal law when there are intervention factors. The intervention factors of the three cases are the intervention of the victim's own behavior, respectively. Third party behavior intervention and natural factors intervention are the three most common cases. These cases concern the question of whether the normal causal link will be interrupted by the intervention of other factors in the case of a normal link between the hazardous act and the harmful result. That is, the causality problem under the intervention factor. The judgment of causality in criminal law under intervention factors is different in different theories, but it also has the value of drawing lessons from each other. Through the introduction and analysis of these theories, it can be seen that, In the judgment of causality in the field of judicial practice in China, the theory of objective equivalent causality is more reasonable. It inherits the advantages of condition theory and makes the judgment of causality more objective and easy. In the presence of intervention factors, social experience is introduced into the judgment of causality equivalence. On the one hand, this practice makes up for the abuse that the scope of the reason of the condition theory is too broad. At the same time, it overcomes the disadvantage that subjective and eclectic equivalent causality theory confuses subjective imputation with causality judgment. The objective equivalent causality theory advocates the magnitude of the effect of the antecedent action on the harm result, the abnormal situation of the intervention factor and the magnitude of the effect of the intervention factor on the harm result, These three factors are considered synthetically according to the principle of majority and the result of causality is finally obtained. At the end of this paper, we also try to solve the problem of different types of causality judgment in the opening case by using such a method of causality judgment, and finally get the answer to solve the difficult cases in practice.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D914
[Abstract]:The judgment of criminal law causality is controversial in the criminal law theoretical circle, and various theories emerge endlessly. Throughout the continental law system, for the condition theory, the theory of equivalent causality and the objective imputation theory occupy the dominant position. Scholars in different countries have different views, even in the same country in theory and judicial practice. In our country, the theory of considerable causality and the theory of objective return is still under heated discussion in the theoretical circle, but speaking of the most controversial problem in the judgment of causality, We have to mention the problem of causality judgment when intervention factors exist. Through three representative difficult cases in practice, this paper leads to the difficult problem of judging the causality of criminal law when there are intervention factors. The intervention factors of the three cases are the intervention of the victim's own behavior, respectively. Third party behavior intervention and natural factors intervention are the three most common cases. These cases concern the question of whether the normal causal link will be interrupted by the intervention of other factors in the case of a normal link between the hazardous act and the harmful result. That is, the causality problem under the intervention factor. The judgment of causality in criminal law under intervention factors is different in different theories, but it also has the value of drawing lessons from each other. Through the introduction and analysis of these theories, it can be seen that, In the judgment of causality in the field of judicial practice in China, the theory of objective equivalent causality is more reasonable. It inherits the advantages of condition theory and makes the judgment of causality more objective and easy. In the presence of intervention factors, social experience is introduced into the judgment of causality equivalence. On the one hand, this practice makes up for the abuse that the scope of the reason of the condition theory is too broad. At the same time, it overcomes the disadvantage that subjective and eclectic equivalent causality theory confuses subjective imputation with causality judgment. The objective equivalent causality theory advocates the magnitude of the effect of the antecedent action on the harm result, the abnormal situation of the intervention factor and the magnitude of the effect of the intervention factor on the harm result, These three factors are considered synthetically according to the principle of majority and the result of causality is finally obtained. At the end of this paper, we also try to solve the problem of different types of causality judgment in the opening case by using such a method of causality judgment, and finally get the answer to solve the difficult cases in practice.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D914
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 黎e
本文编号：2364045
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2364045.html
