刑罚视阈中的被害人过错研究

Research on the Criminal Victim’s Fault

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

法学院

作者:

文丽

导师:

石经海

导师单位:

法学院

学位:

硕士

语种:

其他

关键词:

被害人过错;犯罪人中心主义;罪刑均衡宽严相济;立法化

摘要:

被害人并不总是纯洁无辜的消极被动方,很多时候是同加害人存在密切互动关系的积极主动方,其诱发或促进作用与犯罪的发生发展密不可分。在此意义上,犯罪并非全然就是加害人异化人格的征表,亦有被害人规范违反性人格的体现。鉴于其重大的理论价值和紧迫的司法诉求,被害人过错是否应当以及如何法定化,亟待理论上的深入探究。全文除引言及结语外,共分为四个部分,共计六万余字:第一部分,刑事被害人过错之理论概述。基于刑法(学)意义上的被害人与刑事诉讼法(学)和犯罪学意义上的被害人意义的不同,刑法视阈中的被害人过错作为并非附属于犯罪动机的定罪量刑情节,有其特定涵义,并主要表现为,具有符合刑法规范评价的主体适格性、自由意志性、行为不当性、因果联系性、紧迫性和严重性六个基本特征,以及严重违反道德规范的行为、违法行为和犯罪行为三个基本认定标准。第二部分,“刑事被害人过错”之我国立法司法现状。一方面我国刑法没有明文规定被害人过错这个定罪量刑情节,但另一方面其作为定罪量刑情节的精神内涵贯穿于刑法总则与分则的立法始终,并在司法实践中通过司法解释或司法判例予以体现;在刑法意义上,它不仅影响量刑,而且影响定罪,并表现为影响加害人刑事责任的有无和大小。当然,我国现有刑事司法框架中的被害人过错也存在缺乏规定的明确性、法律层级性、适用的自觉理性和规范性等问题,这主要缘于我国所固有的报应主义文化传统、严打刑事政策、犯罪人中心主义刑法体系以及被害方施加的巨大压力等综合性因素。第三部分,“刑事被害人过错”情节法定化之证立。在必要性上,它是实现罪刑均衡、预防犯罪、宽严相济和明确举证责任的需要。在可行性上,我国的刑事法治理论、刑事司法制度以及外国成熟的立法先例等为其法定化提供了可能。第四部分,“刑事被害人过错”情节法定化之规范建议。一方面应在刑法总则相应条款后增加关于被害人过错的原则性规定,另一方面在刑法分则中,对故意杀人、故意伤害等典型犯罪的立法作出相应的具体规定;同时,相关司法解释应细化其认定标准,并通过相关司法判例,将其纳入具体案例的分析和评论,以统一其司法适用。

参考文献:

84

学科:

刑法学

提交日期

2019-04-11

引用参考

文丽. 刑罚视阈中的被害人过错研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2012.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 刑罚视阈中的被害人过错研究
  • dc.title
  • Research on the Criminal Victim’s Fault
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20090301040298
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 文丽
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2012
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 石经海
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 其他
  • dc.subject
  • 被害人过错;犯罪人中心主义;罪刑均衡宽严相济;立法化
  • dc.subject
  • Victim’s Fault;Criminal Centralism;Suiting Punishment to Crime;Balancing Leniency and Severity;Legalization
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 被害人并不总是纯洁无辜的消极被动方,很多时候是同加害人存在密切互动关系的积极主动方,其诱发或促进作用与犯罪的发生发展密不可分。在此意义上,犯罪并非全然就是加害人异化人格的征表,亦有被害人规范违反性人格的体现。鉴于其重大的理论价值和紧迫的司法诉求,被害人过错是否应当以及如何法定化,亟待理论上的深入探究。全文除引言及结语外,共分为四个部分,共计六万余字:第一部分,刑事被害人过错之理论概述。基于刑法(学)意义上的被害人与刑事诉讼法(学)和犯罪学意义上的被害人意义的不同,刑法视阈中的被害人过错作为并非附属于犯罪动机的定罪量刑情节,有其特定涵义,并主要表现为,具有符合刑法规范评价的主体适格性、自由意志性、行为不当性、因果联系性、紧迫性和严重性六个基本特征,以及严重违反道德规范的行为、违法行为和犯罪行为三个基本认定标准。第二部分,“刑事被害人过错”之我国立法司法现状。一方面我国刑法没有明文规定被害人过错这个定罪量刑情节,但另一方面其作为定罪量刑情节的精神内涵贯穿于刑法总则与分则的立法始终,并在司法实践中通过司法解释或司法判例予以体现;在刑法意义上,它不仅影响量刑,而且影响定罪,并表现为影响加害人刑事责任的有无和大小。当然,我国现有刑事司法框架中的被害人过错也存在缺乏规定的明确性、法律层级性、适用的自觉理性和规范性等问题,这主要缘于我国所固有的报应主义文化传统、严打刑事政策、犯罪人中心主义刑法体系以及被害方施加的巨大压力等综合性因素。第三部分,“刑事被害人过错”情节法定化之证立。在必要性上,它是实现罪刑均衡、预防犯罪、宽严相济和明确举证责任的需要。在可行性上,我国的刑事法治理论、刑事司法制度以及外国成熟的立法先例等为其法定化提供了可能。第四部分,“刑事被害人过错”情节法定化之规范建议。一方面应在刑法总则相应条款后增加关于被害人过错的原则性规定,另一方面在刑法分则中,对故意杀人、故意伤害等典型犯罪的立法作出相应的具体规定;同时,相关司法解释应细化其认定标准,并通过相关司法判例,将其纳入具体案例的分析和评论,以统一其司法适用。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Victims are not always the passive and innocent side, instead, most of the time, they are the active side who have a close relationship with offenders, facilitating the occurrence and development of crime. In this sense, crime is not always only the result of personality alienation of the offender, but also the reflection of the personality that the victim violates the rules. Considering its significant theoretical value and urgent justice demands, it is fairly imperative to study them in depth whether victims have fault and how to legalize it. In addition to introduction and conclusion, there are a total of 600 thousand words in the main body which contains four aspects as following. The first part is the overview of the theory of criminal victims’ fault. Since the definitions of victim in Criminal Law, Criminal Procedural Law as well as criminology differentiate, the victim’ fault in Criminal Law does not attach to conviction plots of criminal motive but has its particular meaning that is characterized by six basic features, which are the fitness of the subject, free will, misconduct, cause-and-effect linkage, urgency and severity, as well as three standards of identification, that is, behaviors of serious violation of ethics, illegal act and criminal activities. The second part is the current legislation and justice of “The Criminal Victim’s Fault”. On one hand, there are no specific provisions about conviction plots of the victim’s fault. On the other hand, the idea of taking it as the spiritual connotation of plots of conviction and measurement of penalty goes though both general and specific principles of the Criminal Law and is reflected in judicial practice through judicial interpretations and precedents. In Criminal Law, it not only makes a difference on the measurement of penalty, but also influences the crime conviction which determines if victims will take criminal responsibilities and how much they have to take. Without doubt, in our current criminal justice, there also exist such problems as undefined provisions, without legal hierarchy, no conscious awareness application, no application standards, etc, mainly because of our intrinsic cultural tradition of retribution, strict criminal policy, criminal law system of criminal centralism and huge stress inflicted by victims. The third part is the justification of legalizing “The Criminal Victim’s Fault”. Judging from its necessity, it is the demand of Suiting Punishment to Crime, criminal prevention, Balancing Leniency and Severity, explicit burden of proof. On its feasibility, our criminal justice theory, criminal justice system as well as mature foreign legislative precedents and so on, all make it possible. The last part puts forward recommendations about legalizing “The Criminal Victim’s Fault”. Due to deficiencies of current legislation, there three aspects we have to work on. First, adding provisions on “victim’s fault” under related general principles in Criminal Law. Second, stipulating relevant specific provisions in the legislation of such typical parts as crime of intentional homicide and crime of intentional injury. Furthermore, relevant judicial interpretations should detail identification standards and relevant judicial precedents should analyze and comment specific cases so as to unify its application.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D914
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-03-18
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2012-05-05
  • dc.relation.citedreferences
  • 84
  • dc.relation.relatedpublications
  • 引言 .............................................................1一、刑事被害人过错之理论述 .........................2(一)刑事被害人过错的界定 .........................2(二)刑事被害人过错的种类 .........................9(三)刑事被害人过错的刑法地位 ..................12二、“刑事被害人过错”之我国立法司法现状 ...................................................................15(一)“刑事被害人过错”之我国立法司法考察 ...................................................................15(二)“刑事被害人过错”之我国立法司法评析 ..................................................................28三、“刑事被害人过错”情节法定化之证立 ..................................................................38(一)“刑事被害人过错”情节法定化之必要性...................................................................38(二)“刑事被害人过错”情节法定化之可行性 ................................................................48四、“刑事被害人过错”情节法定化之规范建议 ...............................................................52(一)总则作出一般规定 ............................52(二)分则作出具体规定 ............................53(三)司法解释作细节化处理..................... 56(四)司法判例作导向性指引 .....................57结语 ......................................................58参考文献......................................................59致谢...................................................... 63
回到顶部