热门搜索: 论文 发表 社科期刊 北大核心 南大核心 cssci 科技期刊 教育

当前位置:主页 > 法律论文 > 刑法论文 >

(间接)故意杀人罪和故意伤害(致死)罪比较研究—付万鑫致人死亡案的法律分析

发布时间:2019-05-15 23:30  文章来源:笔耕文化传播
【摘要】:(间接)故意杀人罪与故意伤害(致死)罪直接侵害的是人的生命权和身体健康权,不但人身危险性较大,而且对被害人身体和生命造成的伤害有时是无法弥补的。行为人若实施了故意杀人或故意伤害行为,因这两种行为在不同方面都具有一定的相似性,导致司法办案中时常会对这两个罪名的定性上产生错误。一直以来对故意杀人罪与故意伤害罪进行区别,是依据刑法条文的规定对侵害行为做出准确的处罚,也是对罪刑法定及罪责刑相适应这两个刑法基本原则的顺应。只有较为准确地将故意杀人罪与故意伤害罪有所界定,才能使刑法规定的罪名正确适用到具体案件中,并按照相关规定来对犯罪行为进行法律制裁。实践中,比较二罪的法定最高刑是相同的(二罪的法定最高刑都是死刑),公检法的办案人员就会对此类案件不认真区分和研究。这样的办案思维不仅不顺应罪刑法定与罪责刑相适应原则的要求,也会发生案件诉判不一、轻罪重判或重罪轻判情况的增加。本文通过对付万鑫致人死亡案的分析,结合司法实践,综合全案,通盘分析被告人的主观心态,尤其考虑案发原因,被告人的认知能力、被害人的体质特征、侵害的部位与实施行为的力度,所实施的危害行为方式等多种因素进行治罪,对如何把握和判断到底是构成(间接)故意杀人罪还是构成故意伤害(致死)罪,提出合理化的建议。本选题的研究内容包括以下几个方面,其中第二、第三方面是研究的重点,具体如下:第一,本案的讨论分析。通过对付万鑫致人死亡一案案情的简要介绍,引出本案二种不同的争议观点,进而分别对每一种观点进行概括梳理,分析其中涉及的法律问题。第二,比较分析。针对该案例引出的二种观点,即付万鑫的行为构成(间接)故意杀人罪还是故意伤害(致死)罪?对以上争议焦点分别进行系统的比较论证分析,从而阐明二者之间的区别及如何定性。第三,(间接)故意杀人罪和故意伤害(致死)罪区别标准的讨论研究。第四,对于本案认定何罪的分析。结论部分是通过前面对案例详细的论证基础上,对付万鑫的行为构成何罪进行整体评价,提出对司法审判实践的一些建议,以期对实务工作有所裨益。
[Abstract]:(indirect) intentional homicide and intentional injury (death) directly infringe on the right to life and the right to health of the human body, which is not only dangerous, but also can not make up for the harm caused to the body and life of the victim. If the perpetrator carries out intentional murder or intentional injury, because the two behaviors are similar in different aspects, resulting in the judicial handling of cases will often lead to qualitative errors between the two charges. For a long time, the difference between intentional homicide and intentional injury is to make accurate punishment for infringement according to the provisions of criminal law, and to conform to the two basic principles of criminal law, namely, the legality of crime and punishment and the adaptation of crime and responsibility punishment to these two basic principles of criminal law. Only by accurately defining the crime of intentional homicide and the crime of intentional injury can the charges stipulated in the criminal law be correctly applied to specific cases and the criminal acts should be punished according to the relevant provisions. In practice, the legal maximum penalty of the two crimes is the same (the legal maximum penalty of the second crime is the death penalty), the public security bureau, the procuratorate, the court case handling personnel will not seriously distinguish and study this kind of cases. Such a thinking of handling cases not only does not comply with the requirements of the principle that the punishment of crime and punishment is consistent with the principle of punishment for crimes, but also results in different cases of misdemeanour and the increase of felony or misdemeanour. Through the analysis of Wanxin's death case, combined with judicial practice, this paper comprehensively analyzes the subjective state of mind of the defendant, especially considering the cause of the case, the cognitive ability of the defendant and the physical characteristics of the victim. The part of infringement and the strength of the act of implementation, the way of harmful behavior and other factors to punish the crime, how to grasp and judge whether it constitutes (indirect) intentional homicide or constitutes intentional injury (death) crime. Put forward reasonable suggestions. The research content of this topic includes the following aspects, of which the second and the third is the focus of the study, as follows: first, the discussion and analysis of this case. By briefly introducing the case of Wanxin causing death, this paper leads to two different controversial viewpoints in this case, and then summarizes and combs each point of view and analyzes the legal issues involved in it. Second, comparative analysis. In view of this case leads to two views, that is, Fu Wanxin's behavior constitutes (indirect) intentional homicide or intentional injury (death) crime? The above controversial focus is systematically compared and analyzed, so as to clarify the difference between the two and how to qualitatively. Third, the discussion and research on the distinction standard between intentional homicide and intentional injury (death). Fourth, the analysis of what crime is found in this case. The conclusion part is on the basis of the previous detailed argumentation of the case, to deal with the crime of Wanxin's behavior, and put forward some suggestions for the judicial trial practice, in order to be beneficial to the practical work.
【学位授予单位】:兰州大学
【学位级别】:硕士
【学位授予年份】:2017
【分类号】:D924.3

【参考文献】

相关期刊论文 前10条

1 冷大伟;;犯罪故意“明知”问题探析[J];烟台大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2015年05期

2 林婷;;故意伤害(致死)罪与(间接)故意杀人罪的司法辨析[J];法制与经济(中旬);2013年06期

3 王壹;;故意杀人罪和故意伤害罪比较分析[J];长春工程学院学报(社会科学版);2013年01期

4 李燕华;;浅谈如何界定故意杀人及故意伤害致死——从江某强不服法院判决刑事申诉案说起[J];法制与社会;2012年22期

5 季文生;朱士阔;;故意伤害(致死)罪与(间接)故意杀人罪的司法辨析[J];中国检察官;2012年10期

6 马晓途;;论故意杀人罪和故意伤害罪的区别认定[J];法制与社会;2009年34期

7 单琴;;论故意杀人罪和故意伤害罪的界限[J];法制与社会;2007年01期

8 袁秀岩;邵磊;;论故意杀人罪与其他相关犯罪的区别[J];国家检察官学院学报;2005年06期

9 张明楷;故意伤害罪探疑[J];中国法学;2001年03期

10 邱玉村,张太范;故意伤害致死与间接故意杀人认定新议[J];人民司法;2001年06期



本文编号:2477847


论文下载
论文发表
教材专著
专利申请


    下载步骤:
    1.微信扫码,备注编号 2477847.
    2.
    点击下载


    本文链接:http://www.bigengculture.com/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2477847.html