您现在的位置:网站首页答辩论文法律论文刑法/民法/行政法

论我国犯罪构成的基本构造

  • 简介:(页数:20字数:12251 毕业论文)摘要:有刑法理论核心地位的犯罪构成理论,经过数百年的发展,逐步形成了大陆法系递进式犯罪构成理论体系、英美法系合法抗辩犯罪构成理论以及苏俄耦合式犯罪构成理论三大犯罪构成理论体系。我国的犯罪构成理论是继承了前...
    • 请与管理员联系购买资料 QQ:5739126
  • 论文简介
  • 相关论文
  • 论文下载

(页数:20字数:12251 毕业论文)摘要:有刑法理论核心地位的犯罪构成理论,经过数百年的发展,逐步形成了大陆法系递进式犯罪构成理论体系、英美法系合法抗辩犯罪构成理论以及苏俄耦合式犯罪构成理论三大犯罪构成理论体系。我国的犯罪构成理论是继承了前苏联的理论,随着刑法理论的发展和社会的进步,传统四要件犯罪构成理论的弊端日益显露,四个要件都不同程度存在一系列的缺陷,甚至有些是自身无法克服的矛盾。为此众多我国学者对传统四要件理论进行了系统的研究和批判,并提出了自己宝贵的犯罪构成理论,主要有二要件说、三要件说、四要件说、五要件说等犯罪构成理论,虽然这些理论观点从不同角度对传统四要件犯罪构成理论做出了批判和修正,但总体上没实质性的突破,大多存在形式化倾向,仅仅是对传统理论四要件的重新排列、合并、组合而已。实践证明,仅对传统四要件犯罪构成理论进行修整,我们很难走出犯罪构成理论的研究困境,大陆法系的递进式犯罪构成理论体系经过几百年的发展已比较完备,我们应当大胆地借鉴其理论成果,并结合我国的实际情况,走出一条适合我国的犯罪构成之路。这一设想由三个层次构成,即构成要的符合性、违法性和有责性。三个要件上呈现出一种层层递进的逻辑进程。其中,构成要件该当性是一种事实判断,它不以法律判断与责任判断为前提,是先于后两种的判断。事实判断不成立,自然就无所谓法律判断与责任判断。只有在事实判断的基础上才能继续展开法律判断和责任判断,三要件之间的关系十分明晰。三要件的递进过程也就是犯罪的认定过程,三要件之间的位阶固定,反映了定罪的司法逻辑。同时三要件具备各自的功能,构成要件该当性作为一种事实判断,为犯罪认定确定一个基本的事实范围;违法性作为一种法律判断,将违法阻却事由排除在犯罪之外;有责性作为一种责任判断,解决行为的可归责问题。三要件功能不可替代,缺一不可。这种严密的逻辑性和实用性正是我国犯罪构成理论所需要的。

关键词:犯罪客体 犯罪主体 构成要件的符合性 违法性 有责性

The basic structure of constitutive elements in our country

Abstract :The constitutive elements is the core of the criminal law theory , after several hundred years of development,gradually formed a series of theoretical systems. Our theory is a succession of the former Soviet Union's theory. With the development of theory of criminal law and progressment social , the traditional four elements constitute increasingly exposed the shortcomings of the four elements , there are series of defects, and even some contradictions can not overcome . For this reason many Chinese scholars on the traditional theory of the four elements of the system's research and criticism, and put forward their own theories constitute a valuable crime,such as the two elements theory , the three elements theory ,the four elements theory ,the five elements theory and so on, Although these theories and viewpoints made a critical and amendment from different angles on the four traditional elements of a crime, but not substantive breakthrough, only re-arranged, merger and combination . Practice has proved that only carring out rectification to the four traditional elements of a crime is difficult to go out of the theoretical study plight . the progressive civil-crime pose a theoretical system through several hundred years of development has been relatively complete, we should boldly reference its theoretical results, combine with China's actual situation, and find out of a suitable form . The idea posed by the three levels,as confkrmity of constitutive elements, illegality and liability.The three elements shows a progressive layers of the logic of the process. Among them, confkrmity of constitutive elements is a fact that judgement, it is not a illegality judgement and liability to judge the premise. That judgement is not, naturally does not matter the illegality judgement and liability judgement. Only the facts can be judged on the basis of continued illegality and liability of judgement, the relationship is very clear between the three elements. the process of the three elements also creates the process of recognition of crime, the three elements of the fixed-band, reflects the conviction of the judicial logic. At the same time three elements have their respective functions, confkrmity of constitutive elements as a judgement of fact, a crime that determine a basic fact that the illegality as a legal judgement, will be excluded from the law negates the subject of crime; has the liability act a judgement of responsibility, to resolve the issue of attribution can be. Elements of the three functions can not be replaced. This rigorous logic and practicality of a crime is our required.

Key words: the Object of Crime,the Subject of Crime,Confkrmity of Constitutive Elements,Illegality,Liability

目 录
摘要…………………………………………………………………………… Ⅲ
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………… Ⅳ
引言…………………………………………………………………………… 1
一、犯罪构成理论的沿革及我国犯罪构成理论的现状………… 1
(一)犯罪构成理论的沿革……………………………………………… 1
1.大陆法系…………………………………………………………………… 1
2.前苏联理论………………………………………………………………… 2
3.英美法系…………………………………………………………………… 2
(二)我国犯罪构成理论与评析……………………………………… 2
1.现状…………………………………………………………………………… 2
2.对各犯罪理论的评析………………………………………………………… 3
二、我国犯罪构成理论存在的缺陷和不足……………………… 3
(一)犯罪构成的概念界定混乱………………………………………… 4
1.与犯罪概念的矛盾…………………………………………………………… 4
2.与正当化事由选择要件的矛盾……………………………………………… 4
(二)我国犯罪构成要件中主体要件的缺陷…………………………… 5
1.逻辑顺序颠倒…………………………………………………………………… 5
2.与实务不相符合……………………………………………………………… 5
(三)我国犯罪构成要件中客体要件的缺陷…………………………… 6
1.犯罪客体不是构成要件…………………………………………………… 6
2.犯罪客体不宜定义为社会关系…………………………………………… 6
三、完善我国犯罪构成理论的设想……………………………… 7
(一)构成要件的符合性………………………………………………… 8
(二)违法性……………………………………………………………… 9
(三)有责性……………………………………………………………… 9
结论…………………………………………………………………………… 11
参考文献……………………………………………………………………… 12
致谢……………………………………………………………………………… 13

引 言
犯罪构成发端于中世纪意大利的纠问式诉讼过程中,经过中世纪初大陆法系古典刑法学派的学者们精心移植改造,成为刑事实体法上的专有术语,进而形成一种理论现象。犯罪构成理论对刑事立法和刑事司法起作极其重要的作用。我国的犯罪构成理论概念和体系来源于苏联的理论模式,“四要件说”在我国刑法界成为了通说,然而这一种自视完整和严密的犯罪构成理论体系正遭受着巨大的冲击,在一些命题上存在众多无法克服的明显矛盾和缺陷。本文通过对我国犯罪构成基本构造理论所存在的缺陷进得分析,结合国外的一些理论成果,尝试找到一个适合我国的犯罪构成理论体系。

查看评论 已有0位网友发表了看法
  • 验证码: