【作者】 张娟；

【导师】 贾济东；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 马克思主义基本原理， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 研究教唆犯的性质要解决的问题是教唆者与被教唆者具有怎样的关系。中西方国家基于社会客观条件的不同而形成了不同的法律传统。对于教唆犯的性质，两大法系在立法、司法以及理论上的界定是有差别的，相同的行为在不同的立法下，判例结果迥异。目前，我国学者对教唆犯性质的研究一般借鉴德日大陆法系刑法理论，在共犯框架下以共犯从属性说与共犯独立性说作为理论基础开展研究。问题是，我国与大陆法系国家的立法、司法现实差异很大，大陆法系的共犯采取的是正犯与共犯相区分的二元参与体系，而我国的共同犯罪采取的是不区分正犯与共犯的单一正犯体系，套用大陆法系理论来解释我国教唆犯性质的做法忽视了我国在共犯参与体系上的特殊性，这种脱离实际的探讨虽然从理论上符合推理的逻辑，却不能客观、整体把握历史的真实。不能做到“历史和逻辑相一致”的理论研究难说妥当。教唆犯的性质归根结底取决于各国的历史传统，只有立足于我国社会传统和立法、司法实践的讨论，才能准确界定教唆犯的性质。因此，研究教唆犯的性质问题一定要坚持从实际出发，实事求是，立足于我国立法、司法的实际情况，具体问题具体分析，注重理论与实践相结合、历史和逻辑相一致。应当从历史唯物主义的立场去把握法律现象，认识到社会经济生活对法的制约作用，正确把握和再现我国社会特定的传统下客观存在的立法以及司法现象，而不是孤立地、静止地从教唆犯本身来谈教唆犯的性质。马克思主义犯罪学思想中的很多观点对于本选题的研究是有指导意义的，例如马克思、恩格斯关于“犯罪是孤立的个人反对统治关系的斗争”、“犯罪是藐视社会秩序的最明显、最极端的表现”的论断分别从本质以及本质属性上阐述了什么是犯罪，本文结合该论断界定了教唆犯的概念及可罚性。本文注重运用马克思主义法学的“历史唯物主义”方法论以及法学研究的“实证分析”、“规范分析”方法，深入我国立法、司法实践的实际，找出并分析了我国刑法理论界对于教唆犯性质界定与我国立法与司法实际相矛盾的问题。本文探讨了马克思主义犯罪学思想及其方法论启示，对我国及域外关于教唆犯性质的立法、司法与理论研究现状进行考察，并对目前我国刑法理论界关于教唆犯性质的各种学说进行评析和批判，提出教唆犯修正的独立性说，在修正的独立性视野下探讨了教唆犯的犯罪构成以及立法完善。本文在以下几个方面有所创新：第一，结合马克思、恩格斯对犯罪概念及本质的论断探讨了我国教唆犯的概念内涵及可罚性根据，主张对教唆犯的内涵界定离不开本国刑法的现实规范。根据马克思主义主客观相统一原则，主张教唆犯的处罚根据是主观恶性与客观危害性，罪犯企图制造犯罪，而教唆犯则企图制造罪犯，教唆犯的本质是特定犯意的制造者。第二，根据马克思主义哲学所阐述的一般与特殊、共性与个性关系的原理，考察了我国以及域外关于教唆犯性质的立法、司法与理论研究现状。在对两大法系的不同界定进行比较分析后，探讨其深层次的原因，主张各国对教唆犯的性质界定之所以有较大差异是由于立法及司法传统的不同。进而主张要坚持历史唯物主义，具体问题具体分析，正确把握和再现我国社会特定传统下客观存在的立法以及司法现象，而不是孤立、静止地从教唆犯概念本身来谈教唆犯的性质。第三，根据通过批判旧世界发现新世界的原则，对目前我国刑法学界关于教唆犯性质的各种理论进行批判，主张我国教唆犯修正的独立性。法的逻辑推演与法的现实发展应当相一致，对教唆犯的性质界定应当从我国的刑法规范上获得认识。我国刑法在共同犯罪问题上采取的是单一正犯体系，教唆犯修正的独立性之主张立足于我国国情，符合我国立法与司法的现实情况。第四，在我国教唆犯修正的独立性视野下，探讨了教唆犯的犯罪构成及立法完善。例如，主张教唆犯的犯罪客体具有多元化特征；教唆内容包括犯罪行为以及基于刑事政策需要处理的特定违法行为。在立法方面，建议将刑法第29条第2款规定的“被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪”的情形从共同犯罪中移除，作为单独犯罪规定于刑法分则中，增设第295条之一“教唆罪”；增设232条之一“教唆他人自杀罪”。更多还原

【Abstract】 The research of the nature of instigator is to answer the question of that what kind ofrelationship between the instigator and being instigator. Based on social conditions,differentcountries differ from different legislative traditions. The nature of the instigator of the twolegal systems in the legislative, judicial and theoretical definition is different. At present,China’s mainland scholars research the nature of the instigator based on the theory ofGerman and Japanese civil law criminal law theory. The problem is that our nationallegislation is different from the civil law, judicial reality.The theories of subordinate qualityof complicity and independency quality of complicity is based on the DifferenzierungsSystem, but China’s criminal law has adopted Einheits system, apply the civil law theory toexplain the nature of the practice abettor ignored the particularity of our system. Although itis comply logical reasoning in theory, but it can not objective and overall to grasp the truthof history. The theory is not in line with "consistent with the history and logic," so it’sdifficult to say properly.The nature of instigator ultimately depend on each country’s history and tradition,only the discussion based on the traditions of our society and legislative of judicialpractice can accurately define the nature of instigator. Therefore, the study of the problemmust proceed from reality and seeking truth from facts, based on China’s legislative,judicial actual situation, to analyze specific issues, focusing on the combination of theoryand practice, history and logic is consistent. Grasp the legal phenomenon from thestandpoint of historical materialism, recognizing the social and economic life of therestraining effect on the law, to grasp and reproduce specific traditions of our societyunder the objective existence of legislation and judicial phenomenon, rather than inisolatedly talking. Many points of Marxist thought in criminology is instructive for the topics of study,for example, Marx and Engels on the "crime is a relationship between the isolatedindividual struggle against the ruling","crime is a social order in contempt most obviousextreme performance,"the thesis essentially elaborated on what is a crime. This paperdefines the thesis the concept and abettor the punishment. This emphasis on the use ofMarxist jurisprudence "Historical Materialism" Methodology and Legal Studies of the"empirical analysis","normative analysis" approach, in-depth China’s legislative, judicialpractice of the actual, to identify and analyze the nature of the instigator. This paperdiscusses the Marxist criminology and its methodology revelation about our country andextraterritorial nature abettor legislative, judicial investigation and theoretical researchstatus, and is currently on the instigator of the various doctrines assessment and criticism,propose amendments independence of the instigator,then explores the instigator of thecrime constitution and legislation.Innovation of this paper lies in the following aspects:First, explores the concept of instigator according to the thesis of crime of Marx andEngels, meaning advocated abettor define reality without their criminal specification.According to the principle of unity of subjective and objective Marxism advocatedinstigator penalty based on subjective and objective dangers of vicious criminals attemptto create crime, and abettor is an attempt to create criminals, instigator is the essence of aparticular manufacturer of mens rea.Secondly, according to Marxist philosophy expounded general and specialrelationship between the principle of common and individual characteristics,this paperinvestigate the nature of instigator of the legislative, judicial and theoretical research.Comparative analysis to explore the reasons why it’s different in the two legal systems,the reason is due to different legislative and judicial traditions. Further claims to adhere tomaterialism, to analyze specific issues, correctly grasp and reproduce the tradition of our society the objective existence of specific legislation and judicial phenomenon, rather thanisolated, static concept itself from the instigator.Third, critically analysize various theories of China’s criminal law scholars on thenature of the instigator, advocated the independence of instigator our country‘s criminallaw. Law logical deduction and the reality of the development of law should be consistentwith the definition, the nature of instigatorr should be knowledge from the country’scriminal law. China’s criminal law on the issue in the crime of committing a single system,the nature of amendments independence of instigator corrected based on the assertion ofour country, in line with our legislative and judicial realities.Fourth, discussed instigator of crime constitution and legislation. For example,advocates the object with diverse characteristics; including criminal behavior and specificoffenses based on the criminal policy. In terms of legislation, proposed to remove PenalCode Article29, paragraph2, from section of "joint crimine", as a separate crimeprovisions in the Criminal Law. The author put forward suggestions: Modify Article29，paragraph2;Creat a new crime of "Instigate " as Article295.a.; Creat a new crime of"Crime of instigatting suicide" of article232.更多还原