【作者】 史兰芳；

【导师】 沈亮；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 被胁迫行为理论在英美法系刑法中具有独立的法律地位,符合法律规定的被胁迫行为是一般辩护理由之一,若被告人的行为符合了被胁迫行为的法定要件,则被告人可无罪释放。我国刑法中没有被胁迫行为的概念,但是被胁迫行为可以在我国胁从犯的行为中表现出来。然而,外国对被胁迫行为的处理规则和我国对胁从犯的处理规则很不相同,我国对于胁从犯是按照他的犯罪情节减轻处罚或者免除处罚。另外,有学者认为外国的被胁迫行为可以被纳入我国的紧急避险理论中,他们认为行为人实施的被胁迫行为是一种避免自身受到伤害的避险行为,应按照紧急避险的相关规则处理。笔者认为,外国的被胁迫行为和我国的紧急避险是并不相同,不能将二者混为一谈。本文立足于解决司法实践问题,将外国的被胁迫行为理论和我国的紧急避险理论及胁从犯理论进行比较研究,尝试构建我国的被胁迫行为理论。本文除导言部分外,共分为三个章节:第一章首先论述被胁迫行为在各法系之现象。在分析现象之前,先将本文的被胁迫行为作一个界定,即是指来源于其他人的暴力心理威胁而实施的行为,并且这种行为是针对危险制造者明确告知的第三人来实施的。在英美法系国家,被胁迫行为是作为一项合法辩护理由而存在的。美国、英国、加拿大、马来西亚、印度等国家都将其作为独立的免责事由而存在。在大陆法系国家,虽然没有赋予被胁迫行为独立的法律地位,而将其纳入紧急避险,并参照紧急避险的相关规定免除处罚或者减轻处罚。第二章在论述了被胁迫行为的概念及构成要件之后分析了被胁迫行为的性质及理论基础。关于被胁迫行为的构成要件主要从胁迫的内容、胁迫的来源、胁迫内容的指向、胁迫的时间、胁迫的程度及适用限制等方面进行论述。被胁迫行为是一种可得宽恕的辩护事由,之所以得到宽恕主要是因为三方面的原因:人性趋利避害的本性、自由行为意志受到压制及刑罚的功利性。第三章首先将外国的被胁迫行为与我国的紧急避险及胁从犯行为进行分别比较,从微观角度分析它们的相同点与不同点。然后三者之间进行横向比较,厘清它们之间的关系,用图示的方法表明三者在不同法系及我国法律体系之中的关系及地位。在英美法系中紧急避险和被胁迫行为是相互独立的,在大陆法系国家被胁迫行为包含在紧急避险之中,在我国紧急避险和胁从犯相互独立,并且被胁迫行为从属于胁从犯行为。在分析其相互关系之后,论述了外国的被胁迫行为理论对我国的借鉴意义。由于我国没有被胁迫行为的独立范畴,所以可将当行为人受到他人紧迫的死亡或者严重身体伤害的危险而被胁迫参加侵害他人合法权益的这一行为参照我国紧急避险的规定,对其作非罪化处理,将这样的行为人排除在胁从犯之外。更多还原

【Abstract】 Duress theory in common law criminal law with independent legal status, according to the law was a general defense of coercion is one of, if the defendant’s conduct was consistent with the legal elements of coercion, the defendant finally available Disclaimer. In China, the criminal law is not clear is the legal concept of coercion, but coercion can be coerced offender’s behavior in China demonstrated. However, foreign regulations and the duress on Rehictant our rules very different, my country is coerced offender in accordance with the circumstances of his crime mitigated punishment or be exempted from punishment. In addition, scholars believe that the foreign conduct should be coerced into our emergency hedge theory, they believe the perpetrator was the implementation of coercion as a hedge to avoid acts of self-harm should be in accordance with the relevant rules of emergency actions treatment. The author believes that foreign country by coercion and the emergency hedge is completely different areas, can not be mixed up. This judicial practice based on solving the problem, will be foreign coercion and our emergency hedging theory and the theory of comparative study coerced offender tries to construct our theory of coerced behavior.In this article, the introductory section, the total is divided into three sections:The first chapter discusses the duress in all legal systems of the phenomenon. Before the analysis of the phenomenon, this article was first made a definition of coercion, which means other people from the threat of violence, the implementation of psychological behavior, and this behavior is dangerous for the manufacturer explicitly inform the third party to implement of. In common law countries, was coercion as a legitimate defense exists. United States, Britain, Canada, Malaysia, India and other countries as an independent exemptions exist. In civil law countries, although there was coercion given independent legal status, but their integration into necessity, and with reference to the relevant provisions of the emergency hedge exempted from punishment or mitigated punishment. (Here we note that the civil law countries of Rescue and Emergency hedge our content is not the same, the scope of their emergency hedge than my scope.)The second chapter discusses the concept of coerced behavior and composition of elements, followed by analysis of the nature of the coerced and the theoretical basis of behavior. By coercion on the composition of the main elements of the content from the stress, the source of stress, stress point to the content, stress time, stress level and restrictions that apply to other aspects discussed. Duress is a defense available to the subject of forgiveness, why are forgiven because of the nature of humanity while avoiding disadvantages, Liberty will be suppressed and utilitarian punishment.Chapter III is first foreign coercion and the act of rescue and China were coerced offender behavior compared, from the microscopic point of view of their similarities and differences between. Then compared among the analysis of their relationship, with the icon means that three different legal systems and the relationship among China’s legal system and status. In the common law system, and emergency actions were independent of each other coercive acts, coercion in civil law countries are being included in the emergency hedge, hedging and Rehictant emergency in our country independent of each other, and are subordinate to coercion coerced offender behavior. After the analysis of their mutual relations, discussed by foreign coercion theory significance in China. Since China has not been intimidation of independent areas, therefore, can be tight when the person by another person’s death or the risk of serious bodily injury is coerced to participate infringes upon legitimate rights and interests of this behavior Can Zhao hedge our emergency provisions as, making the processing of non-crimes, the perpetrator will be excluded from such outside coerced offender.更多还原