【作者】 高燕；

【导师】 石英；

【作者基本信息】 辽宁大学 ， 法律， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 随着社会的高度发展,人们的物质文化水平不断提高,然令人可悲的是人与人之间的关系却逐趋冷漠且这种冷漠带给社会群体的疏离感日益严重。现实中不断出现配偶间因琐事争执,后一方自杀或遭遇意外面临丧失生命的危机,而另一方能救助却选择漠然离去,致使对方死亡的相似案例,此类案件由于介于道德与法律的边缘,理论界与司法实务界在罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪的认定上仁者见仁,智者见智。本文以此为论点,以国内外学者的学术观点及理论研究为论据,采用案例对比、实证分析等方法展开分析。文章第一部分选择了两则相似的此类案例,通过对案情及法院判决的对比,归纳出理论界与实务界就此类案件在罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪的认定上存在的各种观点。在罪与非罪的分歧上,争议焦点集中在是否符合不作为犯罪的构成条件、见危不救与死亡结果是否具有因果关系、不救助方对对方的死亡是否存在主观罪过三个方面。在此罪与彼罪的分歧上,集中在不作为形式的故意杀人罪、遗弃罪、过失致人死亡罪三个罪名。第二部分,结合案例,逐次对上述观点进行评述,认为在罪与非罪方面,基于当事人之间的特殊身份,此类见危不救具有现实的社会危害性,不为民众的法感情所接受,故有必要酌情作出有罪判决,但在理论上需以完善;此罪与彼罪方面,因见危不救行为更符合纯正不作为犯的特征,且与故意杀人不具有等价性,故不应认定为不作为形式的故意杀人罪。同时,其客观上不符合遗弃罪的构成条件,主观上并非过失,所以,也可排除遗弃罪与过失致人死亡罪的适用。依此,此类案件在立法上有所缺位,有待弥补。第三部分,立足案例,从理论、立法、司法三个维度考虑,在理论方面,寻求理论体系的完善,可借鉴国外的实质作为义务来源理论,在我国建构实质与形式相结合的二元结构义务来源理论。在立法方面,可尝试增设见危不救罪,使特殊主体间的救助义务在刑法上明确化。在司法方面,重在强调在现有法律资源的基础上,法官要运用好自由裁量权,准确权衡利弊,使判决最大程度上获得认同,实现良好的法律效果与社会效果。以此,为此类见危不救案件在人性道德与法律规范的夹缝中寻求一个公正、合理的出口,使人们感受公平、正义的生活。最后,回归案例,对两则案例的判决予以简单评价。更多还原

【Abstract】 With highly developed of the society, people’s material and cultural level are increasing, However, It is sad that the relationship during people is becoming cold and indifferent ,which brings the sense of alienation in social groups. In reality, similar cases such as trivial disputes emerge between spouses, One chose to suicide or facing accident that having the crisis of lossing life, When the other can chose to rescue but chose to leave indifferently, resulting in the death of the other always happens .Such cases at the edge of moral and legal, theorists and practitioners of justice hold different views in the crime or not, this crime or that crime. This paper chose this as point, domestic and foreign scholars’academic arguments and theoretical research as basis, the methods of using case comparison, empirical analysis and others to analyze.The first part of the article chose two such similar cases, Generalizing the various points from theorists and practitioners in crime or not, this crime or that crime by contrasting cases and court decisions .Differences in the crime or not, the controversy focused on three aspects, whether this suit the omission crime’s constitutes, and whether the results of death is caused by refusing to rescue, whether the one who refuse to rescue the other has subjective sin. Crime in this or that, the differences focus on three charges ,the crime of omission crime of intentional homicide ,the crime of abandonment, the crime of causing the death by negligence.The second part, combine the cases, commenting the above comments successively, that the crime or not, because of the special status between the parties, such behavior of refusing rescue have a real harm to society, which can’t accepted by the legal feelings of the people, Therefore ,It is necessary to give a appropriate conviction, but in theory, need to improve; This crime or that crimes, because refusing rescue is more in line with the characteristics of pure act of omission crime than not pure act of omission crime ,and it does not have the equivalence with intentional homicide, So it should not be considered as intentional homicide in omission form. At the same time, it does not meet the objective constitutes of the crime of abandonment, and has no subjective negligence,so it can also be excluded from the crime of abandonment and the crime of the death caused by negligence.So these cases are absence in legislation, which need to be filled.The third part, based on the case, considerating from three dimensions of theory, legislative, judicial. In theory, to improve the theoretical system, learn the foreign theory of substanced source of obligations and construct a theory system of combination of substance and form of obligation source in China. On the legislative, try to create a accusation of not to give help with others’peril, So that the special duty of rescue between the main body in the criminal law clearly. In the judiciary, based on the existing legal resources, the judge should make good use of discretion, accurate balance, get the recognition from people in maximum sentence and get a good legal effect and social effect. By all these, to find a fair and reasonable export for such cases in cracks of human nature moral and legal norm, so that people feel fair and just life. Finally, return to the case, get a simple evaluation about the two cases’judge.更多还原