【作者】 姜健辉；

【导师】 李洁；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 正当防卫是我国公民的一项合法权利，是鼓励和保障公民同违法犯罪行为作斗争的重要手段，正当防卫对于保障国家、公共利益和公民的合法权益不受侵犯、制止和预防犯罪，都具有十分积极的意义。行为人实施正当防卫行为，是客观上的防卫行为与主观上的防卫意图的统一，是合法的正义的行为。正当防卫成立的前提条件是须有不法侵害行为的发生，没有不法侵害，也就谈不上正当防卫。这种不法侵害是客观上确实发生的而不是防卫者主观虚构或误认的。正当防卫成立的时间条件是不法侵害正在进行，所谓“正在进行”是指不法侵害已经开始，尚未结束。正当防卫的主观条件是必须出于防卫的意图，包括防卫认识和防卫目的。正当防卫的对象条件是必须对不法侵害者本人实行。正当防卫的限度条件是不得明显超过必要限度，造成重大损害。防卫行为只有具备了上述五个条件才是正当防卫，受到法律的保护，依法不负刑事责任。正当防卫权的行使是有一定界限的，在司法实践中要严格区分挑拨防卫、防卫不适时、假想防卫、防卫过当和正当防卫的区别。挑拨防卫是指行为人故意挑起他人对自己的攻击，然后借口正当防卫对他人加以侵害的行为。在挑拨防卫案件中，挑拨人不具有正当防卫的动机与目的，因而不成立正当防卫。防卫不适时即事前防卫和事后防卫。事前防卫是指对只流露了犯罪意图或处于犯罪预备状态，尚未构成实际威胁的侵害人先行防卫的行为。事后防卫是指对已经自动终止、被迫停止或已经实施终了的不法侵害人进行加害的行为。防卫不适时因不具备正当防卫的时间条件而不能成为正当防卫。假想防卫是指由于行为人主观认识上的错误，实际上并不存在不法侵害，却误认为存在，因而对臆想中的不法侵害实行了所谓正当防卫，造成他人损害。无限防卫权是指对公民在某些特定情况下所实施的正当防卫行为，没有必要限度的要求，对其防卫行为的任何后果，均不负刑事责任。无限防卫权在法条设计上存在一定缺陷。一是概念模糊不清。首先，“行<WP=45>凶”一词含义模糊。词典中行凶一词的含义是伤人或杀人，故行凶与杀人的词义是交叉的，且行凶一词多用于文学中，其内涵和外延具有不确定性。其次，对“行凶、杀人、抢劫”等犯罪的暴力程度要求不明确。最后，“其他严重危及人身安全的暴力犯罪”范围模糊。二是用词不够严谨。如该条“造成不法侵害人伤亡”中的“伤亡”并非法律用语，用“伤害或死亡”则更为合适。三是没有防卫人证明责任的规定。应要求防卫人承担举证责任，即证明自己不实行无限防卫就不能有效制止不法侵害或避免不法侵害，无限防卫是应当的和必须的。无限防卫权使用不当也会产生许多弊端。一是防卫权可能被滥用。刑法既然允许防卫者在受到暴力侵害时可以不受防卫限度的约束，即防卫者可以在防卫反击时毫无顾忌，这实际上是放弃了对防卫者的责任要求，走向防卫者只享有防卫权，不承担防卫后果责任的极端。二是在特定情况下被害人可能遭受更大的损害，从而违背立法初衷。无限防卫权在刑事立法思想上存在许多误区。一是无限防卫权不利于人权保护。人权保护是当前国际社会普遍关注的重大问题之一，新刑法中关于无限防卫权的规定与这种趋势是不相适应的。二是不利于实现社会正义。三是不利于实现刑法的教育功能。刑法规定被害人对实施行凶等暴力侵害的犯罪人可当场置其于死地，实际上间接地排除了对这些人进行挽救教育的可能，这与刑法的教育功能是相背的。无限防卫权的设立，也给司法实务带来了一些问题。一是无限防卫权行使的时间条件。无限防卫权的行使必须是对正在发生的杀人、抢劫等严重危及人身安全的暴力犯罪。认定不法侵害“正在进行”应根据实际情况具体分析，适当从宽掌握。二是在互殴中是否存在正当防卫和无限防卫问题。对此应考虑案件的起因、发展过程以及当事人的过错程度具体分析。一般情况下在互殴中不存在正当防卫乃至无限防卫，但在一方彻底放弃斗殴，被追杀而无路可逃或难以逃避的情况下，应允许被侵害人行使正当防卫权乃至无限防卫权。三是对于民事纠纷引发的犯罪行为能否进行正当防卫乃至无限防卫问题。应允许对因民事纠纷引发的严重暴力犯罪行为实施防卫行为。更多还原

【Abstract】 1 Justifiable defence is a fundamental legal right of citizen and an important measure for encourging and ensuring citizen to fight with criminal act.It plays an active role ?in ensuring the courtry , public interest and citizen ’s legal right ,and checking ?and preventing crime.Actor excersie justifiable defence act is a union which include defiable act objectly and defiable intention objectly. It is an legal and just action.The occurence of unlawful ?infringement is a ?precondition of the justifiable defense ,no ?unlawful ?infringement no justifiable defense . This kind of unlawful infringement ?has not been fabricated by defensor subjectly or mistaken but ?dose happen objectly.The time term of ?justifiable defense is that unlawful ?infringement is in process,what is called "in process"means that unlawful infringement has begun but has not finished.The subject term of justifiable defense is that it must come from intention of defense which ?consist ???recognision of defense and intention of defense.That unlawful attacker ?must exercisehimself is the oject term of justifiable defense .the limit term is that it can’t exceed need limit and work magnitude mpair.Defense acts can be called ijustifiable defenseand deserve protection from law except criminal liability only if it possess the above five terms.It has a certain boundary to exercise the right of legitimate self-defence.we should strictly distinguish the difference of the provocative self-defence,untimely self-defence,imaginary self-defence,excessive self-defence and legitimate self-defence.The provocative self-defence is the behavior that someone intentionally stir up others to attack him,then violate them,pleading legitimate self-defence.In the case of provocative self-defence,the provocateur do not have the legitimate motive and purpose of self-defence,as a result, the behavior is not legitimate self-defence.The untimely self-defence is beforehand self-defence and after-the-event self-defence.The beforehand <WP=47>self-defence is the beforehand defence behavior that trespasser show unintentionally crime intention or be in criminal preparation,not yet form actual menace.The after-the-event self-defence is the behavior that violate illegimate trespasser who has automatically terminate、compelledlly cease or already finish violation.The untimely self-defence do not belong to legitimate self-defence because it has not the time condition of legitimate self-defence.The imaginary self-defence is the behavior that harm others ,because there are not illegal infraction in fact,but the doer mistakenly think it is ,then take so-called legitimate self-defence to imaginary illegal infraction.3 The right of infinite defend means,citize nunder some particular circumstances,puts to practice to defend the behavior,having no the request of the necessary limit,as to it’s defend behavioral and any result, all not negative pertaining to crime duty. The right of infinite defend has some defects in designing provisions. In the first place, the concepts are not clear. First, the meaning of the word “assault” is too vague. In dictionary, the word “assault” means wound or murder. So the meaning of assault and that of murder intersect. Furthermore, the word “assault” is used more in literature, and its intention and extension are not indefinite. Secondly, the request to the degree of violence of the crimThe right of infinite defend means,citizen ?under some particular circumstances, ?puts proper ?into es “assault, murder, rob” are not explicit. Thirdly, the boundary of “other violent crimes that endanger personal safety” is blurred. The next in order, the words are not used rigorously enough. For example, in “causes the casualty of the person who does the illegal activities ”, the word “casualty” is not a legal term, and the “wound and death” is better. Finally, there is no the provision to demand the person, who defends properly, to provide evidences. The defender should be demanded to bear the liability to provide evidences, which means to prove he or she cannot更多还原