【作者】 林滨渤；

【导师】 李洁；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 刑法学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 遗弃罪是人类历史上最为古老、最为重要的犯罪之一。然而，我国现行遗弃罪立法内容之单薄、形式之简约与遗弃罪的重要地位远不相符。就现行遗弃罪的立法目的而言，立法者旨在通过惩处没有尽到法定扶养义务的家庭成员，强化家庭成员之间具有伦理规范性质的相互扶养义务，进而实现对“没有独立生活能力”家庭成员生命权、健康权的保护。在家庭组织足够稳定，真正发挥社会“最小细胞”作用的社会背景下，这种立法可以有助于家庭乃至社会伦理的维护，可以基本实现对家庭弱势成员生命权、健康权的保护。然而，在当下中国社会结构、生活方式乃至人与人之间关系已然发生巨大变化的情形下，通过维护家庭伦理秩序已无法实现对“无自救力人”生命权、健康权的有效保护。由现行遗弃罪的立法理念所导致的制度缺陷，已经使得以保护公民的生命权、健康权为目的而构建起来的刑法罪名体系出现漏洞，本文的研究和写作正是在这样的一种背景之下进行的。基于此，本文综合运用法理分析法、比较研究法、案例分析法及历史分析法，在对我国现行遗弃罪规定进行缺陷性分析的基础上，借鉴大陆法系“有义务者遗弃罪”的立法经验，结合相应的刑法理论，提出并且证成重构我国遗弃罪立法的设想。第一章是提出问题部分，即对我国现行遗弃罪立法现实困境的分析。本章首先以我国遗弃罪的历史演进为切入点，通过对其演进历程的研究，揭示出遗弃罪历史发展的基本脉络；然后立足于通说观点，①对现行遗弃罪立法进行深度诠释，并在此基础上，以案例导入的方式揭示出我国遗弃罪立法面临的现实困境。现行遗弃罪立法模式对生命权、健康权保障存在着的不足：作为义务限定狭窄，难以实现对非“扶养关系”遗弃行为的有效规制；“情节恶劣”具体规定缺失，入罪标准模糊，难以实现对被扶养人生命权、健康权的刚性保护；法定刑量刑幅度单一，罪刑不均衡，难以实现对生命权、健康权的“梯度”保护；遗弃致死法定刑偏低，导致遗弃罪与过失致人死亡罪、故意杀人罪之间法定刑的不平衡。第二章通过对大陆法系遗弃罪立法的考察，旨在提出解决我国遗弃罪立法现实困境的初步建议，即借鉴有义务者遗弃罪重构我国立法。本章首先从纵向与横向上对大陆法系遗弃罪进行立法考察，选取立法嬗变及立法类型两个视角展开论述，以期为审视及重构我国立法提供历史根据及现实范例。通过对古罗马、德国、日本等国遗弃罪嬗变轨迹的梳理得知：大陆法系国家的遗弃罪是由不扶养懈怠罪逐渐演变为侵犯生命权、健康权犯罪的。而现今大陆法系遗弃罪立法类型主要包括无义务者遗弃罪、有义务者遗弃罪、遗弃致人死伤罪以及见危不助罪。“中国的问题，世界的眼光”，在对域外立法考察的基础上，笔者重点着墨于域内外立法的比较研究。通过比较得出启示：域外立法能够较好地解决我国遗弃罪的立法困境，我们应借鉴有义务者遗弃罪的立法模式来重构立法。如果说域外有义务者遗弃罪的立法模式更具合理性，那么在有义务者遗弃罪的框架下建构我国应然遗弃罪罪章，其合理性体现在哪里呢？本文第3章至第5章即说明此问题，即通过借鉴域外“有义务者遗弃罪”，为实现应然层面上我国遗弃罪的科学立法，提供法理研讨的合理依据。其中第3章是对我国遗弃罪应然法益定位的法理分析。保护法益对于具体犯罪的设定具有观念上的指导意义，它将决定具体犯罪的成立条件与刑罚程度。现行法将遗弃罪的法益定位于家庭成员间的受扶养权，被扶养人的生命权、健康权居于次要、隐性的地位，这样容易造成家庭伦理与生命权、健康权的冲突，导致对被扶养人生命权、健康权保护的忽视，亦无法实现对非“扶养关系”遗弃行为的有效规制。基于此，笔者通过对遗弃罪法益转换社会基础、刑法基础等方面的前提性分析，认为我国遗弃罪的实质理当被定位于被遗弃者的生命权、健康权的侵犯。第四章是在应然层面上对我国遗弃罪行为形态设定的法理分析。笔者认为仅仅在应然层面上将遗弃罪的保护法益定位于生命权、健康权，并不能直接对被遗弃者生命权、健康权的严密保护，还必须将保护公民“生命权、健康权”的理念贯彻到遗弃罪具体行为形态的立法设计上。因此，本章以合理划定犯罪圈以及实现罪刑均衡原则为目标，指出应根据遗弃行为在性质上的严重程度分设遗弃罪的危险犯与结果加重犯，并配之以相应的法定刑。相对于我国遗弃罪当下的立法方式，有义务者遗弃罪立法模式更有利于实现上述的立法构想。第五章是在应然层面上对我国遗弃罪保护义务设立的法理分析。笔者首先论证指出，域外的有义务者遗弃罪应为纯正不作为犯，然后重点对我国遗弃罪保护义务设立的社会基础、道德基础、发生根据进行分析。关于保护义务设立的社会基础，笔者认为随着社会转型出现，道德的失范、伦理的弱化必然代之以法律的兴起，互助互信的伦理义务必然会上升为法律义务（保护义务），原来遗弃罪所要求的具有“扶养关系”的当事人也必然会进一步扩展至具有“保护义务”的当事人之间。关于保护义务设立的道德基础，笔者认为，具有特殊身份的保护责任者对因年老、年幼或疾病等原因造成的生命、健康陷入危险状态的无自救力者，具有救助的义务，不得遗弃之，这是古今中外刑事立法的通例。违背保护义务的行为触及社会的“道德底线”，这与违反紧急救助义务的“见危不助”行为不可等量论之。关于保护义务的发生根据，笔者认为应建立形式义务来源与实质义务限定的统一说。第六章结合前面的研究结论，对现行遗弃罪提出立法重构的具体建议。具体包括：关于体系地位的设定，笔者认为若将遗弃罪视作侵犯生命权、健康权的危险犯，就应将其纳入侵犯生命权、健康权的罪群之中，并位移至过失致人重伤罪之后；关于罪之设定，其内容包括对客观要件（保护义务、犯罪对象、行为内容）、主观要件（危险故意）以及结果加重犯（遗弃致人死伤）立法构想的具体考量；关于刑之设定，其内容是对遗弃罪危险犯及遗弃致人死伤结果加重犯法定刑完善的具体构想。结语处笔者重点指出，遗弃犯罪不仅是刑事违法问题，同时更是一个令人注目的社会问题。遗弃问题的解决并非仅以修法即足，乃须从政治、经济、文化等各方面的社会政策、措施着手，才能消除犯罪产生、存在的社会因素，才能更好地预防犯罪。更多还原

【Abstract】 The crime of abandonment is among the oldest crimes and one of the moreimportant crimes in human history. However, with its simple contents and form, ourcurrent abandonment law does not match the importance of this crime. For thelegislative thoughts, our law-makers are trying to punish the family members who donot fulfill their statutory duty of maintenance, in order to strengthen the ethic duty ofmutual support within the family, and ultimately protect rights of life and health of thefamily members without the ability to live independently. With a social backgroundwhere family organizations are stable enough to play the role of the tiniest cell of thesociety, this type of legislation may help maintain the ethical order of family andsociety as well as protect the rights of life and health of the abandonee. But withchina’s situation that the social structure, life style and human relationships aretremendously changed, it is hard to effectively protect the rights of life and health forthe people without the ability of self-rescue by maintain the ethic order of families.The system drawbacks caused by the legislative ideology of our current abandonmentcrime have lead to a flawed system of crimes which was originally designed to protectthe rights of life and health. It is in this context that the author studied and wrote thispaper. In this paper, the author comprehensively used legality analysis, comparativeanalysis, case analysis and historical analysis to put forward and justify the legalsuggestions of reconstructing the abandonment crime law of our country based onanalyzing the deficiencies of China’s current abandonment crime law and by drawingon from the legislation experiences of “abandonment crime of a person with a legalobligation” in the civil law system, and combining the corresponding theory ofcriminal law. Chapter one brought forward the question by analyzing the reality facing ourcurrent abandonment crime law. First, it observed abandonment crime from thehistorical evolution perspective, and revealed the basic development vein afterinvestigating the legislation evolution course. Then the author made an in-depthinterpretation of current abandonment crime legislation based on the general theory.①On this basis, by introducing real cases, the author revealed the challenges facing ourabandonment crime legislation: the deficiency of life and health rights protection incurrent mode of legislation. Firstly, the definition of obligations is too narrow toeffectively protect life and health rights of the abandonees with non-maintenancerelationships; Secondly, with the lack of specific provision for “the flagrantcircumstances” and the obscure criterion for incrimination, it is hard to rigidly protectthe rights of life and health for dependents; Thirdly, the legal punishment range issingle and it is hard to realize the balance of sentencing as well as gradient protectionof life and health rights; Finally, the legal punishment for”abandon someone to hisdeath” is on the low side, which cannot realize the penalty balance between life rightsinfringements and health rights infringements.The second chapter is aimed to put forward some initial suggestion to solve therealistic difficulties challenging our abandonment crime legislation through exploringthe relevant legislation of the civil law system. That is to reconstructing ourabandonment crime legislation by drawing lessons from “abandonment crime of aperson with a legal obligation”. First, this chapter explored the abandonment crimelegislation of the civil law system from two perspectives (legislation permutation andlegislation type), to provide historical grounds and practical examples for thereconstruction of our legislation. By tracking the evolution of laws from foreigncountries such as ancient Rome, Germany, France, Japan, we learned that theabandonment crime in the civil law system morphed from the type of family crimes tocrimes violating life and health rights. However, the main types of the abandonment crime in the current civil law system include abandonment crime of a person with nolegal obligation, abandonment crime of a person with a legal obligation, abandonmentcrime leading to casualties and the criminalizing of not to give help with others’ peril.Based on the examination of foreign abandonment crime legislation, the authorbelieved that the foreign legislations could help solving our legislative difficulties inthis area. At the end of this chapter, the author pointed out the basic ideas forimproving our abandonment crime legislation: reconstructing our legislation on thebasis of legislation mode of “abandonment crime of a person with a legal obligation”.The third and fourth and fifth chapter chapter explained the rationality toconstruct our “should-be” legislation of abandonment crime under the framework of“abandonment crime of a person with a legal obligation”. Chapter three analyzed the”should-be” legal interests. In my opinion, the positioning of the legal interests ofprotection has ideological guiding significance to the specific setting of a crime. Itdecides the conditions for the establishment and levels of punishment of a specificcrime. Our current laws have positioned the legal interests of abandonment crimes asthe rights to receive maintenance, with the life and health rights of the dependents in asubordinate position. This can easily lead to confliction between the family ethics andthe rights of life and health, and won’t help protecting the legal interests of life andhealth rights of the dependents, and cannot achieve the protection of the life andhealth rights of abandonees with non-support relationship. Based on the premiseanalysis of social foundations and criminal law foundations of legal interesttransformation, the author believed that the essence of our abandonment crime shouldbe positioned as infringement to the rights of life and health of the abandonee.Then, Chapter four researched the setting of behavior pattern of ourabandonment crime on the “should-be” level. From the author’s perspective,positioning the legal interests of abandonment crimes as the life and health rights ofthe dependents, simply and limitedly, wouldn’t be commensurate with the target ofimproving our abandonment crime legislation directly that we aspire to. Therefore,the conception that protect the legal interests of our citizen’s life and health rights should be carried out through the legislative formulation of the behavior pattern of ourabandonment crime in detail, so as to achieve the goal of perfecting legal system.Based on the above consideration, to delimit a criminal circle rationally, and to realizethe balance between crime and penalty, the author pointed out that we should separatethe potential damage offence and the aggregated consequential offense based on theseverity of the nature of the abandon behavior, and with corresponding legal penalty.Compared with our current legislation mode of abandonment crime, the“abandonment crime of a person with a legal obligation” mode is more helpful torealize such a legislation idea.Chapter five researched the setup of protection obligations of our abandonmentcrime on the “should-be” level. First, the author pointed out that the “abandonmentcrime of a person with a legal obligation” from abroad should be considered as a pureomission offence. Then the author analyzed the social foundation, moral foundationand occurrence basis of the setup of protect obligation in our abandonment crime laws.As to the social foundation, the author believed that with the social transformation anddisorder of morality and ethics, the laws is bound to rise, and the ethic obligation ofmutual support is bound to be defined as a legal duty (protection obligation), theformer litigants with fostering relations may further be expanded to litigants with”protection obligations”. As to the moral foundation, the author believe that the peoplein responsibilities with special identities have the obligations of helping those withoutself-rescue abilities when their lives and health fall into danger due to old, young ordisease etc, and are not allowed to abandon them. The behavior of breaking protectionobligation hits the moral bottom line, and cannot be regarded as equal to the behaviorof “not giving help with others’ peril” which breaks emergency aid obligation.Chapter six offered concrete proposals for reconstructing the law of currentabandonment crime, which include the following: As to the system position ofabandonment crime, the author believed that if the crime is considered to bedangerous to infringe rights of life and health, it should not only be included into thecrime group of life and health rights infringement, but also be placed behind the crime of inflicting serious bodily injury; As to the conviction of the crime, the author offeredlegislation ideas on objective elements (protection obligation, object of the action,behavior content), subjective elements (intentional damage) and the aggravatedconsequence for abandonment crime leading to casualties and so on. In addition,detailed conceptions for improving statutory sentence are discussed here.In the last part of the paper, the author highlighted that the abandonment crime isnot only criminal illegality but also a compelling social problem. The solution toabandonment is not enough by modifying laws. We need some social policies andmeasurements from various aspects of politics, economy and culture, to eliminate thesocial factors of crime production, and to better prevent the crime.更多还原