被胁迫情节立法的比较研究

受胁迫犯罪在大陆法系国家中多设立为责任阻却事由,我国采用了胁从犯立法模式。胁从犯的立法模式在处罚中以行为人的行为构成胁从犯为前提,这种模式既限制了被胁迫情节的适用,也破坏了共犯体系的科学性。只有把被胁迫情节作为单独的法定量刑情节,才能有效克服上述问题。     

生命对生命法益下受胁迫杀人行为的合罪性探讨

生命对生命法益下受胁迫杀人行为不是刑法上的受强制紧急避险,无法益侵害理论、期待可能性理论都不能对生命对生命法益下受胁迫杀人行为进行出罪的合理辩护,而尊重人性并不等于纵容犯罪,生命对生命法益下被胁迫杀人行为是法律上的合罪行为。坚持合罪性,才能保证法官的中立性,避免司法者权力滥用。从实用主义角度讲,共同犯罪中＂胁从犯＂的法律设置不失为一种借鉴,即对生命对生命法益下受胁迫杀人行为进行定罪,但是在量刑上予以宽缓处罚。     

谈被诱骗胁从犯的犯罪故意

我国刑法第25条规定:“被胁迫、被诱骗参加犯罪的人是胁从犯”。大多数的刑法教材认为:所谓被诱骗的胁从犯是指那些主观上由于对实际情况不了解,误信了谎言,受了蒙蔽,从而参加了共同犯罪活动的人。     

被诱骗者能否成为胁从犯?

《刑法》第25条规定:“对于被胁迫、被诱骗参加犯罪的,应当按照他的犯罪情节,比照从犯减轻处罚或者免除处罚”。胁从犯,是共同犯罪中的一种犯罪人。同其他共同犯罪一样,在主、客观方面都必须具备构成共同犯罪的基本要素。胁从犯本身具有犯罪性,这是它的根本点,同时它自身也有其特殊性。胁从犯必须是被他人威逼、强迫,实出无奈,又明知犯罪而故意实施之。故他们在犯罪的主观上具有一定程度的被动性。这也是胁从犯主观恶性显轻于其他犯罪人的一大特点。     

略论胁从犯

在我国刑法中，关于共同犯罪人的分类一共有四类，其中最后一类是胁从犯。所谓胁从犯，就是被胁迫、被诱骗参加犯罪活动的人。     

一个根本不存在的共犯种类--胁从犯--胁从犯的刑法依据和政策依据质疑

以刑法第28条作为胁从犯的存在依据,实属牵强附会,刑法第28条是关于主犯和从犯的补充规定;按作用分类法的理论,胁从犯是不存在的,刑法中只有主要作用和次要作用、辅助作用的规定,一些论者关于胁从犯的"较小作用"、"作用小于从犯"、"作用最小"的观点没有刑法依据.以毛泽东同志关于"首恶必办、胁从不问、立功受奖"的论述作为胁从犯的政策依据,也值得推敲,毛泽东选集中的"胁从"之说在当时主要是指听从"首恶"指挥跟从"首恶"国民党官兵,是今天刑法中"从犯"的立法依据,而不是胁从犯的政策渊源.     

三阶层犯罪论体系下受胁迫行为的体系性分析

作为排除犯罪事由,受胁迫行为的属性只有在三阶层犯罪论体系下才能得以充分展示。如果受强制行为丧失意思支配可能性,进而失去实行行为性,则阻却构成要件该当性。如果受胁迫行为符合构成要件,但构成紧急避险,则阻却违法。如果受胁迫行为缺乏他行为可能性,进而不具有期待可能性,则阻却责任。如果受胁迫行为具有构成要件该当性、违法且有责,则成立犯罪(胁从犯)。     

试论胁从犯的几个向题

在共犯的分类中,我国刑法有胁从犯的规定,这是我们党的“胁从不问”政策在刑事立法上的体现和转化。运用我国的刑法理论,正确认定胁从犯,具有现实意义。因此,现就胁从犯有争议的几个法理问题,作一些粗浅的探讨。一、胁从犯是否共犯? 胁从犯是共犯的一种分类,本已有定论,但也有人对此有异议,提出我国刑法对胁从犯的规定是“参加犯罪”而不是“参加共同犯     

论英美刑法中胁迫的理论基础——兼论对我国胁从犯规定的借鉴意义

胁迫是英美法系刑法中的一个概念,具体是指行为人在受到他人死亡或者严重的身体伤害威胁的情况下被迫实施一定的犯罪行为。胁迫作为一种公认的普通法辩护事由,有其科学合理之处。分析了英美刑法中胁迫的成立条件及其存在的理论根基,并分析了其对我国刑法中胁从犯规定的借鉴意义。     

试论英美刑法中的被迫行为

被迫行为,是指行为人在自身或他人遭受生命危险或身体受到重伤害的胁迫下,不得已而实施的某种行为。英美刑法将其作为一种合法辩护理由是有其人性基础、功利基础和刑事政策依据的;对于完善我国刑法胁从犯的规定也有一定的借鉴意义。     

Police interviews with suspected child sex offenders: does use of empathy and question type influence the amount of investigation relevant information obtained?

The use of the criminal justice system to force offenders to receive psychological treatment is one of the most controversial aspects of service provision for offenders. Coerced treatment needs to be distinguished from pressured treatment, both having objective and subjective dimensions. In this paper some arguments for and against coerced offender rehabilitation are discussed. We suggest that coercing offenders into attending rehabilitation programmes (or placing legal pressure on them to attend) is unlikely by itself to lead to poorer outcomes. Rather, the individual's perception of coercion will be more influential in determining how an offender approaches treatment. Even when offenders perceive they are being coerced, it is likely that pre-treatment anti-therapeutic attitudes can change over the course of a programme, such that therapeutic gains (risk reduction) can occur. Coercion and its effects on treatment engagement and rehabilitation outcomes require further empirical research and conceptual analysis.     

正犯与共犯之区别

德、日、韩等国家的共犯论体系是以正犯为中心建立起来的,共犯是以正犯为其前提的概念。刑法以分工分类法对共犯人进行分类,正犯不仅是其中的核心概念,也是共同犯罪定罪、量刑的中心。因此,在共犯论中,最基本的问题便是怎样区分正犯与共犯。在我国的刑法理论中,并没有正犯概念,我国刑法将参与共同犯罪的行为人分为组织犯、主犯、从犯、胁从犯和教唆犯。有关正犯与共犯的区分问题,在我国的刑法理论界,有规范性实行行为说和实质客观说之争,虽然重要作用说具有相对合理性,但是,在共犯论体系不同的语境之下,探讨两者的区分,可谓无奈之举。这一问题的根本解决,最好是在修订刑法条文时,规定相关条款。     

The emergence of restorative justice in Sri Lanka: a review essay

Within the framework of retributive justice, crime is understood as an offence against the State and is defined as a violation of law. It represents the punitive approach of reaction to crime, where the offenders are considered as an unwanted group who should be punished. However, with the development of criminology, offenders are identified as the persons needing rehabilitation and reintegration into the society as law abiding citizens. This novel thinking has paved the way to the establishment of the concept of restorative justice where crime is understood to be an infringement on man and human relationship. It involves reintegration of both the offender and victim within the community. The restorative justice principle could be found in community service orders, probation, parole, and other noncustodial measures as alternatives to the traditional incarceration, victim offender mediation, sentencing, peacemaking and healing circles, police cautions, and active participation of victims in the criminal justice process, and so on. This article evaluates Sri Lanka's transformation from retributive justice to restorative justice by incorporating the above-mentioned means and methods to the criminal justice system. Further, it examines how these innovations have affected the crime rate in Sri Lanka.     

Policy-makers’ perceptions on their sex offender laws: the good,the bad,and the ugly

The views and attitudes that lawmakers have about sexual offenders and sexual victimization can be influential in criminal lawmaking. And given the popularity of sex offender laws, policy-makers are central players in how state justice systems respond to sex crimes. Therefore, state-level policy-makers from across the country, who sponsored and passed at least one sex offender law in their state, (n?=?61) were interviewed about sex offenders and sex crimes. Policy-makers believe sex offender laws are too broad. The laws extend to nonviolent offenses, low-risk offenders, and thus dilute the law enforcement potency of sex offender registries. Policy-makers view existing sex offender laws as necessary to enhance public safety and as proof that lawmakers are responding to the needs and concerns of the public. Sex offender laws were also discussed as a source of political capital; a way to help ensure reelection. The sexual victimization of children and the media’s coverage of sex crimes were instrumental in these state-level policy-makers’ decisions to sponsor sex offender laws. Policy and research recommendations are offered.     

Sex offender treatment is not punishment

Abstract

The treatment of sexual offenders can be fraught with ethical dilemmas. Practitioners must balance the therapeutic needs of sex offender clients alongside the risks they might pose to others. These ethical challenges include balancing community safety with the rights of the offender, the privileged therapeutic relationship and the potential for coerced treatment. In this paper, we respond to Glaser's argument that treatment is punishment and that sex offender treatment providers breach ethical codes by violating confidentiality, engaging in coercion, and ultimately causing harm to clients. We first consider whether sex offender treatment is indeed punishment. We argue that it is not, and that mandated treatment can and should be conducted in a fashion consistent with professional codes of ethics familiar to mental health providers. We then discuss the human rights model, which we agree is an essential lens through which to view the psychological treatment of sexual offenders. We attempt, as have other scholars, to illustrate the ways in which human rights principles intersect with traditional mental health codes of ethics particularly in the case of sex offender treatment. We conclude that sex offender treatment can be conducted ethically, that treatment differs from punishment in clear and distinct ways, and that ethical treatment conforms to a human rights perspective.     

激情犯的基础理论与立法问题研究

虽然尚未进入中国的刑事立法与司法解释,但对于社会公众而言,激情犯早已不是陌生的话语.以激情犯为由要求对具体案件中的被告人从宽处罚的情形在司法实践中也屡见不鲜.但是激情犯所实施的都是严重侵害他人生命权或健康权的犯罪,欲将之用作对被告人从宽处罚的情节,必须遵循罪刑法定原则,通过立法对之进行严格的限定,否则结果可能会适得其反.首先参考国外刑事立法,介绍了激情犯的概念、特征、构成要件及处罚原则.此后,从情节适用的确定性与刑罚裁量的统一性两方面论述了对激情犯进行立法必要性,并立足于理论现行立法剖析了立法的可行性.最后,就激情犯的立法模式、认定标准、激情诱因及处罚原则等问题进行了探讨,并提出了具体的立法建议.     

主犯若干问题的探讨

主犯是共同犯罪中人身危险性最大的共同犯罪人 ,历来是我国刑法打击的重点。我国目前并没有专门针对刑法总则共同犯罪条文在适用上予以解释的法律文件 ,但是 ,尚有针对刑法分则具体犯罪关于共同犯罪的相关解释中涉及主犯认定的内容 ,但这是否能够视为直接针对共同犯罪具体条文适用的一般性规定 ,还有疑问。本文就主犯的若干问题进行了探讨 ,以期对主犯的认识能够进一步深入。     

Gender ‘Hostility’, Rape,and the Hate Crime Paradigm

This article examines whether crimes motivated by, or which demonstrate, gender ‘hostility’ should be included within the current framework of hate crime legislation in England and Wales. The article uses the example of rape to explore the parallels (both conceptual and evidential) between gender‐motivated violence and other ‘archetypal’ forms of hate crime. It is asserted that where there is clear evidence of gender hostility during the commission of an offence, a defendant should be pursued in law additionally as a hate crime offender. In particular it is argued that by focusing on the hate‐motivation of many sexual violence offenders, the criminal justice system can begin to move away from its current focus on the ‘sexual’ motivations of offenders and begin to more effectively challenge the gendered prejudices that are frequently causal to such crimes.