试论教唆犯的性质

教唆犯的性质即教唆犯的成立基础和处罚根据,是教唆犯理论研究的基础问题。关于该问题,德、日刑法学界以及我国理论界存在多种学说的争鸣。对教唆犯性质的研究应该站在刑法客观主义立场上,以法益侵害为理论基础,坚持结果无价值论,才能得出正确的结论。基于此,修正的教唆犯从属性应该是教唆犯性质的客观反映,即只有当被教唆人实施了一定的行为对法益造成一定的危险之后,才能对教唆犯予以处罚。     

论“教唆未遂”与“未遂的教唆”——三大法系比较研究

大陆法系共犯从属性理论否定教唆未遂;大陆法系共犯独立性理论通过改变实行行为的概念论证教唆未遂;英美法系刑法理论超越教唆未遂;中国刑法理论在语境混淆的状态下论证教唆未遂。在三大法系内部,对于未遂的教唆是否可罚均存在着巨大争议,其关键都在于教唆犯的成立在主观要件上是否要求教唆人具有目标犯罪的罪过;仅从我国《刑法》第29条有关教唆犯的显性条款规定看,我国刑法对“未遂的教唆”似乎没有处罚的依据和标准,但是通过对该条隐性条款的解读,“未遂的教唆”在我国刑法中可以找到处罚的依据和标准,该问题在深层触及到如何理解我国刑法教唆犯的量刑规定。     

关于片面共犯的理论探讨

片面共犯在中外刑法学界一直是争论不休的话题，文章支持片面共犯的观点，认为片面共犯具有存在的哲学依据、刑法理论依据和事实依据，并且对片面共犯存在的范围和应承担的刑事责任进行了论述，指出肯定片面共犯理论对于完善我国的刑法理论、指导司法实践有积极意义。     

保险诈骗罪第4款解释路径的法律分析

片面共犯由于违背共同故意要件因而不属于共同犯罪,其不能对保险诈骗罪第4款的法律性质作出合理的解释。保险诈骗罪第4款既不属于法律拟制和注意规定,也不属于想象竞合和法规竞合,其是法律文本主义的当然解释,亦是大竞合理论下,适用从一重处断原则的当然结果。     

网络背景下刑事立法的修正

网络世界具有虚拟性、公开性等特点,虽不能独立于现实世界,但也有自身的特点。单纯通过解释传统刑法条文,已无法规制和惩罚网络犯罪,宜采用"渐进的立法方式"对现行刑事立法进行修正。本文建议,应对公私财物进行扩大性解释,将虚拟物纳入刑法的调整范围;承认片面共犯的存在,以适应网络犯罪公开性、跨国界的特点;调整刑事管辖的原则,参加双边及国际条约,加强国际司法协助以应对日益猖獗的网络犯罪。     

关于教唆犯性质的再认识

在刑法理论中,通常将教唆犯作为共犯的一种类型加以探究.共犯理论最为复杂,在刑法学界争议也最多,日本刑法学者中义胜曾感慨道:"认为‘共犯理论是绝望之章',确实不足为怪."[1]而教唆犯又是共犯理论中最为复杂的问题,主要集中在共犯的性质上,具体体现在共犯从属性和共犯独立性两大阵营的对抗.由此,通过中外立法比较,以有利于司法实践为角度,探析我国刑事理论上应然之观点甚为重要.     

On the Boundary for Criminal Sanctions on Network One-Sided Accomplice Crimes and a Discussion of the “Qvod Player” Case

According to the criminal law, the Chinese legislation has taken extremely cautious standpoint towards to the one-sided accomplice crime. The alienation of the network joint crime has led the one-sided accomplice crime into continuous theoretical and legislative difficulties. A series of judicial interpretation and legislative changes as contour-measures have been established to initiate the survival scope of one-sided accomplice crime have taken shape. Network operators and service providers who bear statutory safety management obligations violate those obligations knowingly and have further brought about considerable risk or serious harm. Substantial penalty is necessary for irresponsible and illegal mismanagement by the web service providers. The thresholds of punishment towards to the network one-sided accomplice crime should be limited and restrained by reasonably distinguishing normal business behavior from dangerous behaviors based on full consideration of subjective and objective criminal elements simultaneously. The prosecution of “Qvod Player” Case has vividly confirmed the actual judicial demand for punishing network one-sided accomplice.     

片面共犯根据论

片面共犯是共同犯罪的特殊形态 ;法益侵害是片面共犯的本质 ,将片面共犯视为共同犯罪是实现刑法机能的需要 ,有利于维护社会秩序 ;片面合意是共同故意的最低标准 ,将单向意思联络解释为共同故意 ,没有超出“共同犯罪”法律文义的“射程” ,从实质上贯彻了罪刑法定的要求 ;片面共犯符合诉讼效益原则。     

The Dynamics of Mass Killings: Testing Time-Series Models of One-Sided Violence in the Bosnian Civil War

Many observers contend that wartime civilian victimization is an instrument of political leaders to achieve a particular goal. This article examines whether retaliation for similar acts by the other side, the developments on the battlefield, or the behavior of international actors accounts for the ups and downs of this so-called one-sided violence. Using information from the Konstanz One-Sided Violence Event Dataset and other sources, we evaluate the empirical relevance of these complementary models statistically. Time series analyses of the weekly number of killed and harmed Muslims (Bosniacs) and Serbs during the Bosnian civil war support the military and the massacre logic. We show that the Serbian side decreased one-sided violence following a territorial conquest, but that its one-sided violence was not a reciprocal response to the Bosniac targeting of civilians. Conversely, the Bosniac side resorted to violence during times of increasing Serbian atrocities and when the fighting was particularly intense. The analysis reveals that most international interventions did not reduce the carnage, but that the Serbs responded to Russian moves.     

“被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪”之解释

我国刑法采取的是单一正犯体系，教唆犯从属性说无存在的法律基础，用此说来解释我国刑法第29条第2款中的“被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪”，不具有合理性。应当将其解释为被教唆的人没有按教唆犯的意思实施犯罪，具体包括四种情形：(1)教唆犯已实施教唆行为但教唆信息(或内容)还未传达到被教唆的人；(2)被教唆的人拒绝教唆犯的教唆；(3)被教唆的人接受教唆，但还未为犯罪做准备；(4)被教唆的人接受教唆，但后来改变犯意或者因误解教唆犯的意思实施了其他犯罪，并且所犯之罪不能包容被教唆的罪。