简论正当防卫
摘要
正当防卫,是指为了保护国家、公共利益、本人或者他人的人身、财产和其他权利免受正在进行的不法侵害,采取对不法侵害人造成或可能造成损害的方法,制止不法侵害的行为。在我国司法实践中.正当防卫是刑法理论界中学术观点最活跃的热点之一,也是司法审判实践中常见的疑难问题之一。基于现行刑法对正当防卫的限度条件规定,常常存在着是否超出正当防卫必要限度的争论。由此又导出行为人是属于正当防卫,还是属于防卫过当;行为人是属于特殊防卫,还是属于故意伤害等一系列问题,从而产生难以对行为人的行为给予准确而客观定性的困惑。
本文针对以上问题分成四个部分进行了论述,第一部分是正当防卫的概述。第二部分是防卫过当的罪过形式及刑事责任。第三部分是特殊防卫权的相关问题。第四部分是完善正当防卫制度的思考,通过综合对以上问题的评析,具体阐明司法审判实践在这方面存在的问题,同时对争论较为激烈的防卫过当及特殊防卫的问题提出自己的认识。因此结构合理,论述基本成立
Right defense is an action by which a person protects the national or public benefit, himself or other’s body ,belongings or rights from any bodily harm arising out of an encounters or attacks from other person either by protecting him or by blocking the opponents advancement by a counter attack.. In our national judicatory practice, right defense is the most active hotpot in the current criminal law, there is a debate whether right defense is beyond the necessary limit or not. Therefore, whether the action is right defense or beyond the justifiable defense, special defense or doing harm on purpose is educed. Finally, there is confusion about the accurate and objective nature of the action.
Aiming at these problems upwards, this thesis makes the discussion from four parts. The first part summarizes the right defense. About conditions of right defense, in writer’s opinion, it should include five conditions. Firstly, the purpose of right defense should be protecting the national or public benefit, himself or other’s body, belongings or rights from illegal harm; secondly, the reason of right defense should be objective illegitimacy; thirdly, the time of right defense should be during the process of the illegitimacy; fourthly, the object of right defense should be the criminal himself or herself; fifthly, the limit of right defense should not exceed the necessary limit and cause huge damage. In the second part, it is about the offence form and criminal punishment of right defense, it is explained from four aspects. The first and second aspects make some research on the nature of right defense and how to decide the action beyond the justifiable defense. That means right defense is obviously beyond the justifiable defense and makes huge damage to other people. It should answer for the objective and subjective condition and go beyond the necessary limit obviously in order to define the action beyond justifiable defense. In the third aspect, it analyses and discusses on the disputed points of view on the offence forms under current criminal law and educes that right defense should not include direct doing harm on purpose but indirect doing harm or defect. Finally, the author makes a deep expatiation on the principles about how to punish the action beyond justifiable defense and make a summary and analysis about how to lighten or release the criminal punishment. That means lightening or releasing the criminal punishment should consider the following factors: one is the degree of beyond the justifiable defense. The second is the form of offence, i.e. different forms of offence show different psychological states of people to defense. The third is the nature of rights and interests. The fourth one is social psychological influence. The third part is the special defense right. This part is discussed from four aspects. The first one is the definition of special defense right. The second one is the legislation meaning of special defense, i.e. the set-up of special defense right is propitious to protecting human right effectively, showing the equal value of criminal law, keeping within limits of crime and the development of economy and society. The third one is the condition of the set-up of special defense right and makes an analysis on the origin condition, time condition, object condition, subjective condition and limit condition, these five aspects. The fourth one is the legislation defect of special defense right. There are mainly three aspects: the first is unclear definition leading to different meanings; the second one is hard quotation; the third one is the set-up of right defense will lead to abuse of right defense right. The fourth part is the consideration of consummating the right defense system by integration the analysis upwards and elucidation the problems in judicatory judgement practice, and bring forwards the author’s own opinions on the controversial problem of action beyond the justifiable defense and special defense. One is to abolish the regulation on commit in special defense; the second one clarifies the statement in Article 20, Section 3 which is newly added in the criminal law; the third one adds the regulation of onus probandi inversion in special defense. Above all, the purpose of right defense is to eliminate, put down illegitimacy and protect common property and civil right. The right definition of right defense is good for encouraging people fighting with crime, putting down illegitimacy and punishing crime effetely. It is important to social stabilization. Therefore, how to consummate right defense combining with the regulation on right defense in our current criminal law and the practical problem which lies in law judgment practice is a fundamental question in criminal law theory.
本文针对以上问题分成四个部分进行了论述,第一部分是正当防卫的概述。第二部分是防卫过当的罪过形式及刑事责任。第三部分是特殊防卫权的相关问题。第四部分是完善正当防卫制度的思考,通过综合对以上问题的评析,具体阐明司法审判实践在这方面存在的问题,同时对争论较为激烈的防卫过当及特殊防卫的问题提出自己的认识。因此结构合理,论述基本成立
Right defense is an action by which a person protects the national or public benefit, himself or other’s body ,belongings or rights from any bodily harm arising out of an encounters or attacks from other person either by protecting him or by blocking the opponents advancement by a counter attack.. In our national judicatory practice, right defense is the most active hotpot in the current criminal law, there is a debate whether right defense is beyond the necessary limit or not. Therefore, whether the action is right defense or beyond the justifiable defense, special defense or doing harm on purpose is educed. Finally, there is confusion about the accurate and objective nature of the action.
Aiming at these problems upwards, this thesis makes the discussion from four parts. The first part summarizes the right defense. About conditions of right defense, in writer’s opinion, it should include five conditions. Firstly, the purpose of right defense should be protecting the national or public benefit, himself or other’s body, belongings or rights from illegal harm; secondly, the reason of right defense should be objective illegitimacy; thirdly, the time of right defense should be during the process of the illegitimacy; fourthly, the object of right defense should be the criminal himself or herself; fifthly, the limit of right defense should not exceed the necessary limit and cause huge damage. In the second part, it is about the offence form and criminal punishment of right defense, it is explained from four aspects. The first and second aspects make some research on the nature of right defense and how to decide the action beyond the justifiable defense. That means right defense is obviously beyond the justifiable defense and makes huge damage to other people. It should answer for the objective and subjective condition and go beyond the necessary limit obviously in order to define the action beyond justifiable defense. In the third aspect, it analyses and discusses on the disputed points of view on the offence forms under current criminal law and educes that right defense should not include direct doing harm on purpose but indirect doing harm or defect. Finally, the author makes a deep expatiation on the principles about how to punish the action beyond justifiable defense and make a summary and analysis about how to lighten or release the criminal punishment. That means lightening or releasing the criminal punishment should consider the following factors: one is the degree of beyond the justifiable defense. The second is the form of offence, i.e. different forms of offence show different psychological states of people to defense. The third is the nature of rights and interests. The fourth one is social psychological influence. The third part is the special defense right. This part is discussed from four aspects. The first one is the definition of special defense right. The second one is the legislation meaning of special defense, i.e. the set-up of special defense right is propitious to protecting human right effectively, showing the equal value of criminal law, keeping within limits of crime and the development of economy and society. The third one is the condition of the set-up of special defense right and makes an analysis on the origin condition, time condition, object condition, subjective condition and limit condition, these five aspects. The fourth one is the legislation defect of special defense right. There are mainly three aspects: the first is unclear definition leading to different meanings; the second one is hard quotation; the third one is the set-up of right defense will lead to abuse of right defense right. The fourth part is the consideration of consummating the right defense system by integration the analysis upwards and elucidation the problems in judicatory judgement practice, and bring forwards the author’s own opinions on the controversial problem of action beyond the justifiable defense and special defense. One is to abolish the regulation on commit in special defense; the second one clarifies the statement in Article 20, Section 3 which is newly added in the criminal law; the third one adds the regulation of onus probandi inversion in special defense. Above all, the purpose of right defense is to eliminate, put down illegitimacy and protect common property and civil right. The right definition of right defense is good for encouraging people fighting with crime, putting down illegitimacy and punishing crime effetely. It is important to social stabilization. Therefore, how to consummate right defense combining with the regulation on right defense in our current criminal law and the practical problem which lies in law judgment practice is a fundamental question in criminal law theory.
引文
[1]参见陈兴良著《刑法适用总论》上卷,法律出版社 1999 年出版,第289 页。
[2]参见赵秉志主编《刑法争议问题研究》上卷,河南人民出版社 1996年版,第 525 页以下。
[3]参见姜伟《正当防卫论》法律出版社 1988 年版,第 71 页以下。
[4]在防卫人事先已经预测不法侵害的情况下,则可能要求防卫人选择适当的防卫手段。
[5]参见向朝阳主编:《中国刑法学教程》,四川大学出版社 2002 年出版,第 77 页。
[6]参见高铭暄主编:《新编中国刑法学》(上编),中国人民大学出版社1999 年版。
[7]参见金凯著:《论正当防卫与防卫过当的界限》,载自《中国法学研究》1981 年,第 1 期;《关于正当防卫的几个问题的研究》,载自《刑事法律专题研究》,群众出版社 1989 版。
[8]参见郑德豹著:《也论正当防卫与防卫过当的界限》,载自《法学研究》1981 年,第 6 期;《刑法学》(上),法律出版社 1997 年版。
[9]参见利子平著:《防卫过当的罪过形式》,载自《法学评论》1984 年,第 2 期。
[10]参见王政勋著:《正当防卫论》,法律出版社 2000 年版。
[11]参见陈兴良、郎胜、姜伟、张军著:《刑法纵横谈》(总则部分),法律出版社 2003 年版,第 190 页。
[12]参见陈兴良、郎胜、姜伟、张军著:《刑法纵横谈》(总则部分),法律出版社 2003 年版,第 191 页。
[13]参见陈兴良、郎胜、姜伟、张军著:《刑法纵横谈》(总则部分),法律出版社 2003 年版,第 191 页。
[14][法]孟德斯鸡:《论法的精神》(上卷),商务印书馆出版,1961 年版,第 137 页。
[15]陈兴良著:《本体刑法学》,商务印书馆,2001 年 8 月第 l 版,第 433页。
[16]赵秉志主编:《疑难刑事总是司法对策》(第二集),吉林人民出版社,1999 年 6 月第 1 版,第 79 页。
[17]转引自陈兴良主编:《刑事法总论》,群众出版社,2000 年!月第 1版,第 288 页。
[18]参见丁慕英、李淳、胡云腾主编:《刑法实施中的重点难点问题是研究》,法律出版社 1998 年版。
[19]参见刘艳红著:《李植贵的行为是否正当防卫—关于“行凶”的一次实证考察》,法律出版社 2001 年第 2 版,载自陈兴良主编:《刑事法判解》第 3 卷。
[20]参见司明灯著:《论特殊防卫的构成要件》,载自马松建、史卫忠主编:《刑法理论与司法认定问题研究》,中国检察出版社 2001 年 5 月版。
[21]参见陈兴良著:《论无过当之防卫》,方正出版社 2000 年版,载自《刑法争鸣》第 2 辑。
[22]参见张明楷、黎宏、周光权著:《刑法新问题探究》,清华大学出版社 2003 年 10 月第 1 版,第 95 页。
[23]参见高铭暄著:《正当防卫问题研究》,法律出版社 2002 年 10 月出版,第 231 页,载自高铭暄、赵秉志主 编:《刑法论从》第 6 卷。
1.陈兴良著:《刑法适用总论》上卷,法律出版社 1999 年出版。
2.赵秉志主编:《刑法争议问题研究》上卷,河南人民出版社 1996 年版。
3.姜伟:《正当防卫论》法律出版社 1988 年版。
4.向朝阳主编:《中国刑法学教程》,四川大学出版社 2002 年出版。
5.高铭暄主编:《新编中国刑法学》(上编),中国人民大学出版社 1999年版。
6.参见金凯著:《论正当防卫与防卫过当的界限》,载自《中国法学研究》1981 年,第 1 期;《关于正当防卫的几个问题的研究》,载自《刑事法律专题研究》,群众出版社 1989 版。
7.陈兴良、郎胜、姜伟、张军著:《刑法纵横谈》(总则部分),法律出版社 2003 年版。
8.陈兴良著:《本体刑法学》,商务印书馆,2001 年第 l 版。
9.赵秉志主编:《疑难刑事总是司法对策》(第二集),吉林人民出版社,1999 年 6 月第 1 版。
10.陈兴良主编:《刑事法总论》,群众出版社,2000 年第 1 版。
11.丁慕英、李淳、胡云腾主编:《刑法实施中的重点难点问题是研究》,法律出版社 1998 年版。
12.刘艳红著:《李植贵的行为是否正当防卫—关于“行凶”的一次实证考察》,法律出版社 2001 年第 2 版,载自陈兴良主编:《刑事法判解》第 3 卷。
13.司明灯著:《论特殊防卫的构成要件》,载自马松建、史卫忠主编:《刑法理论与司法认定问题研究》,中国检察出版社 2001 年版。
14.陈兴良著:《论无过当之防卫》,方正出版社 2000 年版,载自《刑法争鸣》第 2 辑。
15.张明楷、黎宏、周光权著:《刑法新问题探究》,清华大学出版社 2003年第 1 版。
16.张明楷著:《刑法学》(第二版),法律出版社 2004 年第 2 版。
[2]参见赵秉志主编《刑法争议问题研究》上卷,河南人民出版社 1996年版,第 525 页以下。
[3]参见姜伟《正当防卫论》法律出版社 1988 年版,第 71 页以下。
[4]在防卫人事先已经预测不法侵害的情况下,则可能要求防卫人选择适当的防卫手段。
[5]参见向朝阳主编:《中国刑法学教程》,四川大学出版社 2002 年出版,第 77 页。
[6]参见高铭暄主编:《新编中国刑法学》(上编),中国人民大学出版社1999 年版。
[7]参见金凯著:《论正当防卫与防卫过当的界限》,载自《中国法学研究》1981 年,第 1 期;《关于正当防卫的几个问题的研究》,载自《刑事法律专题研究》,群众出版社 1989 版。
[8]参见郑德豹著:《也论正当防卫与防卫过当的界限》,载自《法学研究》1981 年,第 6 期;《刑法学》(上),法律出版社 1997 年版。
[9]参见利子平著:《防卫过当的罪过形式》,载自《法学评论》1984 年,第 2 期。
[10]参见王政勋著:《正当防卫论》,法律出版社 2000 年版。
[11]参见陈兴良、郎胜、姜伟、张军著:《刑法纵横谈》(总则部分),法律出版社 2003 年版,第 190 页。
[12]参见陈兴良、郎胜、姜伟、张军著:《刑法纵横谈》(总则部分),法律出版社 2003 年版,第 191 页。
[13]参见陈兴良、郎胜、姜伟、张军著:《刑法纵横谈》(总则部分),法律出版社 2003 年版,第 191 页。
[14][法]孟德斯鸡:《论法的精神》(上卷),商务印书馆出版,1961 年版,第 137 页。
[15]陈兴良著:《本体刑法学》,商务印书馆,2001 年 8 月第 l 版,第 433页。
[16]赵秉志主编:《疑难刑事总是司法对策》(第二集),吉林人民出版社,1999 年 6 月第 1 版,第 79 页。
[17]转引自陈兴良主编:《刑事法总论》,群众出版社,2000 年!月第 1版,第 288 页。
[18]参见丁慕英、李淳、胡云腾主编:《刑法实施中的重点难点问题是研究》,法律出版社 1998 年版。
[19]参见刘艳红著:《李植贵的行为是否正当防卫—关于“行凶”的一次实证考察》,法律出版社 2001 年第 2 版,载自陈兴良主编:《刑事法判解》第 3 卷。
[20]参见司明灯著:《论特殊防卫的构成要件》,载自马松建、史卫忠主编:《刑法理论与司法认定问题研究》,中国检察出版社 2001 年 5 月版。
[21]参见陈兴良著:《论无过当之防卫》,方正出版社 2000 年版,载自《刑法争鸣》第 2 辑。
[22]参见张明楷、黎宏、周光权著:《刑法新问题探究》,清华大学出版社 2003 年 10 月第 1 版,第 95 页。
[23]参见高铭暄著:《正当防卫问题研究》,法律出版社 2002 年 10 月出版,第 231 页,载自高铭暄、赵秉志主 编:《刑法论从》第 6 卷。
1.陈兴良著:《刑法适用总论》上卷,法律出版社 1999 年出版。
2.赵秉志主编:《刑法争议问题研究》上卷,河南人民出版社 1996 年版。
3.姜伟:《正当防卫论》法律出版社 1988 年版。
4.向朝阳主编:《中国刑法学教程》,四川大学出版社 2002 年出版。
5.高铭暄主编:《新编中国刑法学》(上编),中国人民大学出版社 1999年版。
6.参见金凯著:《论正当防卫与防卫过当的界限》,载自《中国法学研究》1981 年,第 1 期;《关于正当防卫的几个问题的研究》,载自《刑事法律专题研究》,群众出版社 1989 版。
7.陈兴良、郎胜、姜伟、张军著:《刑法纵横谈》(总则部分),法律出版社 2003 年版。
8.陈兴良著:《本体刑法学》,商务印书馆,2001 年第 l 版。
9.赵秉志主编:《疑难刑事总是司法对策》(第二集),吉林人民出版社,1999 年 6 月第 1 版。
10.陈兴良主编:《刑事法总论》,群众出版社,2000 年第 1 版。
11.丁慕英、李淳、胡云腾主编:《刑法实施中的重点难点问题是研究》,法律出版社 1998 年版。
12.刘艳红著:《李植贵的行为是否正当防卫—关于“行凶”的一次实证考察》,法律出版社 2001 年第 2 版,载自陈兴良主编:《刑事法判解》第 3 卷。
13.司明灯著:《论特殊防卫的构成要件》,载自马松建、史卫忠主编:《刑法理论与司法认定问题研究》,中国检察出版社 2001 年版。
14.陈兴良著:《论无过当之防卫》,方正出版社 2000 年版,载自《刑法争鸣》第 2 辑。
15.张明楷、黎宏、周光权著:《刑法新问题探究》,清华大学出版社 2003年第 1 版。
16.张明楷著:《刑法学》(第二版),法律出版社 2004 年第 2 版。