论过度饮酒人的刑事责任
|
摘要
过度饮酒的情形繁多且复杂,因此对于过度饮酒人的刑事责任能力有无与大小,犯罪后应否负法律责任以及应该负担何种法律责任等问题的认定就比较困难。我国刑法仅在第18条第4款中规定:“醉酒的人犯罪,应当负刑事责任。”虽然刑法修正案(八)中增加了一项对醉酒驾驶的罪名和法定刑的规定,但是司法实践中在认定过度饮酒人的刑事责任时仍困难重重。应在借鉴国外相关刑法理论的基础上不断完善我国的刑事立法,合理增加过度饮酒犯罪的刑事制裁方法,严格司法鉴定程序,同时也要加强与国外刑法学界的国际交流与合作,以期能为我国刑事立法和司法理论的完善提供有益的借鉴。醉酒主要有急性酒精中毒跟慢性酒精中毒两种情况,而急性酒精中毒又可分为生理性醉酒、病理性醉酒和复杂性酒精中毒三种类型。原因上的自由行为指的是行为人出于主观上的罪过实施了原因行为之后,在侵害具体法益时使自己处于完全无责任能力或限制责任能力状态,造成了法益侵害的结果或法益侵害危险的行为。根据西原春夫教授的“最终意思决定说”理论,造成法益侵害结果或法益侵害危险的行为是原因上的自由行为的实行行为,若行为人在原因行为时具备了责任能力,便可视为其在整个统一行为的过程中仍是具备责任能力的,应该被追究刑事责任。所以,在生理性醉酒的情形中,当行为人在原因行为时的罪过形式是故意的前提下,在结果行为时处于限制责任能力状态,若是主观罪过是故意,则依照故意犯罪承担限制性的刑事责任,若是主观罪过是过失,则依照过失犯罪承担限制性的刑事责任,都可以从轻或减轻刑事处罚。在病理性醉酒的情形中,若行为人原无醉酒史,则不需要承担刑事责任;若行为人原有醉酒史,则应当依照故意犯罪承担相应的刑事责任,至于其具体应承担何种的刑事责任,则应看其实行行为侵犯的是何种法益以及造成了何种危害结果。在复杂性酒精中毒的情形中,行为人在不能被司法鉴定为是精神病人的情况下,一般仍要对自己的行为承担相应的刑事责任,不过可以对其从轻或减轻刑事处罚。
A intemperate situation is various and complicated, so it is difficult to affirm the criminal responsibility of intemperate people with size, the legal responsibility whether should bear and what legal responsibility should burden after committing a crime. The Criminal Law of our country only sets in clause 4 of article 18 "an intoxicated person,who commits a crime shall bear criminal responsibility." Although The Criminal Law Amendment (8) increased in a study of drunk driving charges and legal punishment this year, but the provisions of the criminal responsibility of the intemperate people in the judicial practice are still fraught with difficulties. So we should perfect the criminal legislation in reference to the related theory of foreign criminal laws, increase the reasonable criminal sanction methods of drunk crime, set a strict drunken judicial authentication procedure, and at the same time, strengthen the international exchange and cooperation with foreign criminal law educational world , hoping to offer beneficial reference for the perfection of our criminal legislation and judicial theory, which is of great theoretical value and practical significance. Intemperance mainly has acute alcohol poisoning and chronic alcoholism two kinds, while acute alcohol poisoning can divide into physiologic drunkenness, pathological drunkenness and complexity drunkenness three kinds of situations. Action libera in causa means the conduct of actor causes legal interest violations of the results or danger when he is in a fully no accountability or limit responsibility at the time of encroaching on specific legal interests, after his reason behavior out of subjective transgression. According to Eventually mean decision said of Nishihara Haruo, only the ones cause the violations of legal interests or dangerous violations of legal interests that is the conduct under the circumstance of Actio libera in causa, if actor has liability when perpetrate reason conduct ,he shall be deemed the ability in the whole process of unified conduct and should investigated for criminal responsibility. So, in the case of physiological drunkenness, the offender form in reason behavior is intention, and actor has limited liability in results conduct ,he shall undertake limited criminal responsibility, if the subjective power state is intention, the criminal responsibility is in accordance with intentional crime ,and if the subjective power state is negligent, the criminal responsibility is in accordance with a negligence crime , but may be lighter or mitigate criminal punishment. In pathologic drunken cases, if no drunken history, actor originally do not require criminal responsibility; if the actor had a history of drunkenness, shall bear intentionally corresponding criminal responsibility, as for its specific criminal responsibility it is in accordance with the legal interests and the violations. In complexity alcohol poisoning cases, if actor cannot be judicial identified mental patient, generally still bear corresponding criminal responsibility, but can lighter or mitigate criminal punishment.
A intemperate situation is various and complicated, so it is difficult to affirm the criminal responsibility of intemperate people with size, the legal responsibility whether should bear and what legal responsibility should burden after committing a crime. The Criminal Law of our country only sets in clause 4 of article 18 "an intoxicated person,who commits a crime shall bear criminal responsibility." Although The Criminal Law Amendment (8) increased in a study of drunk driving charges and legal punishment this year, but the provisions of the criminal responsibility of the intemperate people in the judicial practice are still fraught with difficulties. So we should perfect the criminal legislation in reference to the related theory of foreign criminal laws, increase the reasonable criminal sanction methods of drunk crime, set a strict drunken judicial authentication procedure, and at the same time, strengthen the international exchange and cooperation with foreign criminal law educational world , hoping to offer beneficial reference for the perfection of our criminal legislation and judicial theory, which is of great theoretical value and practical significance. Intemperance mainly has acute alcohol poisoning and chronic alcoholism two kinds, while acute alcohol poisoning can divide into physiologic drunkenness, pathological drunkenness and complexity drunkenness three kinds of situations. Action libera in causa means the conduct of actor causes legal interest violations of the results or danger when he is in a fully no accountability or limit responsibility at the time of encroaching on specific legal interests, after his reason behavior out of subjective transgression. According to Eventually mean decision said of Nishihara Haruo, only the ones cause the violations of legal interests or dangerous violations of legal interests that is the conduct under the circumstance of Actio libera in causa, if actor has liability when perpetrate reason conduct ,he shall be deemed the ability in the whole process of unified conduct and should investigated for criminal responsibility. So, in the case of physiological drunkenness, the offender form in reason behavior is intention, and actor has limited liability in results conduct ,he shall undertake limited criminal responsibility, if the subjective power state is intention, the criminal responsibility is in accordance with intentional crime ,and if the subjective power state is negligent, the criminal responsibility is in accordance with a negligence crime , but may be lighter or mitigate criminal punishment. In pathologic drunken cases, if no drunken history, actor originally do not require criminal responsibility; if the actor had a history of drunkenness, shall bear intentionally corresponding criminal responsibility, as for its specific criminal responsibility it is in accordance with the legal interests and the violations. In complexity alcohol poisoning cases, if actor cannot be judicial identified mental patient, generally still bear corresponding criminal responsibility, but can lighter or mitigate criminal punishment.
引文
[1]张东军等.酒精相关违法行为的犯罪学特点分析[J].法医学杂志,2007,(2).
[2]付立庆.论生理醉酒犯罪的刑事责任—比较、分梳与改造[J].法律与医学杂志,2002,(2).
[3]郑瞻培.病理性半醒状态[J].国外医学精神病学分册,1989,16:205.
[4]黄风译.最新意大利刑法典/法典译丛[Z].北京:法律出版社,2007年版.
[5]徐久生,庄敬华.瑞士联邦刑法典[Z].北京:中国方正出版社,2003年版.
[6]马克昌.责任能力比较研究[J].现代法学,2001,(3).
[7]黄道秀译.俄罗斯联邦刑法典释义(上册)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999年版.
[8]张明楷.外国刑法学纲要[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1999年版,第112页.
[9]徐久生.德意志联邦共和国刑法典[Z].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1991年版,第183页.
[10]储槐植.美国刑法(第二版)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1996年版.
[11]张明楷.外国刑法中的原因上的自由行为[J].河北法学,1991,5.
[13]张明楷.外国刑法中的原因上的自由行为[J].河北法学,1991年第五期:第16页.
[14] [日]木村龟二.刑法学词典[Z].上海:上海翻译出版公司,1991,第231页.
[16]徐文宗.论刑法的原因上的自由行为[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006年版,第87页.
[17]张明楷.外国刑法中的原因上的自由行为[J].河北法学,1991(5):第14页.
[18] [日]平野龙一.正犯と实行,载平野龙一.犯罪论の诸问题(上)[M].有斐阁,1981年版,第129页.
[19] [日]团藤重光.刑法纲要总论(第三版)[M].创文社,1990年版,第153 - 164页.
[20]马克昌著.比较刑法原理—外国刑法学总论[M].湖北:武汉大学出版社,2002年版,第466页.
[21] [德]汉斯·海因里希·耶塞克、托马斯·魏根特著,徐久生译.德国刑法教科书[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2001,第535页.
[22]转自牛牪.原因上的自由行为研究[D].吉林大学,2004年硕士学位论文.
[1]韩忠漠.刑法原理[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[2]赵秉志.犯罪总论问题探索[M].北京:中国法律出版社,2003.
[3]郑瞻培.短暂性精神障碍的易发作,司法精神[M].上海:上海医科大学出版社,1997.
[4]沈渔邨.精神病学[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2008.
[5]苏慧渔.刑法学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1994.
[6]赵秉志.犯罪主体论[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1989.
[7]薛瑞麟.俄罗斯刑法研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[8]洪福增.刑事责任之理论[M].台湾:五兰图书出版公司,1998.
[9]赵秉志.疑难刑事问题司法对策[M].吉林:吉林出版社,1999.
[10]马克昌主编.犯罪通论[M].湖北:武汉大学出版社,1999.
[11]高铭暄主编.中国刑法学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1989.
[12]陈兴良.刑法学教科书之规范刑法学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[13]喻伟.刑法学专题研究[M].湖北:武汉大学出版社,1992.
[14]赵秉志.刑法新教程[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[15]马克昌.刑法学全书[M].上海:上海科学技术文献出版社,1993.
[16]黄丁全.刑事责任能力研究[M].北京:中国方正出版社,2000.
[17]储怀植.美国刑法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[18]马世民.精神疾病的司法鉴定[M].上海:上海医科大学出版社,1998.
[19]王晨.刑事责任的一般理论[M].湖北:武汉大学出版社,1998.
[20]黄丁全.社会相当性理论研究[A].刑事法评论[C].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[21]刘士心.论原因自由行为[A].刑事法评论[C].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[22]高铭暄,马克昌.刑法学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2000.
[23]冯军译.德国刑法典[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[24]徐久生译.瑞士联邦刑法典[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1999.
[25]马克昌主编.比较刑法原理[M].湖北:武汉大学出版社,2002.
[26]徐文宗.论刑法的原因自由行为[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[27]张明楷.刑法的基本立场[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
[28][意]杜里奥帕多瓦尼著,陈忠林译.意大利刑法学原理[M].北京:法律出版社,1998.
[29][德]汉斯海因里希耶塞克,托马斯魏根特著,徐久生译.德国刑法教科书[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2001.
[30][日]川端博著,余振华译.刑法总论二十五讲[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[31][日]木村龟二.刑法学词典[Z].上海:上海翻译出版公司,1991.
[32][日]平野龙一.正犯と实行,载平野龙一.犯罪论の诸问题(上)[M].有斐阁,1981年版.
[33] [日]团藤重光.刑法纲要总论(第三版)[M].创文社,1990年版.
[34][日]西原春夫.责任能力の存在时期,载团藤重光等编.佐伯千仞博士还历祝贺·犯罪と刑罚(上)[M].有斐阁,1968年版.
[35]张淑琴.病理性半醒状态一例[J].齐齐哈尔医学院学报,2001,22.
[36]刘士心.论中国刑法中的原因自由行为-兼论新《刑法》第18条的完善[J].河北法学,2002,2.
[37]刘生荣.论刑法中的严格责任[J].法学研究,1999,1.
[38]黄继坤,赵俊新.英美刑法处理醉态犯罪的一般原则[J].中国刑事法杂志,2005,5.
[39]陈家林.也论原因自由行为[J].法学家,2000,6.
[40]魏峰,郭跃.如何认定原因自由行为的着手[J].安徽农业大学学报,2003,11.
[41]罗丽.原因自由行为的基本问题探讨[J].西华师范大学学报,2005,6.
[42]张明楷.外国刑法中的原因自由行为[J].河北法学,1991,5.
[43]郑瞻培.病理性激情的概念和诊断-答读者来信[J].临床精神医学杂志,1999,9.
[44]梅传强,胡江.危险驾驶行为入罪的分类分析[J].法学,2009,9.
[45]郑瞻培.病理性半醒状态[J].国外医学精神病学分册,1989,16.
[46]孙月琴.醉酒犯罪人的刑事责任力.http://www.law999.net/dissertation/ doc/XNFA/2003/04/23/00002863.html.
[2]付立庆.论生理醉酒犯罪的刑事责任—比较、分梳与改造[J].法律与医学杂志,2002,(2).
[3]郑瞻培.病理性半醒状态[J].国外医学精神病学分册,1989,16:205.
[4]黄风译.最新意大利刑法典/法典译丛[Z].北京:法律出版社,2007年版.
[5]徐久生,庄敬华.瑞士联邦刑法典[Z].北京:中国方正出版社,2003年版.
[6]马克昌.责任能力比较研究[J].现代法学,2001,(3).
[7]黄道秀译.俄罗斯联邦刑法典释义(上册)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999年版.
[8]张明楷.外国刑法学纲要[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1999年版,第112页.
[9]徐久生.德意志联邦共和国刑法典[Z].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1991年版,第183页.
[10]储槐植.美国刑法(第二版)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1996年版.
[11]张明楷.外国刑法中的原因上的自由行为[J].河北法学,1991,5.
[13]张明楷.外国刑法中的原因上的自由行为[J].河北法学,1991年第五期:第16页.
[14] [日]木村龟二.刑法学词典[Z].上海:上海翻译出版公司,1991,第231页.
[16]徐文宗.论刑法的原因上的自由行为[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006年版,第87页.
[17]张明楷.外国刑法中的原因上的自由行为[J].河北法学,1991(5):第14页.
[18] [日]平野龙一.正犯と实行,载平野龙一.犯罪论の诸问题(上)[M].有斐阁,1981年版,第129页.
[19] [日]团藤重光.刑法纲要总论(第三版)[M].创文社,1990年版,第153 - 164页.
[20]马克昌著.比较刑法原理—外国刑法学总论[M].湖北:武汉大学出版社,2002年版,第466页.
[21] [德]汉斯·海因里希·耶塞克、托马斯·魏根特著,徐久生译.德国刑法教科书[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2001,第535页.
[22]转自牛牪.原因上的自由行为研究[D].吉林大学,2004年硕士学位论文.
[1]韩忠漠.刑法原理[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[2]赵秉志.犯罪总论问题探索[M].北京:中国法律出版社,2003.
[3]郑瞻培.短暂性精神障碍的易发作,司法精神[M].上海:上海医科大学出版社,1997.
[4]沈渔邨.精神病学[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2008.
[5]苏慧渔.刑法学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1994.
[6]赵秉志.犯罪主体论[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1989.
[7]薛瑞麟.俄罗斯刑法研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[8]洪福增.刑事责任之理论[M].台湾:五兰图书出版公司,1998.
[9]赵秉志.疑难刑事问题司法对策[M].吉林:吉林出版社,1999.
[10]马克昌主编.犯罪通论[M].湖北:武汉大学出版社,1999.
[11]高铭暄主编.中国刑法学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1989.
[12]陈兴良.刑法学教科书之规范刑法学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[13]喻伟.刑法学专题研究[M].湖北:武汉大学出版社,1992.
[14]赵秉志.刑法新教程[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[15]马克昌.刑法学全书[M].上海:上海科学技术文献出版社,1993.
[16]黄丁全.刑事责任能力研究[M].北京:中国方正出版社,2000.
[17]储怀植.美国刑法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[18]马世民.精神疾病的司法鉴定[M].上海:上海医科大学出版社,1998.
[19]王晨.刑事责任的一般理论[M].湖北:武汉大学出版社,1998.
[20]黄丁全.社会相当性理论研究[A].刑事法评论[C].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[21]刘士心.论原因自由行为[A].刑事法评论[C].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[22]高铭暄,马克昌.刑法学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2000.
[23]冯军译.德国刑法典[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[24]徐久生译.瑞士联邦刑法典[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1999.
[25]马克昌主编.比较刑法原理[M].湖北:武汉大学出版社,2002.
[26]徐文宗.论刑法的原因自由行为[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[27]张明楷.刑法的基本立场[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
[28][意]杜里奥帕多瓦尼著,陈忠林译.意大利刑法学原理[M].北京:法律出版社,1998.
[29][德]汉斯海因里希耶塞克,托马斯魏根特著,徐久生译.德国刑法教科书[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2001.
[30][日]川端博著,余振华译.刑法总论二十五讲[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[31][日]木村龟二.刑法学词典[Z].上海:上海翻译出版公司,1991.
[32][日]平野龙一.正犯と实行,载平野龙一.犯罪论の诸问题(上)[M].有斐阁,1981年版.
[33] [日]团藤重光.刑法纲要总论(第三版)[M].创文社,1990年版.
[34][日]西原春夫.责任能力の存在时期,载团藤重光等编.佐伯千仞博士还历祝贺·犯罪と刑罚(上)[M].有斐阁,1968年版.
[35]张淑琴.病理性半醒状态一例[J].齐齐哈尔医学院学报,2001,22.
[36]刘士心.论中国刑法中的原因自由行为-兼论新《刑法》第18条的完善[J].河北法学,2002,2.
[37]刘生荣.论刑法中的严格责任[J].法学研究,1999,1.
[38]黄继坤,赵俊新.英美刑法处理醉态犯罪的一般原则[J].中国刑事法杂志,2005,5.
[39]陈家林.也论原因自由行为[J].法学家,2000,6.
[40]魏峰,郭跃.如何认定原因自由行为的着手[J].安徽农业大学学报,2003,11.
[41]罗丽.原因自由行为的基本问题探讨[J].西华师范大学学报,2005,6.
[42]张明楷.外国刑法中的原因自由行为[J].河北法学,1991,5.
[43]郑瞻培.病理性激情的概念和诊断-答读者来信[J].临床精神医学杂志,1999,9.
[44]梅传强,胡江.危险驾驶行为入罪的分类分析[J].法学,2009,9.
[45]郑瞻培.病理性半醒状态[J].国外医学精神病学分册,1989,16.
[46]孙月琴.醉酒犯罪人的刑事责任力.http://www.law999.net/dissertation/ doc/XNFA/2003/04/23/00002863.html.