【摘要】：綁架罪是一種傳統(tǒng)、典型的嚴重暴力性犯罪,在當下經(jīng)濟高速發(fā)展的中國,綁架案件的發(fā)生依然能夠引起社會各界的廣泛關(guān)注。綁架罪從1997年刑法設(shè)立至今,已經(jīng)歷兩次刑法修正案的修改。立法上的頻繁改動也反映了綁架罪所帶來的爭議頗多,不論是理論界還是實務(wù)界,都對綁架罪的諸多爭議問題保持高度的關(guān)注。筆者自讀研以來,便對綁架罪的理論問題產(chǎn)生了濃厚興趣。筆者認為,綁架罪的諸多理論爭議中,最為核心的也是最具理論價值的便是綁架罪的法益問題。綁架罪之所以會產(chǎn)生各種各樣的爭議,首先便是因為法益這一本源問題存在爭議。只有厘清和界定出綁架罪的法益內(nèi)涵,我們才能進一步解決諸如綁架罪的單復行為爭議以及目的犯的實質(zhì)等問題。此外,也可以更好地指導司法實踐中存在的相似罪名難以界定等問題。不論是揭示綁架罪法益問題的理論漏洞,還是發(fā)揮法益在綁架罪司法實踐中的功能,都要首先確立本文的立論前提和基本立場。這一基本立場包含了兩個方面:第一是對綁架罪進行文化背景和制度史的考察,從古代到當下中國,既有綁架罪立法的制度變遷史的考察,也有立法背后的人文社會環(huán)境因素的考察,如封建法制承繼下的重刑主義。第二是闡述當下法益理論在中國產(chǎn)生與發(fā)展,這是基于一種學說史的考察,還包括了法益內(nèi)涵與功能的介紹與闡述。這兩個方面結(jié)合在一起能夠全面深刻地反映出綁架罪法益問題的知識背景和理論前提。在確立了基本立場的前提下,對綁架罪法益問題進行理論上的解構(gòu)。通過分析和對比當下綁架罪法益理論的諸多不同觀點,逐步確立了單一法益說中的一種比較科學的理論。這種比較分析是通過對各個理論所存在的邏輯上的不能自洽來展現(xiàn)的。以此為基礎(chǔ),通過對綁架罪類法益的解讀以及重刑主義引發(fā)邏輯錯位的原因分析,基本找出了綁架罪法益困境產(chǎn)生的主要原因。在對綁架罪法益問題的理論分歧產(chǎn)生原因進行解構(gòu)的同時,也逐漸梳理和呈現(xiàn)出綁架罪法益的理論建構(gòu)路徑。首先,通過理論闡述,確立了綁架罪法益的基本內(nèi)涵,既包括基于行為手段視角上的闡述,也有基于法益保護擇一關(guān)系的實質(zhì)考察。理論建構(gòu)的最終目的是為了更好地指導司法實踐,因此,在厘清了法益內(nèi)涵的基礎(chǔ)上,通過對綁架罪第2款規(guī)定的法益解釋和其他相似罪名的比較分析,基本實現(xiàn)了綁架罪法益的指導和解釋犯罪構(gòu)成要件的機能。
[Abstract]:Kidnapping is a kind of traditional and typical serious violent crime. In China, where the economy is developing rapidly, the occurrence of kidnapping cases can still attract extensive attention from all walks of life. Since the establishment of the criminal law in 1997, the crime of kidnapping has gone through two amendments to the criminal law. The frequent changes in legislation also reflect that there are a lot of disputes caused by the crime of kidnapping, both in the theoretical and practical circles, have maintained a high degree of attention to many controversial issues of the crime of kidnapping. Since studying in graduate school, the author has had a strong interest in the theoretical problem of kidnapping crime. The author believes that among the many theoretical disputes of kidnapping crime, the core and most valuable one is the legal interest of kidnapping crime. The crime of kidnapping produces all kinds of disputes, first of all, because the source of legal interest is controversial. Only by clarifying and defining the connotation of the legal interest of kidnapping crime can we further solve the problems such as the dispute of single reply behavior of kidnapping crime and the essence of purpose crime. In addition, it can also better guide the judicial practice of similar charges are difficult to define and so on. Whether it is to reveal the theoretical loophole of the legal interest of kidnapping crime, or to give full play to the function of legal interest in the judicial practice of kidnapping crime, we must first establish the premise and basic position of this paper. This basic position includes two aspects: the first is to investigate the cultural background and institutional history of kidnapping crime. From ancient times to the present China, there are not only the history of institutional change of kidnapping legislation, but also the investigation of humanistic and social environmental factors behind the legislation, such as the doctrine of severe punishment inherited by feudal legal system. The second is to explain the emergence and development of the current legal interest theory in China, which is based on the investigation of the history of a theory, and also includes the introduction and exposition of the connotation and function of the legal interest. The combination of these two aspects can comprehensively and profoundly reflect the knowledge background and theoretical premise of the legal interest of kidnapping crime. On the premise of establishing the basic position, the legal interest of kidnapping crime is deconstructed theoretically. By analyzing and comparing many different viewpoints of the current theory of legal interest of kidnapping crime, a more scientific theory in the theory of single legal interest is gradually established. This comparative analysis is shown by the logical inconsistency of each theory. On this basis, through the interpretation of the legal interests of kidnapping crime and the analysis of the causes of logical dislocation caused by felony, the main reasons for the predicament of legal interests in kidnapping crime are basically found out. While deconstructing the causes of the theoretical differences in the legal interest of kidnapping crime, it also gradually combs and presents the theoretical construction path of the legal interest of kidnapping crime. First of all, through the theoretical exposition, the basic connotation of the legal interest of kidnapping crime is established, which includes not only the exposition based on the perspective of behavioral means, but also the substantive investigation based on the alternative relationship of legal interest protection. The ultimate purpose of the theoretical construction is to better guide the judicial practice. Therefore, on the basis of clarifying the connotation of the legal interest, through the comparative analysis of the interpretation of the legal interest stipulated in paragraph 2 of the crime of kidnapping and other similar charges, the function of guiding and explaining the constituent elements of the crime of kidnapping is basically realized.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.3

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王文祖,申屠青;從兩案看綁架罪與搶劫罪的區(qū)別[J];河南公安高等�？茖W校學報;2004年05期

2 姚劍;;綁架罪? 還是以搶劫罪和綁架罪實行數(shù)罪并罰?[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(上旬刊);2008年12期

3 陳如春,甄麗君;彭某等人構(gòu)成綁架罪[J];天津市政法管理干部學院學報;1999年01期

4 王宗光;論綁架罪的認定[J];法律適用;2000年05期

5 肖俊德,樊洪;略論綁架罪的幾個問題[J];中州學刊;2000年06期

6 田宏杰,許成磊;海峽兩岸綁架罪之比較研究[J];云南法學;2000年02期

7 肖中華;;關(guān)于綁架罪的幾點思考[J];法學家;2000年02期

8 王超杰,李冬梅;論綁架罪的認定[J];福建公安高等�？茖W校學報.社會公共安全研究;2001年06期

9 杜國強;綁架罪若干問題研究[J];河北法學;2001年06期

10 夏強;綁架罪質(zhì)疑[J];浙江省政法管理干部學院學報;2001年02期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 朱明鎖;綁架罪的主體及其定罪量刑[N];檢察日報;2000年

2 朱奎;綁架女兒勒索妻子 是否構(gòu)成綁架罪[N];檢察日報;2005年

3 中國社會科學院法學所研究員 曾慶敏;綁架罪疑難問題淺析[N];檢察日報;2002年

4 豐誠福邋何愛國;綁架罪疑難問題解析[N];檢察日報;2007年

5 江西省高級人民法院 居國屏邋湯媛媛;本案應(yīng)以強奸罪和綁架罪數(shù)罪并罰[N];人民法院報;2008年

6 記者 陳麗平;綁架罪最低刑不宜降低為三年[N];法制日報;2008年

7 趙秉志　趙遠;試論綁架罪的立法完善[N];法制日報;2009年

8 上海市青浦區(qū)人民檢察院 陳海燕;“不法要求”并非人質(zhì)型綁架罪的構(gòu)罪條件[N];檢察日報;2009年

9 記者 王麗麗;綁架罪三年起刑偏輕[N];檢察日報;2008年

10 重慶市江北區(qū)人民法院 付鳴劍　最高人民法院 牛克乾;本案構(gòu)成搶劫罪還是綁架罪[N];人民法院報;2010年

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前10條

1 馮玉東;對綁架罪和搶劫罪界限的探析[D];西南政法大學;2008年

2 葛依然;“人質(zhì)型”搶劫的性質(zhì)界定[D];蘇州大學;2015年

3 黃嬌嬌;綁架罪司法認定研究[D];黑龍江大學;2014年

4 周超;綁架罪既遂標準研究[D];安徽財經(jīng)大學;2017年

5 趙晨翔;綁架罪加重構(gòu)成條款的再研究[D];武漢大學;2017年

6 陳建武;論綁架罪的既遂標準[D];吉林大學;2017年

7 程文超;綁架罪法益問題研究[D];吉林大學;2017年

8 虎文博;論綁架罪的實行行為[D];吉林大學;2017年

9 任崢;綁架罪司法疑難問題研究[D];貴州大學;2008年

10 蘇宇;綁架罪疑難問題研究[D];蘇州大學;2008年

，

本文編號：2510824