论未遂教唆与教唆未遂

未遂教唆与教唆未遂是一个常被我国刑法学者混为一谈的问题。本文就未遂教唆与教唆未遂的缘起、概念、特征、处罚原则、二者的的异同以及完善立法的措施等问题进行了探讨 ,这对完善我国刑事立法、丰富刑法理论和指导司法实践均具有重要的理论与现实意义     

试论教唆未遂与未遂教唆

在刑法理论中,教唆犯问题一直是一个棘手且存在广泛争议的问题。本文立足于我国立法,对教唆未遂与未遂教唆问题展开论述,进行梳理、分析,以期完善。     

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。     

教唆未遂之思辩

教唆未遂是一个既涉及共犯又涉及犯罪未完成形态的复杂问题,本文重点分析了教唆未遂的构成要件及刑事责任,在对我国刑法29条具体分析的基础上,进而对我国的刑法典提出了修正意见,以有利于我国刑法理论的发展。     

论教唆未遂之教唆犯的免除处罚

依据刑法第29条第2款,如果被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪,对于教唆犯,可以从轻或者减轻处罚。确定教唆未遂是犯罪预备,就可以对教唆未遂之教唆犯适用刑法第22条第2款的规定:"对于预备犯,可以比照既遂犯从轻、减轻处罚或者免除处罚。"这样,对于教唆未遂之教唆犯,既可以从轻、减轻处罚,还可以免除处罚。如此,既符合罪刑法定原则,也符合罪责刑相适应原则。     

对“教唆未遂”的思考

通说认为如果被教唆者没有犯被教唆的罪,教唆者可以构成教唆未遂。实际上教唆犯是行为犯,只要教 唆行为一实施完毕,即应构成教唆既遂。据刑法第29条规定,构成第1款的只具有从属性;构成第2款的只具有独立 性。因此不能笼统地认为教唆犯既具有从属性又具有独立性。     

“教唆未遂”诠释新解——关于体系性解释和目的解释方法的适用

教唆犯是我国刑法规定的共同犯罪人之一,对其性质的探讨应在我国共同犯罪的立法框架内进行。对刑法第29条第2款规定的理解,应根据我国刑法的立法规定,注意刑法条款的整体性和协调性。刑法第29条第2款规定的内容应属于教唆(型)共同犯罪的未遂。对其处罚,应遵循刑法关于犯罪未遂的处罚原则。     

再释“被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪”——与周光权教授商榷

我国的通说认为,对《刑法》第29条第2款中的"被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪",应按其字面含义解释为"被教唆的人没有按教唆犯的意思实施犯罪";不能以共犯从属性说为根据解释为,"被教唆的人已着手实行犯罪但没有既遂"。我国刑法不是采取德、日刑法那样的区分正犯与共犯的犯罪参与体系,而是采取单一正犯(犯罪人)体系,也没有采取德、日所流行的共犯从属性说,因而不存在按共犯从属性说做上述不同于通说之解释的法律基础。况且,即便是认为我国刑法采取了区分制和共犯从属性说,也不能否认其做出了处罚教唆未遂(即处罚"被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪"的教唆犯)的例外规定。德国刑法就是适例。德国的通说对他们刑法中的"教唆他人实施重罪而未遂"(即教唆未遂)的解释,与我国的通说对"被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪"的理解大体相同,这足以说明我国持共犯从属性说的论者所做的上述"目的解释",不具有合理性。我国的通说并非是站在主观主义的立场所做的解释,所采取的"严格解释"方法是罪刑法定主义的基本要求,并且正确说明了《刑法》第29条第2款与第1款的关系,完全符合体系解释的要求。教唆未遂(即"被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪")的情形,在犯罪形态上,不属于犯罪未遂,而属于犯罪预备。我国《刑法》第29条第2款对这种特殊预备犯的处罚规定尚有缺陷,有必要通过修改刑法来予以完善。     

英美刑法与中国刑法教唆犯罪之比较

英美刑法的教唆犯罪与我国的教唆犯罪有很大的差异，本文试图从教唆犯罪的性质、成立要件、教唆的未遂和未遂的教唆等几个方面来阐述二者的差异，并作适当的评论，最后比照英美刑法的立法规定对我国刑法教唆犯罪的立法提出完善建议。     

“被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪”之理解——兼与刘明祥教授商榷

如果体系性地考虑刑法总则关于共犯的规定以及分则关于拟制正犯的规定,就应该认为我国刑法对共同犯罪采用区分制而非单一正犯概念,共犯从属性说应该得到肯定。刑法第29条第2款规定的“被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪”,只能解释为教唆犯教唆他人犯罪,被教唆人已经着手实行犯罪,但没有达到既遂状态。如此解释既有助于维持共犯的实行从属性,坚持刑法客观主义,也不会放纵犯罪。对于教唆信息完全没有传递给被教唆人、被教唆人明确拒绝教唆、被教唆人虽接受教唆但尚未开始实施预备行为等情形,教唆行为对法益的危险仅仅停留在教唆者内心,不能成立非共同犯罪的教唆未遂。将上述教唆行为评价为教唆未遂,是对刑法第29条第2款的曲解,没有体系地解释刑法规范,有走向刑法主观主义的危险。     

我国刑法中教唆犯的两种涵义

我国刑法中规定的教唆犯是广义教唆犯 ,它具有两种表现方式 ,即狭义教唆犯和以教唆的行为方式实施的间接正犯。狭义教唆犯是人们现在通常所说的教唆犯 ,它只具有从属性 ;以教唆的行为方式实施的间接正犯仅具有独立性。从解释论上看 ,我国现行刑法第2 9条第 2款的规定是处理以教唆的行为方式实施的间接正犯的正确法律根据 ;从立法论上看 ,应该采取分立条文规定狭义教唆犯和间接正犯的立法模式。     

我国上市公司委托书征集立法研究

我国现行有关委托书征集的立法主要是委托授权的内容 ,对于征集行为还没有明确、详细的规范。随着我国上市公司股权结构的日趋多元化 ,委托书征集(包括委托书争夺 )现象将会不断发生。证券监管部门应在考察我国资本市场现状和今后发展趋势的基础上 ,借鉴其他国家相关立法 ,尽快制定有关委托书征集规则。     

论上市公司股东代理权征集滥用的规制--以新《证券法》第90条为对象

股东代理权征集对上市公司治理具有"双刃剑"的作用,其优势与弊端共存的特性使其更需严格规制以防止被滥用。从法理层面进行分析、并结合以往征集投票权实践所暴露的问题可知,新《证券法》第90条相比以前法律规范虽有重大进步,但仍存在对代理权征集滥用规制的不足。可以运用代理人道德风险理论、信义义务理论解释和规制代理权征集滥用行为。分析新《证券法》第90条规定可知,对征集人资格、条件和行使权利程序规定的不足,对征集过程中信息披露和违法征集损害赔偿责任等事项的粗放式规定都可能带来代理权征集的滥用。为了更有效地规制代理权征集滥用行为,应从限缩征集人资格和条件、确立代理权征集决策程序的内部控制机制、强制披露包括征集目的在内的法定信息披露制度和差异化信息披露制度、实施证券"看门人"见证制度等入手,进一步完善新《证券法》第90条规定和加强对代理权征集滥用的规制。     

教唆行为应构成独立的“教唆罪”

教唆犯罪不是共同犯罪,在刑法典的相关章节中单立“教唆罪”,这在司法操作中有一定可行性。     

College Students’ Punishment Perceptions of Online Solicitation of Children for Sex

The present study addresses the perceptions of university students regarding punishments for individuals whom engage in the online solicitation of children for sex. Differences in biological sex and age of victim and sex of offender may influence university students’ views of punishment for this behavior. Using self-reports from a 2?×?2?×?2 factorial survey, the results indicate that respondent sex, political ideology, and offender sex are important factors in explaining punitiveness for engaging in the online solicitation of a child for sex. Interestingly, victim age was shown to not influence punitive perceptions of online solicitation of children for sex. These results are discussed in the context of policy implications.     

Criminal solicitation,entrapment, and the enforcement of law

This paper examines the optimal use of criminal solicitation as a law enforcement strategy. The benefits are greater deterrence of crime (due to the greater likelihood of apprehension), and the savings in social harm as some offenders are diverted away from committing actual crimes through solicitation. The costs are the expense of hiring undercover cops and the greater likelihood of punishment. The optimal use of solicitation balances these factors. The paper also examines the justification for the entrapment defense, which exonerates those caught in a criminal solicitation but who otherwise had no predisposition to commit a crime.     

对完善我国流浪乞讨人员救助法制的几点思考——基于对生存权的公共性认知

流浪乞讨人员生存权及其实现方式的确认和保障,是我国行政法治研究的重要课题。承认流浪乞讨人员生存权具有公共性,并基于对生存权公共性的认知,从法律规范和制度操作层面对流浪乞讨行为的界限、社会救助机构的强制救助权及救助管理制度做出系统安排,是完善我国流浪乞讨人员救助法制的现实路径。     

Speech and Crime

What kind of constitutional standards are applicable to communications likely to cause listeners to commit crimes? An examination of the tension between the highly protective approach to advocacy of crime taken by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio and the provisions in many criminal codes that make those who encourage criminal violations generally punishablefor solicitation is followed by an analysis of the penological reasons for punishing crime-causing communications and of the relevance to such communications of the justifications for freedom of expression. After an account of the Supreme Court decisions dealing with this subject and a summary critical examination of interpretive approaches to the First Amendment, the author suggests standards for constitutional appraisal of prohibitions of communications that may cause crime. The central proposals are that most statements of fact and value be accorded virtually absolute protection; that dominantly situation-altering utterances, such as agreements, offers of agreement, and orders, be treated as outside the scope of First Amendment protection; and that simple encouragements to commit specific crimes, a kind of action-inducing communication, be granted a degree of protection that depends heavily on context, with criteria like those contained in Brandenburg applicable to public ideological solicitation but with much less restrictive standards applicable to private solicitation.     

Attributions of blame in a hypothetical internet solicitation case: Roles of victim naivety,parental neglect and respondent gender

Abstract

This study investigates attributions towards the perpetrator, the victim and the victim's parents in a hypothetical internet solicitation case. A community sample of 187 respondents read a vignette outlining an internet chatroom conversation between a 10-year-old girl and a 25-year-old man, followed by a depicted sexual assault, before rating 26 attribution items. Principal components analysis extracted six reliable and interpretable factors which were then subjected to a two-respondent gender×two-victim age×two-victim internet naivety×two-parental neglect between-subjects multiple analyses of variance (MANOVA). While levels of victim naivety had no impact on any measure, parents who were neglectful of their child's online activities were deemed more culpable for their child's later abuse than were parents who took an active interest in their child's activities. In general, females deemed the victim more credible than males. Implications are discussed.     

Digging Up, Dismantling, and Redesigning the Criminal Law

The criminal law raises wonderfully thorny foundational questions. Some of these questions are conceptual: What is a plausible conception of crime? What is a plausible conception of criminal law? Some of these questions are genealogical: What are the historical and genealogical roots of the criminal law in a particular jurisdiction? Other questions are evaluative: What are the political and moral values on which a given conception of criminal law depends? What kind of rational reconstruction, if any, could the criminal law be given? And, finally, still other questions are exploratory and normative: Should parts of existing criminal law be abandoned? What new topics in criminal law theory need to be addressed in our globalised, technologically savvy world? The contributors to Antony Duff and Stuart P. Green’s collection Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law tackle these questions with zeal and independent spirit. They disagree markedly with each other about what the foundational questions are. And, they disagree about how those questions should be handled. This article charts their disagreements by situating the contributors within two taxonomies. The first groups them according to their approaches to the foundational questions; the second groups them according to their modes of theorising. This double taxonomy provides a useful frame within which to analyse these competing takes on the philosophically foundational work of criminal law theory.