你好,欢迎来到博今文化,中国最权威的职称论文投稿平台!

微信群主刑法责任认定问题探究怎么样发表论文

博今文化 / 2019-10-27
微信群主刑法责任认定问题探究 发布时间:2019-02-23
点击查看其他>>法律硕士论文(精选6篇)

法律硕士论文第五篇:《微信群主刑法责任认定问题探究》
本篇文章目录导航:

  【题目】微信群主刑法责任认定问题探究
  【第一章】群主不作为行为定性研究引言
  【第二章】微信群主的法律身份定位
  【第三章】群主不作为犯罪刑事责任的实践偏执与理论回归
  【第四章】微信群主作为义务的刑法体系
  【第五章】微信群主刑事责任的免责事由
  【参考文献】微信群主不纯正不作为定罪制度探析结语与参考文献


摘要

  微信群在方便人们沟通交流的同时,也为犯罪分子提供了 “线上场所”。当徵信群主不积极履行监管职责,论文网发表,造成他人在群内实施犯罪,则可能承担不作为犯罪,或者不纯正不作为犯罪的刑事责任。我国刑事立法并没有不纯正不作为犯的相关规定,将不作为行为评价为犯罪更多的是借用了刑法理论。而刑法理论对于不作为犯罪的基本问题却长时间存在争议,借用这种长期处于混乱状态的刑法理论去界定不作为犯罪,必然也会将理论上的混乱带到司法实践中。从现有的案例裁判文书看,微信群主承担不作为犯罪并没有得到充分的说理。因此,有必要以徽信群主的刑事责任研究为契机,重新对于我国刑法中的不纯正不作为犯理论进行梳理。本文共分为五个部分:

刑法

  第一部分主要论述了微信群主作为该空间秩序的建立者,在享受网络利益的同时,也承担着管理者的角色。微信群主不履行法定的维护和管理义务,同样构成对特定秩序的间接破坏,需要承担相应法律责任,包括民事责任、行政责任和刑事责任。

  第二部分论述了微信群主的法律身份定位,怎样发表核心论文,微信群主是特定网络空间秩序的构建者和维护者,微信群主与成员的基本义务和核心权利存在差异。成员仅仅有管理好自己行为的义务,发表核心期刊论文,而没有监督管理群内他人行为的义务,而群主则兼具管理自己行为与管理群内其他成员行为的义务。微信群主在清退权方面具有单向性、排他性特点,其对于群内任何成员都有绝对的支配和管理地位。

  第三部分论述了司法实践中对于微信群主承担不作为犯罪刑事责任的偏差,包括定罪逻辑顺序错误和法律适用方面不恰当。在理论方面,重新对刑法中的作为义务的本质进行厘清,并明确了针对不作为犯罪诸多问题进行解释时以客观解释为宜,且微信群主与徵信成员的共同犯罪性质属于不作为的片面共犯。

  第四部分对微信群主的作为义务进行刑法体系整理,批判了形式义务说,从实质义务的角度,更加倾向于基于对法益危险发生领域的支配产生的阻止义务,内容主要包括两个,一是及时、有效地阻止犯罪行为实施,二是及时、有效地消除犯罪后果。第五部分主要论述了微信群主刑事责任的免责事由,包括主观免责事由和客观免责事由。主观免责事由包括不具备认识因素和不具备意志因素,客观免责事由包括因权利用尽原则而客观免责、因阻止犯罪行为或者防止犯罪后果而客观免责、因微信成员不构成犯罪而客观免责。

  关键词:微信群主 不作为犯罪 作为义务 免责事由

Abstract

  The WeChat group provides a "online place" for criminals while helping people communicate with each other.When Wechat group owners do not actively perform their supervisory duties, causing others to commit crimes within the group, they may bear criminal responsibility for omission or impure omission. China's criminal legislation does not have the relevant provisions of impure omission, will not act as a crime evaluation is more borrowed from the criminal law flieory.However, the basic problem of omission crime has been controversial for a long time in criminal law theory. Using this long-term chaotic criminal law theory to define omission crime will inevitably bring the theoretical chaos into judicial practice.From the existing case judgment documents, Wechat group owners undertake the crime of omission has not been folly justified. Therefore,it is necessary to reorganize the theory of impure omission in China!s criminal law by taking the research on the criminal responsibility of the group owners of Wechat as an opportunity.

  This article is divided into five parts:

  The first part mainly discusses that as the founder of the space order, the owners of Wechat?Group play the role of administrator while enjoying the benefits of the network. Wechat group owners who fail to fulfill their statutory maintenance and management obligations also constitute indirect damage to a particular order,and they need to bear corresponding legal responsibilities, including civil liability, administrative liability and criminal liability.

  The second part discusses the legal status of the owners of Wechat group. The owners of Wechat group are the builders and maintainers of the special cyberspace order. The basicobligations and core rights of the owners and members of Wechat group are different. Members only have the obligation to manage their own behavior? and there is no obligation to supervise?the behavior of others in tiie group, while group owners have the obligation to manage theirown behavior and the behavior of other members in the group.

  The owner of Wechat group has the characteristics of unidirectionality and exclusiveness in the right of withdrawal, and he has absolute domination and management status to any m^nber of the group.

  Tlie third part discusses the deviation of the criminal responsibility for the omission of the?group owners in the judicial practice, including the wrong logical order of conviction and inappropriate application of law. In theory, it clarifies the nature of the act obligation in criminal law, and clarifies that it is appropriate to interpret objectively many problems of omission crime,?and the joint crime nature of Wechat group owners and members belongs to one-sided accomplice of omission.?

  In the fourth part, the author sorts out the criminal law systrai of the action obligation of?the group owners of Wechat and criticizes the theory of formal obligation. From the angle of the substantive obligation, the writer tends to be more inclined to prevent the obligation based on?the domination of the field of legal interest danger. The content mainly includes two parts: one?is to prevent the criminal act from being carried out promptly and effectively, the other is to prevent the criminal act from being carried out promptly and effectively. Effective elimination of criminal consequences.

  The fifth part mainly discusses the exemption of the criminal responsibility of the group owners,including subjective exemption and objective exemption. Subjective exCTiption?includes non-cognitive factors and non-willingness factors, objective exonption includes objective exemption due to the principle of exhaustion of rights, objective exemption due to the prevention of criminal acts or consequences of crime, and objective exemption due to the non-constitutive crime of Wechat members.

  Key words: WeChat Group Owner; Negative Crime; Duty of Action; General Defenses?

?

  目次?

?
  摘要
  Abstract?

  1 引言
  2 微信群主的法律身份定位

  2.1 微信群主是特定网络空间秩序的构建者和维护者??
  2.1.1 徵信群是法律调整的特定网络空间秩序?
  2.1.2 微信群主是特定网络空间秩序的构建者?
  2.1.3 徵信群主也是特定网络空间秩序的维护者?
?
  2.2微信群主与成员的基本义务和核心权利存在差异??
  2.2.1基本义务的差异??
  2.2.2核心权利的差异?
?
  3 微信群主不作为犯罪刑事责任的实践偏执与理论回归??
  3.1司法实践的偏执7??
  3.1.1定罪逻辑顺序错误?
  3.1.2法律适用方面不适当

  3.2刑法理论的回归
  3.2.1刑法中作为义务的本质厘清
  3.2.2刑法解释方法的合理抉择?
  3.2.3不作为共犯与不作为正犯之争
  3.2.4不作为共犯与不作为片面共犯之争

  4 微信群主作为义务的刑法体系
  4.1作为义务的来源??
  4.1.1形式义务说的批判
  4.1.2实质义务说的证成

  4.2作为义务的履行??
  4.2.1作为义务的履行内容
  4.2.2作为义务的履行原则

  4.3作为义务的成立条件
  4.3.1具有刑法中的作为义务
  4.3.2有履行义务的可能性
  4.3.3不作为与危害结果之间具有因果关系
  4.3.4在罪刑法定原则下可以解释为不纯正不作为犯

  4.4作为义务的区分
  4.4.1作为义务的内容不同
  4.4.2作为义务的法律属性不同

  5 微信群主刑事责任的免责事由
  5.1主观免责事由?
  5.?1.1不具备认识因素
  5.1.2不具备意志要素

  5.2客观免责事由?
  5.2.1因权利用尽原则而客观免责
  5.2.2因阻止犯罪行为或者防止犯罪后果而客观免责
  5.2.3因微信成员不构成犯罪而客观免责?

  6 结语
  参考文献???
  ?

返回本篇文章目录导航↑
? 返回顶部查看其他【法律硕士论文】