【作者】 王涛；

【导师】 刘叶深；

【作者基本信息】 北方工业大学 ， 法学， 2024， 硕士

【摘要】 满足一定条件的见危不救行为是否应当入刑,这是一个充满争议的问题。肯定性回答这一问题需要完成两项工作,即证立一定条件下存有救助的道德义务以及证立这一道德义务可允许予以刑事强制。救助道德义务本质上是一种提供帮助的积极义务。在积极义务中,它区别于特殊帮助义务,它是一种需求义务。同时,它亦区别于慈善义务,它是一种道德上的完全义务。救助道德义务是可以被证立的。当他人生命或人身安全处于紧迫危险中,救助者提供救助成本较小时,救助者就存有救助的道德义务,被救助者具有获得救助的道德权利。这一权利可以通过诉诸于尊重论而得以证立,它具有可主张性,亦即可以向那个通过相遇等方式与被救助者建立特殊道德连接的人主张。后果主义和社会契约主义救助义务论本身都面临难以成立的难题。证立救助道德义务后仍需处理刑事强制问题。刑法的功能是保护法益,伤害与不救助都可以侵害法益。基于救助义务的内容见危不救是一种严重侵害法益的行为,从法益保护层面而言应当得到刑法的规制。基于对救助成本的限制等原因将其入刑并非对个人自由的过度干预。基于应然与实然的区分将其入刑并不违背刑法是后置法的固有属性。来自诸如定罪标准模糊等不具有可操作性的质疑亦不成立。据此,将救助道德义务予以刑事强制亦可以被证立。证立入刑中还存有一项划线难题,这一难题更多是针对救助成本的界定。优选方案以提供救助有无“不合理风险、损失或不便”为标准判定有无救助义务整体而言是可取的,但它需要进一步的理论澄清。在风险程度问题上,要综合平衡特定伤害结果的重要性及其发生概率。在风险视角选择问题上,应采取可证立视角判断风险。在风险类型问题上,应以采取个体视角而非社会视角判断风险,个体视角下个人目标重要性存有大小之分,它与该目标中立于行动者意义上的重要性成正比。据此,满足一定条件的见危不救行为应当入刑。当然,此处的应当入刑是说将此种见危不救行为入刑可以被证立,至于现实中应否设置“见危不救罪”,那是另一个层面的问题,后者要考虑的因素或许更多。更多还原

【Abstract】 It is a controversial issue whether the act of not saving in times of danger that meets certain conditions should be punished.To answer this question positively,we need to complete two tasks,that is,to prove that there is a moral obligation to save under certain conditions and that this moral obligation can be allowed to be criminally compulsory.The moral obligation to rescue is essentially a positive obligation to provide aid.Among positive obligations,it is different from the special assistance obligation,and it is an obligation of demand.At the same time,it is also different from charitable obligation,which is a moral perfect duty.The moral obligation to rescue can be proved.When the life or personal safety of others is in imminent danger,the rescuer has a moral obligation to rescue,and the rescued person has a moral right to get help.This right can be proved by resorting to the theory of respect,and it can be claimed,that is,it can be claimed to the person who establishes a special moral connection with the rescued person through encounter.Consequentialism and social contract theory of rescue obligation are both failures.After proving the moral obligation to rescue,we still need to deal with the criminal coercion.The function of criminal law is to protect interests,and both injury and non-assistance can infringe on legal interests.Based on the content of the obligation to rescue,it is a serious violation of legal interests,which should be regulated by criminal law from the perspective of legal interests protection.It is not an excessive interference with individual freedom to imprison him for reasons such as limiting the cost of assistance.It doesn’t violate the inherent attribute of criminal law as post-law to put it into punishment based on the distinction between what should be and what is.Questions that are not operable,such as vague conviction standards,are also untenable.According to this,it can also be proved that the moral obligation of rescue can be criminally compulsory.There is still a problem of drawing a line in the problem of imprisonment,which is more about the definition of rescue cost.On the whole,it is desirable for the optimal scheme to judge whether there is any obligation of assistance based on whether there is "unreasonable risk,loss or inconvenience" in providing assistance,but it needs further theoretical clarification.On the issue of risk degree,it is necessary to comprehensively balance the importance of specific injury results and their occurrence probability;On the choice of risk perspective,we should judge the risk from a verifiable perspective;On the issue of risk types,we should judge risks from an individual perspective rather than a social perspective.The importance of a personal goal from an individual perspective is different,which is directly proportional to the importance of the goal in the sense of being neutral to the actors.Accordingly,the act of not saving in times of danger that meets certain conditions should be put into punishment.Of course,the term "should be punished" here means that the act of not saving in times of danger can be proved.As for whether the crime of not saving in times of danger should be set up in reality,there may be other considerations,but that is another question.更多还原