【作者】 张琳；

【导师】 李海滢；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律硕士（法学）（专业学位）， 2024， 硕士

【摘要】 受虐妇女事后反杀行为是指受虐妻子趁施暴丈夫处于熟睡或其他不能抵抗的状态时杀害施虐丈夫,反杀行为与丈夫的施暴行为在时间上具有间隔性。近年来,随着妇女权利保护意识和平权意识影响力的日益壮大,社会对受虐妇女事后反杀案件的关注度也逐渐提高。尤其是对于一些受虐妇女在难以忍受严重家庭暴力的情况下事后反杀施虐丈夫但仍被判处较重刑罚的案件,社会民众的司法认同感极低。通过对近几年受虐妇女难以忍受严重家庭暴力而事后杀夫案件的司法大数据统计可以发现,受虐妇女无论是在违法阶层还是在责任阶层都面临着封闭化的出罪空间。虽然,受虐妇女事后反杀行为与普通故意杀人行为相比在行为人经受长期的受虐待事实、行为人实施适法行为的期待可能性和刑罚预防必要性缺失等方面具有极大的差异性,但是法院对该类案件的当事人并没有充分考虑其是否具有出罪事由,而是仍然按照故意杀人罪进行定罪处罚。显然,这种封闭化的出罪空间对受虐妇女而言缺乏正义性。近些年也不乏有学者认识到这一问题并进行了研究,提出了正当防卫说、受虐妇女综合症说、期待可能性说来作为受虐妇女事后反杀行为的出罪事由,但是仍然未从根本上打破受虐妇女出罪空间封闭化的现状。主要原因是,在受虐妇女事后反杀行为出罪上,上述传统的出罪事由都有其局限性。首先,将受虐妇女的反杀行为认定为正当防卫不符合我国关于正当防卫时间条件的规定,不宜将其作为出罪事由。其次,将受虐妇女综合症作为出罪事由同样面临问题。其进路一合理信念理论判断过于主观,完全是凭借行为人个人对危险来临是否确信为标准,来判断行为人是否构成自身防卫从而出罪;其进路二认为受虐妇女存在精神障碍,影响刑事责任能力从而出罪,这就会造成那些积极求助公力救济,最终迫不得已选择杀夫的行为人无法出罪的悖论。最后,缺乏期待可能性作为出罪事由也存在弊端。其本身的宽泛性和模糊性,导致其不应该再作为一项单独的出罪事由予以适用。所以,在受虐妇女事后反杀行为缺乏有效的出罪事由的前提下,合理且具有可执行性的司法适用标准,更无从谈起,最终导致长久以来受虐妇女事后反杀行为所面临的封闭的出罪空间无法打破。所以,不妨转换视角,从正当防卫和期待可能性的传统视角的束缚中跳脱出来,以责任阻却的防御性紧急避险进行出罪。防御性紧急避险是针对危险源本身进行避险的情形,在我国《刑法》第二十一条能为其找到法律依据。在紧急避险的时间条件上,受虐妇女所面临的是持续性的给合法权益带来紧迫性损害的风险,属于紧急避险中的“正在发生的危险”;在紧急避险的对象条件上,摒弃生命利益不可衡量的单一利益衡量说,采纳综合利益衡量说的观点,从而认定受虐妇女构成防御性紧急避险。防御性紧急避险的性质为违法阻却为原则责任阻却为例外。在受虐妇女杀夫案中,杀夫行为超过了违法阻却的限度,只能在责任层面被阻却。一方面,避险对象是危险产生方,故法益值得保护必然性会有所下降,但是被避险人此刻(在被杀的时间节点)并没有实施杀人行为,而只是给避险人制造了一种“正在发生的危险”,所以被避险人法益值得保护性下降幅度不能等同于正当防卫中的不法侵害人,因此受虐妇女的杀夫行为超过被违法阻却的避险限度,不能够在违法层面被阻却。另一方面,受虐妇女基于双层减低原理即基于行为不法的减少和行为责任内容的双重减低在责任阶层被阻却从而出罪。具体而言,避险人出于保全处于危险中的法益的行为意志而为避险行为,表明行为意志与法秩序的一致性,违法性程度降低;同时,防御性紧急避险中避险人的决意是在不得已的情况下做出的,选择适法行为的期待可能性下降或不再存在,行为中所突出的思想就不再是可指责的人对法律的蔑视态度,因此行为的责任内容由此减少。最后结合理论分析,在实践中对于受虐妇女事后反杀行为防御性紧急避险出罪事由的司法适用,应该重点考察受虐妇女所面临的家庭暴力的持续时间、危险程度,对不得已要件的具体衡量以及对行为主体的范围限制。指明其适应标准,引导司法实践打破受虐妇女事后反杀行为所面临的封闭化出罪空间,从而达到保障人权的目的,有助于正义的实现。更多还原

【Abstract】 The anti killing behavior of abused women refers to the act of the abused wife killing the abusive husband while he is in a deep sleep or other uncontrollable state.The anti killing behavior has a temporal interval with the husband’s violent behavior.In recent years,with the increasing influence of women’s rights protection and equality awareness,society’s attention to anti murder cases involving abused women has gradually increased.Especially for cases where some abused women,who find it difficult to tolerate severe domestic violence,resort to killing their abusive husbands afterwards but are still sentenced to heavier punishments,the public’s sense of judicial identity is extremely low.Through judicial big data statistics on cases where abused women have been unable to tolerate severe domestic violence in recent years and have subsequently killed their husbands,it can be found that abused women face a closed space for committing crimes,whether in the illegal or responsible sectors.Although there are significant differences between the anti murder behavior of abused women and ordinary intentional homicide behavior in terms of the fact that the perpetrator has been subjected to long-term abuse,the likelihood of the perpetrator engaging in appropriate legal behavior,and the lack of necessity for punishment prevention,the court did not fully consider whether the parties involved in such cases had the cause of the crime,but still convicted and punished them according to the crime of intentional homicide.Obviously,this closed space for committing crimes lacks justice for abused women.In recent years,many scholars have recognized this issue and conducted research,proposing the theories of justifiable defense,the syndrome of abused women,and the expectation of possibility as the reasons for the crime of abusive women’s anti killing behavior after the fact.However,the current situation of the closed space for abusive women to commit crimes has not been fundamentally broken.The main reason is that the traditional causes of crime mentioned above have their limitations when it comes to anti murder behavior committed by abused women afterwards.Firstly,recognizing the anti killing behavior of abused women as legitimate defense does not comply with China’s regulations on the time conditions for legitimate defense,and it is not appropriate to use it as a reason for committing the crime.Secondly,using abused women’s syndrome as a cause of guilt also faces challenges.The reasonable belief theory judgment of the first approach is too subjective,relying entirely on whether the actor is confident in the imminent danger as the standard to determine whether the actor constitutes self defense and thus commits a crime;The second approach believes that abused women have mental disorders that affect their criminal responsibility and thus commit crimes,which leads to the paradox that those who actively seek public relief and ultimately have to choose to kill their husbands cannot commit crimes.Finally,there are also drawbacks to using the lack of expected possibility as a reason for committing a crime.Its broad and ambiguous nature makes it no longer applicable as a separate cause of crime.Therefore,in the absence of effective reasons for the crime of anti killing behavior by abused women,it is impossible to talk about reasonable and enforceable judicial application standards,which ultimately leads to the closed space for the crime of anti killing behavior faced by abused women for a long time.So,it may be helpful to shift our perspective and break free from the traditional constraints of legitimate defense and the expectation of possibility,and engage in criminal offenses through defensive emergency avoidance of responsibility.Defensive emergency avoidance refers to situations where the source of danger itself is avoided,and legal basis can be found in Article 21 of the Criminal Law of China.In terms of the time conditions for emergency evacuation,abused women face a sustained risk of urgent harm to their legitimate rights and interests,which belongs to the "ongoing danger" in emergency evacuation;In terms of the object conditions for emergency evacuation,abandon the single interest measurement theory that life interests cannot be measured,adopt the perspective of comprehensive interest measurement theory,and thus determine that abused women constitute defensive emergency evacuation.The nature of defensive emergency avoidance is the principle of illegal obstruction,while the responsibility of obstruction is an exception.In the case of abusive women killing their husbands,the act of killing exceeds the limit of illegal obstruction and can only be prevented at the level of responsibility.On the one hand,the object of refuge is the party where the danger arises,so the inevitability of protecting legal interests may decrease.However,at this moment(at the time of being killed),the person being avoided has not committed a killing act,but only created an "ongoing danger" for the person being avoided.Therefore,the degree of decrease in the protection of legal interests of the person being avoided cannot be equivalent to that of the unlawful infringer in legitimate defense,Therefore,the act of abusive women killing their husbands exceeds the avoidance limit of being illegally prevented and cannot be prevented at the level of illegality.On the other hand,abused women are prevented from committing crimes based on the dual reduction principle,which is based on the reduction of illegal behavior and the dual reduction of responsibility content.Specifically,the act of evading danger by the person seeking refuge out of the will to preserve the legal interests in danger indicates consistency between the will to act and the legal order,and reduces the degree of illegality;At the same time,in defensive emergency avoidance,the decision of the evader is made under unavoidable circumstances,and the likelihood of choosing appropriate legal behavior decreases or no longer exists.The prominent thoughts in the behavior are no longer the condemnable person’s contempt for the law,thus reducing the scope of responsibility for the behavior.Finally,combining theoretical analysis,in practice,the judicial application of the reasons for the defensive emergency avoidance of anti killing behavior of abused women should focus on examining the duration and degree of danger of domestic violence faced by abused women,the specific measurement of the necessary elements,and the scope limitations on the subject of the behavior.Indicating its adaptation standards and guiding judicial practice to break the closed and criminal space faced by abused women’s anti killing behavior after the fact,in order to achieve the goal of protecting human rights and contribute to the realization of justice.更多还原