检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:刘鹏[1]
出 处:《贵州大学学报(社会科学版)》2001年第4期36-40,共5页Journal of Guizhou University(Social Sciences)
摘 要:共犯同罪 ,为传统共犯理论之基石。然在我国刑法当中 ,已出现了割断共犯间的联系 ,根据各共同犯罪人的实行、帮助、教唆行为分别定罪处罚的立法例。这一突破 ,有实践的需要 ,亦有立法的浮躁性带来的困惑。其中 ,独立教唆犯的规定有其合理之处 ,有的教唆行为应当也可以独立成罪 ,而独立从犯的设计则是不合理、不科学的 ,从犯与主犯在任何情况下都具有共犯关系 ,不应分离。Giving the same charge against accomplices is the theoretical base for traditional practice to deal with such a case. Now in our criminal law there have arisen legislative cases in which the relation of accomplices has been cut apart and each member has been convicted separately according to his/her own acts of practice, accessory or instigation. This breakthrough results from the need in practice, yet it involves certain puzzlement brought about by flippancy in legislation. Though the regulations concerning independent abettor is reasonable to some extent and some of the instigation behaviors can constitute a crime independently, the regulations of independent accessory is unreasonable and unscientific. Under all circumstances there is accomplice relation between principal and accessory, so they should not be separated.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.51