論我國犯罪構(gòu)成的基本構(gòu)造
1.2萬字 20頁


包括開題報(bào)告，任務(wù)書，封面，論文，文獻(xiàn)綜述，課題申報(bào)審批表，周進(jìn)展記錄表，中期檢查表等整套畢業(yè)資料！

目 錄
摘要…………………………………………………………………………… Ⅲ
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………… Ⅳ
引言…………………………………………………………………………… 1
一、犯罪構(gòu)成理論的沿革及我國犯罪構(gòu)成理論的現(xiàn)狀………… 1
（一）犯罪構(gòu)成理論的沿革……………………………………………… 1
1．大陸法系…………………………………………………………………… 1
2．前蘇聯(lián)理論………………………………………………………………… 2
3．英美法系…………………………………………………………………… 2
（二）我國犯罪構(gòu)成理論與評(píng)析……………………………………… 2
1．現(xiàn)狀…………………………………………………………………………… 2
2．對(duì)各犯罪理論的評(píng)析………………………………………………………… 3
二、我國犯罪構(gòu)成理論存在的缺陷和不足……………………… 3
（一）犯罪構(gòu)成的概念界定混亂………………………………………… 4
1．與犯罪概念的矛盾…………………………………………………………… 4
2．與正當(dāng)化事由選擇要件的矛盾……………………………………………… 4
（二）我國犯罪構(gòu)成要件中主體要件的缺陷…………………………… 5
1．邏輯順序顛倒…………………………………………………………………… 5
2．與實(shí)務(wù)不相符合……………………………………………………………… 5
（三）我國犯罪構(gòu)成要件中客體要件的缺陷…………………………… 6
1．犯罪客體不是構(gòu)成要件…………………………………………………… 6
2．犯罪客體不宜定義為社會(huì)關(guān)系…………………………………………… 6
三、完善我國犯罪構(gòu)成理論的設(shè)想……………………………… 7
（一）構(gòu)成要件的符合性………………………………………………… 8
（二）違法性……………………………………………………………… 9
（三）有責(zé)性……………………………………………………………… 9
結(jié)論…………………………………………………………………………… 11
參考文獻(xiàn)……………………………………………………………………… 12
致謝……………………………………………………………………………… 13



摘要
有刑法理論核心地位的犯罪構(gòu)成理論，經(jīng)過數(shù)百年的發(fā)展，逐步形成了大陸法系遞進(jìn)式犯罪構(gòu)成理論體系、英美法系合法抗辯犯罪構(gòu)成理論以及蘇俄耦合式犯罪構(gòu)成理論三大犯罪構(gòu)成理論體系。我國的犯罪構(gòu)成理論是繼承了前蘇聯(lián)的理論，隨著刑法理論的發(fā)展和社會(huì)的進(jìn)步，傳統(tǒng)四要件犯罪構(gòu)成理論的弊端日益顯露，四個(gè)要件都不同程度存在一系列的缺陷，甚至有些是自身無法克服的矛盾。為此眾多我國學(xué)者對(duì)傳統(tǒng)四要件理論進(jìn)行了系統(tǒng)的研究和批判，并提出了自己寶貴的犯罪構(gòu)成理論，主要有二要件說、三要件說、四要件說、五要件說等犯罪構(gòu)成理論，雖然這些理論觀點(diǎn)從不同角度對(duì)傳統(tǒng)四要件犯罪構(gòu)成理論做出了批判和修正，但總體上沒實(shí)質(zhì)性的突破，大多存在形式化傾向，僅僅是對(duì)傳統(tǒng)理論四要件的重新排列、合并、組合而已。實(shí)踐證明，僅對(duì)傳統(tǒng)四要件犯罪構(gòu)成理論進(jìn)行修整，我們很難走出犯罪構(gòu)成理論的研究困境，大陸法系的遞進(jìn)式犯罪構(gòu)成理論體系經(jīng)過幾百年的發(fā)展已比較完備，我們應(yīng)當(dāng)大膽地借鑒其理論成果，并結(jié)合我國的實(shí)際情況，走出一條適合我國的犯罪構(gòu)成之路。這一設(shè)想由三個(gè)層次構(gòu)成，即構(gòu)成要的符合性、違法性和有責(zé)性。三個(gè)要件上呈現(xiàn)出一種層層遞進(jìn)的邏輯進(jìn)程。其中，構(gòu)成要件該當(dāng)性是一種事實(shí)判斷，它不以法律判斷與責(zé)任判斷為前提，是先于后兩種的判斷。事實(shí)判斷不成立，自然就無所謂法律判斷與責(zé)任判斷。只有在事實(shí)判斷的基礎(chǔ)上才能繼續(xù)展開法律判斷和責(zé)任判斷，三要件之間的關(guān)系十分明晰。三要件的遞進(jìn)過程也就是犯罪的認(rèn)定過程，三要件之間的位階固定，反映了定罪的司法邏輯。同時(shí)三要件具備各自的功能，構(gòu)成要件該當(dāng)性作為一種事實(shí)判斷，為犯罪認(rèn)定確定一個(gè)基本的事實(shí)范圍；違法性作為一種法律判斷，將違法阻卻事由排除在犯罪之外；有責(zé)性作為一種責(zé)任判斷，解決行為的可歸責(zé)問題。三要件功能不可替代，缺一不可。這種嚴(yán)密的邏輯性和實(shí)用性正是我國犯罪構(gòu)成理論所需要的。
關(guān)鍵詞：犯罪客體 犯罪主體 構(gòu)成要件的符合性 違法性 有責(zé)性





The basic structure of constitutive elements in our country
Abstract
The constitutive elements is the core of the criminal law theory , after several hundred years of development,gradually formed a series of theoretical systems. Our theory is a succession of the former Soviet Union's theory. With the development of theory of criminal law and progressment social , the traditional four elements constitute increasingly exposed the shortcomings of the four elements , there are series of defects, and even some contradictions can not overcome . For this reason many Chinese scholars on the traditional theory of the four elements of the system's research and criticism, and put forward their own theories constitute a valuable crime,such as the two elements theory , the three elements theory ,the four elements theory ,the five elements theory and so on, Although these theories and viewpoints made a critical and amendment from different angles on the four traditional elements of a crime, but not substantive breakthrough, only re-arranged, merger and combination . Practice has proved that only carring out rectification to the four traditional elements of a crime is difficult to go out of the theoretical study plight . the progressive civil-crime pose a theoretical system through several hundred years of development has been relatively complete, we should boldly reference its theoretical results, combine with China's actual situation, and find out of a suitable form . The idea posed by the three levels,as confkrmity of constitutive elements, illegality and liability.The three elements shows a progressive layers of the logic of the process. Among them, confkrmity of constitutive elements is a fact that judgement, it is not a illegality judgement and liability to judge the premise. That judgement is not, naturally does not matter the illegality judgement and liability judgement. Only the facts can be judged on the basis of continued illegality and liability of judgement, the relationship is very clear between the three elements. the process of the three elements also creates the process of recognition of crime, the three elements of the fixed-band, reflects the conviction of the judicial logic. At the same time three elements have their respective functions, confkrmity of constitutive elements as a judgement of fact, a crime that determine a basic fact that the illegality as a legal judgement, will be excluded from the law negates the subject of crime; has the liability act a judgement of responsibility, to resolve the issue of attribution can be. Elements of the three functions can not be replaced. This rigorous logic and practicality of a crime is our required.
Key words: the Object of Crime，the Subject of Crime，Confkrmity of Constitutive Elements，Illegality，Liability



參考文獻(xiàn)：
[1]特拉伊寧.論犯罪構(gòu)成的一般學(xué)說[M].北京:中國人民大學(xué)出版社,1985.
[2]貝卡利亞.論犯罪與刑罰[M].北京:中國大百科全書出版社,1993.
[3]儲(chǔ)槐植.美國刑法[M].北京:北京大學(xué)出版社,1996.
[4]陳興良.本體刑法學(xué)[M].北京:商務(wù)印書館,2001.
[5]馬克昌.刑法學(xué)[M].北京:高等教育出版社，2003.
[6]劉憲權(quán),楊興培.刑法學(xué)專論[M].北京:北京大學(xué)出版社,2007.
[7]陳興良.犯罪體系研究[M].北京:清華大學(xué)出版社，2005.
[8]張明楷.犯罪構(gòu)成理論課題[J].環(huán)球法律評(píng)論.2003.
[9]劉生榮.犯罪構(gòu)成原理[M].北京:法律出版社,1997.
[10]高銘喧，馬克昌.刑法學(xué)[M].北京:北京大學(xué)出版社,2000.
[11]高銘暄.刑法學(xué)[M].北京:法律出版社,1983.
[12]張明楷.犯罪論體系的思考[J].政法論壇.2003.
[13]周光權(quán).犯罪構(gòu)成理論：關(guān)系混淆及其克服[J].政法論壇.2003.
[14]大冢仁.刑法概說[M].北京:人民大學(xué)出版社,2003.
[15]包雯.犯罪構(gòu)成若干問題研究[M].北京:知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)出版社,2006.
[16]陳興良.規(guī)范刑法學(xué)[M].北京:中國政法出版社,2003.
[17]張明楷.外國刑法綱要[M].北京:清華大學(xué)出版社,1999.
[18]趙秉志.外國刑法原理[M].北京:中國人民大學(xué)出版社,2000.