用谦抑性原则检讨我国刑法对教唆未遂的处罚规定

刑法谦抑性原则的要义就是缩小刑事处罚的范围和减轻刑事处罚的程度。我国刑法第 2 9条第 2款规定 :“如果被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪 ,对于教唆犯 ,可以从轻或减轻处罚。”这表明我国刑法对教唆未遂采必罚主义 ,这种做法有违谦抑性原则 ,且不具有可操作性。因此 ,该条款应修改为 :“如果被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪 ,如果此罪的法定最低刑为三年以上有期徒刑 ,对于教唆犯 ,可以比照所教唆之罪从轻、减轻或免除处罚。     

试论共同教唆犯

共同教唆犯不同于传统共犯理论中的共犯教唆犯,其构成要件有三：教唆犯主体为二人以上;各主体有教唆他人犯罪的共同故意;各主体有共同的教唆他人犯罪的行为。对共同教唆犯的定罪处罚,应以刑法分则中单独规定教唆罪为基础,井以各教唆主体在共同教唆犯罪中所起的作用大小而论。     

Factors contributing to the perpetration of workplace incivility: the importance of organizational aspects and experiencing incivility from others

In recent years a growing amount of research has been conducted in the area of workplace incivility. Whereas many studies have focused on the victims and the consequences of incivility, little attention has been paid to the perpetrators and antecedents of workplace incivility. This study aims to identify possible antecedents of workplace incivility, by investigating organizational aspects as well as the possibility that being the target of incivility from co-workers and supervisors could induce incivility. A total of 512 employees (378 women and 133 men) in the school sector in a Swedish municipality completed an online questionnaire. Overall, the results of structural equation modelling analyses showed that organizational variables were related to the perpetration of incivility. A direct relationship was found between being uncivil and organizational change, job insecurity, low social support from co-workers and high job demands. However, the strongest relationship was found between experienced incivility from co-workers and instigated incivility. This could be reflecting a climate or culture of incivility in the organization, and carry implications for future practice in interventions against workplace incivility. The results indicate the importance of focusing on the perspective of the instigator to gain knowledge about the process of workplace incivility.     

试论独立教唆罪的设立

教唆行为的错综复杂,无疑将教唆犯问题变成了刑法理论界极具争议的话题。我国《刑法》第29条规定：“教唆他人犯罪的,应当按照他在共同犯罪中所起的作用处罚。教唆不满十八周岁的人犯罪,应当从重处罚。如果被教唆的人没有犯被教唆的罪,对于教唆犯,可以从轻或者减轻处罚。”此种立法例存在明显欠妥之处,将两种不同类型的教唆犯规定在同一刑法条文当中,无疑会致使学界在研究教唆犯问题时分不清两者的界限。应采用比较研究的方法,将共犯教唆犯与非共犯教唆犯区分开来。由于目前教唆犯问题在立法上和实践中都存在诸多矛盾,应将非共犯教唆犯从刑法总则中的“共同犯罪”一章中独立出来,单独设立教唆罪,置于分则当中。     

危险驾驶罪的教唆犯研究

教唆他人危险驾驶却产生交通肇事罪结果的情形,理论上有四种处理方式：一是根据行为共同说,在否定共 犯对正犯故意的从属的基础上,肯定对过失犯的教唆来处理;二是根据法益保护前置化原理,将危险驾驶所致的交通 肇事罪认定为故意犯罪,对致人伤亡的结果按客观的超过要素理论来处理;三是修正我国刑法以结果为本位来界定犯 罪的责任形式,改之以行为为本位来界定犯罪的责任形式,将交通肇事罪认定为故意犯罪进行处理;四是认为交通肇 事罪与危险驾驶罪具有行为和罪质上的结果加重关系,根据部分犯罪共同说进行处理。第一种处理方式无论从我国 的立法技术还是从实质解释上来说都难以成立;第二种处理方式难以说明超过要素是否为交通肇事罪的构成要素,更 难以说明行为人对致人死亡结果的认识或认识可能性属于什么性质;第三种处理方式可能导致现有刑法体系解体,刑 法的安定性将失去保障。只有第四种处理方式符合现有刑法理论体系,实践上可行。