共同犯罪中止形态毕业论文

IN A joint trial of two or more defendants for a joint offence a jury was entitled to consider first the case in respect of one defendant, which was solely based on his own out of court admissions, and then to use their findings of his guilt and the role he had played as a fact to be used evidentially in respect of a co-defendant.The House of Lords (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Carswell dissenting) dismissed the appeal of Paul Hayter against the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss his appeal against his conviction of murder.Mr Hayter and two co- defendants were charged with murder, all three having been indicted as principals. The prosecution case was that the first defendant had arranged for the contract killing of her husband through Mr Hayter (the second defendant), and that he had engaged and paid the third defendant, who had actually shot the victim.The evidence against the first defendant came from a number of sources and was cogent. The evidence against the third defendant was solely based on a confession which he had allegedly made to his girlfriend. The judge invited the jury to consider in logical phases the cases against the third defendant, the first defendant, and finally Mr Hayter.He directed the jury that, only if they found both the third and first defendants guilty of murder, would it be open to them, taking into account those findings of guilt, together with other evidence against Mr Hayter, to convict him. The jury convicted all three defendants. Mr Hayter's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and he appealed.John Kelsey-Fry QC (Ziades) for the appellant; Mark Dennis and Robin McCoubrey (Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood said that in a joint trial of two or more defendants for a joint offence a jury was entitled to consider first the case in respect of defendant A, which was solely based on his own out of court admissions, and then to use their findings of A's guilt and the role A had played as a fact to be used evidentially in respect of co-defendant B.The Crown's argument (and, indeed, the rulings in this case both by the judge and by the Court of Appeal) necessarily involved some modification of the rule which excluded out-of-court admissions' being used to provide evidence against a co-accused, whether indicted jointly or separately.It was 20 years since section 74 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 had been enacted, and with it the prosecution's right to adduce in evidence against an accused another person's prior conviction. Whilst it was true that section 74 had no direct application to a case like the present, where both accused stood trial together, it was hardly to be thought that Parliament, had it turned its mind to the comparatively rare case like the present, where the question arose of using evidentially against B the jury's already-formed conclusion that A was guilty, would have proposed a different approach.In a joint trial B was in a better position to challenge whatever evidence pointed to A's guilt than if A had already been convicted at a previous trial. Moreover, by the same token that under s 74 another person's conviction was admissible against the secondary accused irrespective of the nature of the evidence on which that conviction had been based, so too the particular evidential basis on which the jury had found A guilty should make no difference merely because the two defendants were tried jointly.

在国内，共同犯罪中止的研究相对少，原因是以下几点：1、法律规定不明确：我国刑法对共同犯罪中止的规定较为简单，只是在共同犯罪中止的情况下，中止人可以减轻或免除处罚。这种规定相对模糊，对于研究共同犯罪中止的学者来说，缺乏明确的法律依据。2、案例资料不足：由于共同犯罪中止的案例相对较少，因此研究者很难从案例中获取足够的信息和数据，以便进行深入的研究.3、研究难度大：共同犯罪中止的研究难度较大，需要考虑多个因素的影响，如犯罪人数、犯罪动机、犯罪手段等。同时，还需要考虑到法律、道德、心理等多个方面的因素，这使得研究共同犯罪中止变得更加复杂。

一，所涉及罪名。张某：绑架罪，非法拘禁罪 王某：非法拘禁罪 李某：绑架罪二，关于张某涉嫌绑架罪是没有疑问的。法律规定，绑架罪，是指勒索财物或者扣押人质为目的，使用暴力、胁迫或者其他方法，绑架他人的行为。李某在明知张某绑架的故意，仍然帮助其实施该行为，构成绑架罪的共犯，其中张某是主犯，李某是从犯。而王某主观上没有绑架的故意，不知道事情真相，其主观上是作为索要债务而实施该行为，没有构成绑架罪的共同犯罪，其绑架行为是受了张某的欺的。但其绑架过后参与了对陈某的非法拘禁，构成了非法拘禁罪。非法拘禁罪，是指以拘押、禁闭或者其他强制方法，非法剥夺他人人身自由的行为。三，我国刑法第24条第1款规定“在犯罪过程中，自动放弃犯罪或者自动有效地防止犯罪结果发生的，是犯罪中止。”但是，这条规定是针对单个自然人单独犯罪而言的，共同犯罪中的停止形态要结合该规定来分析，但绝不能简单等同。（一）对于共同犯罪中的既遂而言，根据“部分实行全部责任”，即只要部分共犯人的行为导致法定结果而出现既遂状态，则对其他共犯人均以既遂论处。因为共犯人之间主观上共同故意，明知会发生危害社会的后果，而希望、积极追求这种结果的发生（因为只有直接故意犯罪才可能存在犯罪停止形态），客观上有共同的犯罪行为（可以是作为和不作为的结合），因此，任何一个共犯人对整个共同犯罪的结果都是明知、有“贡献”的，若有一人既遂，则所有共犯人都应当对整个犯罪的既遂状态承担既遂责任。（二）对于共同犯罪中的中止形态，更为复杂。1、对于直接实行犯而言，因其行为能够直接造成法定结果、危险状态等发生，对其可以比照单独犯罪的停止形态处理，即“自动放弃犯罪或者自动有效地防止犯罪结果发生”应当认定为犯罪中止。2、而对于直接实行犯之外的外围者，即组织者、帮助者和教唆者而言，因其行为已经对直接实行者产生了相应的作用力，此时其个人简单地自动放弃并不能有效地防止犯罪结果发生，因而不能简单地认定为犯罪中止，而应根据实行者将该犯共犯行为实施到何种程度来认定。