紧急避险论文答辩概述

紧急避险可以进行防卫。我国《刑法》第18条第1款规定：“为了使公共利益、本人或者他人的人身和其他权利免受正在发生的危险，不得已采取的紧急避险行为，不负刑事责任。”这条规定既是紧急避险的概念，同时又表明了紧急避险行为的特点。在紧急避险情况下实施的行为，通常是两种合法的利益发生了冲突，为了保全某种更大的利益。没有其他办法，而不得不侵害另一种较小的利益。从客观方面来看，这种行为虽然给国家和人民的利益造成了一定的损害；但是，它的最后结果却是保护了国家和人民更大的利益。因此，它实际上是一种对社会有益的行为。从主观方面来看，行为人损害国家和人民利益的行为，是出于不得已的情况，其目的是为了保护更大的利益，也就是说，在行为人的主观上没有罪过。因此，紧急避险行为也同正当防卫行为一样，是有益于社会的合法行为。

Human life as a very special presence, with property and other rights and interests of the different nature: First of all, the uniqueness of life in its uniqueness, non-reversible, its means forever irreparable loss. For almost all the people, in any case the subjective value the lives of almost all large unlimited. In this regard, a person's right to life of any individual or community agencies can not be forfeited. Secondly, the uniqueness of life in the lives of a person traveling to all other rights. Therefore, in principle, the right to life does not allow the right to give way to another. The value of a person's life is always higher than any of the value of material interests. Third, the uniqueness of life in between the value of life can not be compared to not weigh on the decision even if it is to save the lives of many people, but also does not allow a deliberate deprivation of the lives of innocent people. In other words, between the individual life is equivalent. This, in turn, from the perspective of the quality and quantity of the two to resolve. From the quality point of view, complete homogeneity between individual lives, in life is the only and not reversible, this precious, there is no difference between people, and they must not talk about the rich, wisdom, robust, and handsome than the poor person's life, and profane, and weak, ugly noble human life. Quantitative point of view, human life is individual in nature, not the so-called collective lives. If a person sacrifices his own life 50 rescued, while the person's life and that of 50 people hitting the corresponding terms of each are equivalent. As a result of collective life does not matter at all, it does not appear here, 50 the value of human life is greater than the sum of the value of one life in this conclusion, he rescued is a section of the equivalent of life with him rather than his value more than 50 times the mass of human life. Kant stresses of life so valuable without the price. For each people, its value is infinite, and the lives of non-comparability of the value. This must not be applied in the utilitarian way of calculating the interest to measure the size of the value of human life. If adopted here to deal with the relationship between the interests of the two evils principle, adhere to the interests of the majority of the expense of the interests of the minority position, there will be a lot of lives for the sake of personal interests and the interests of the expense of the unfortunate people's lives.

最简单的如正当防卫，紧急避险，犯罪未遂与犯罪预备，等，我也自考法律，但我选陪审员制度，先选一个题目，然后下载同一题目20篇左右的论文和文章，把这些文章拼成一篇论文，实际上拼10篇论文也没问题.

你要是迷信所谓的名师，那我就没办法了，呵呵，咱牌没人家大。如果谈到紧急避险的合理性到底是在整个法的领域还是仅仅在刑法的领域内，这就是深奥的理论问题，正好我的硕士学位论文写的又是紧急避险，对这一段也有过深入的研究。我这里只能告诉你结论：紧急避险作为合法行为，是在整个法的领域内，而不仅仅在刑法领域。而且，无论是法硕考试，还是司法考试，主流观点都是认为紧急避险是正当的合法行为，不能被正当防卫，如果你非要迷信名师的个人学术观点，考试时你肯定会答错，到时候名师可救不了你。这些名师讲课才不会管你考试观点到底是啥，呵呵。

百度一下，网上不是有很多的么

当然，例如，消防队，以紧急避险的名义，逃离火场，或根本不参加灭火。如果这样，那还成什么世道。