刑法一問,pls help!

刑法里一个最重要的concept
"A man cannot be guilty without a guilty mind."

最典型的例子: 劊子手殺了人, 卻沒有犯罪
因為他殺人的背后有一个lawful reason.

"accepted that he killed someone but he pleaded not guilty"即係話佢承認殺左人﹐但否定對律政對佢罪名既指控。(我估告佢謀殺 ?) 殺人- 可以係謀殺﹐誤殺﹐ 過失﹐不小心駕駛﹐ 被人挑引﹐ 自衛 ﹐各種各樣。 所以絕對無前後邏輯矛盾的問題。 有無得打? 律師可以答你。 你乜料都無比出黎﹐ 叫人點答你﹐ 你估我地係碟仙咩 !

死因庭的其中一個可選的死因結論是---「合法被殺」. 舉例警察的執法行動或是自衛殺人的情況就有機會會採用這個結論.

所以, 是沒有矛盾的.

打甩與否是看證據, 又或者是捉對方錯處.

大大你好！事先講明，小弟和開頭嗰位英文人加利一樣唔係律師或法律人士，只提供意見謹作參考。


『如果被告accepted that he killed someone but he pleaded not guilty, 是否有前後邏輯矛盾呢?』

答：係冇矛盾。‘accepted that he killed someone’只係被告承認殺害士某人，可以這樣理解，它沒有說明這是意圖謀殺或誤殺，因此此句不算矛盾。

更何況，其他證據又如何？即使被告自承有殺害他人，除了未清楚喺意圖謀殺或誤殺，亦不排除替人頂罪等不可忽略嘅完素。

總之，這句可以講喺過場白，跟著落嚟先喺戲肉！

至於有冇方法可以打得甩就要睇嗰官信邊個！

1. No. In Hong Kong, for a crime involved homicide, usually the Department of Justice can either prosecute the accused for either manslaughter or murder.

Based on the nature of the crime, the Department of Justice can in fact charge the accused for murder, but the accused only agrees on manslaughter.

That's one of the classic example why the accused will plead not guilty.

2. Nothing is absolute. A lot of elements are needed for consideration for a person to be guilty of any crimes (including manslaughter and murder).

So the answer to your question is no one knows.

2012-03-02 19:23:30 補充：
Hung Pui Ki, you are incorrect.

You said, "A man cannot be guilty without a guilty mind."

In strict liability offense, like statutory rape, there is no need to prove the motive, as soon as it has been done, the suspect is doomed.