见危不救行为屡见不鲜，刺痛民众朴素的同情心，反映了道德滑坡严重，受到社会广泛关注和讨论。在道德规范约束失效的情况下，见危不救入刑的呼声渐涨。本文试图基于刑事政策视野，分析我国见危不救的刑事政策出台所遇瓶颈，探究见危不救入刑的法理基础及提出合适的立法建议，推动见危不救的刑事立法进程，加强社会道德建设。本文从以下几方面展开论证： 第一部分阐述见危不救的社会背景及提出问题，说明研究意义，并回顾目前学界对于见危不救入刑争议的焦点：一是道德义务与刑法规范转化之争，二是见危不救入刑是否具有立法和司法可行性，三是有无违反刑法谦抑性原则之嫌，四是能否实现预防犯罪的刑罚目的，五是可否纳入行政处罚法规范。明确见危不救入刑的核心问题在于道德刑法化的正当性及其法律作为义务来源，提出研究思路。 第二部分把见危不救概念界定为在他人的生命、健康面临重大紧迫危险时，不具有特定职责或义务的行为人有能力救助他人避免或者减轻危险，且实施救助行为对本人或第三人无显著危害而不予救助，造成严重后果的行为。见危不救问题具有公共性质，适宜采用刑事政策视野研究论证。通过梳理中国见危不救的刑事政策沿革，探究古代见危不救的立法依据和法理基础，寻找见危不救立法断层原因。 第三部分采用多源流理论分析见危不救的刑事政策制定问题，通过见危不救的问题源流、政策源流、政治源流及政策之窗和政策企业家的梳理分析，见危不救的刑事政策没有进入政策制定议程并出台的原因在于，政策源流还没做好与其他源流相结合的充分准备，即见危不救入刑的法理基础理论问题没有解决，缺少适宜的刑事立法备选方案。因此，学界应当着重论证见危不救入刑的基础理论，同时借助强烈的政治源流推动见危不救的刑事立法。 第四部分着重讨论见危不救的道德刑法化的正当性，充分解决见危不救入刑的法理基础理论问题。见危不救的行为属性是不作为，通常以不作为犯罪理论分析。见危不救入罪的前提需具有等价性的法律作为义务。道德和法律边界是交融的，见危不救不仅是道德问题，同时也属于法律调整的范畴。其作为义务是每个社会成员维护社会公共利益的人道责任，并且见危不救入刑是社会主义社会发展的现实需求。见危不救与见义勇为应当共同入法，奖惩结合才能有力加强道德建设，稳定社会秩序，进一步推动社会发展。 第五部分明确见危不救的刑事立法应当符合法治原则、民主原则、谦抑原则、人道原则及科学原则。梳理见危不救的构成要件，提出在刑法分则第四章设定见危不救罪，构建具体的见危不救刑法条文。设立见危不救罪，能够补充完善不作为犯罪理论，具有理论和实践上的相对优势。 最后是结语，即使见危不救能入刑，面对见危不救现象深刻的社会根源，见危不救行为也不会马上消失。笔者希望能把握党和国家坚持依法治国和以德治国相结合，把社会主义核心价值观融入法治建设中的重大契机，推动见危不救入刑，同时能多管齐下，落实好见义勇为法律政策，加强国民道德教育，提高社会道德水平，服务于中国特色社会主义和谐社会的建设。

It is not uncommon to see people in danger failing to be rescued. It hurts people's simple sympathy, reflects the serious moral decline, and has been widely concerned and discussed by the society. In the case of the failure of the moral code constraints, the voices of penalty for not rescuing people in danger increase. Based on the perspective of criminal policy, this paper attempts to analyze the bottlenecks encountered in the introduction of criminal policy in China and explore the legal basis of penalty for not rescuing people in danger, put forward appropriate legislative suggestions and promoting the criminal legislation process of not rescuing people in danger and strengthen the construction of social morality. This paper demonstrates from the following aspects: The first part elaborates social background of failing to rescue people in danger and proposes questions and illustrates research significance, and review the current academic circles’ focus of controversy of not rescuing people in danger : the first is the debate between moral obligation and the transformation of criminal law norms, the second is whether it is feasible to legislate and judicature penalty of indifference to people in danger; the third is whether it violates the principle of modesty of criminal law; the fourth is whether it can achieve the penalty purpose of crime prevention, and the fifth is whether it can be incorporated into the norms of administrative penalties law. The core problem of not saving lives from danger lies in the legitimacy of moral penalization and the law as the source of obligation. The second part defines the concept of "refusing to save in case of danger" as when others’ life and health are in significant and urgent danger, an actor who does not have specific duties or obligations, he or she has the ability to avoid or mitigate the danger but refuses to rescue them without significant harm to himself or herself or the third person, thus causing serious consequences. The problem of refusing to save people in danger has the public nature, so it is suitable to study and demonstrate from criminal policy perspective. By combing the evolution of criminal policy in China, this paper probes into the legislative basis and jurisprudential basis in ancient times, and seeks the reasons for the legislative fault. The third part adopts multi-streams theory to analyze problems of criminal policy of refusing to save people in danger. By analyzing problem stream, policy stream, political stream, the window of the policy and policy entrepreneurs, the reason why criminal policy of refusing to save people in danger was not introduced into the policy agenda and published is that policy stream hasn't been prepared to combine with other streams. That is to say, theoretical problems of legal basis haven’t been solved and there is a lack of an appropriate alternative criminal legislation. Therefore, the academic circle should focus on the demonstration of basic theory of refusing to save people in danger, and promote the criminal legislation with the help of strong political sources. The fourth part focuses on the legitimacy of the moral penalization of not saving people from danger, and fully solves the theory of legal basis of not saving people from danger. The behavioral attribute of not saving people from danger belongs to inaction and is usually analyzed by the theory of criminal omission. The premise of not saving people from danger needs to have equivalent legal obligation. The boundary between morality and law is intermingled. It is not only a moral problem, but also a category of legal adjustment. Its obligation is the humanitarian responsibility of every member of society to safeguard the social public interests, and its penalty is the reality requirement of development of socialist society. Only by introducing both indifference and bravery into law to people in danger and combining rewards and punishment can we strengthen moral construction, stabilize social order and further promote social development. The fifth part makes it clear that the criminal legislation should conform to the principles of rule of law, democracy, modesty, humanity and science. Combing the constitutive elements of failing to save people from danger, this paper proposes to set up the crime of failing to save people from danger in chapter 4 of the specific provisions of the criminal law. The theory of crime of omission can be supplemented and perfected by establishing crime for not saving people from danger, which has relative advantages in theory and practice. The last part is the conclusion. Even the act of refusing to save the life in danger can be penalized, it will not immediately disappear in the face of the profound social root. The writer hopes based on Party and nation’s principle of governing the country both by law and ethics and melding socialist core values into the rule of law, we can promote the penalization of refusing to save people in danger. Meanwhile, we can adopt multiple approaches to well implement legal policy, strengthen the national moral education, improve the social morals level and serve the Chinese characteristic socialism harmonious society's construction.