国际犯罪与国际不法行为关系透析

国际犯罪与国际不法行为的关系,并不是多数学者所主张的被包含与包含关系,而应该视国际犯罪的行为主体而定。当国际犯罪的主体是自然人时,国际犯罪与国际不法行为之间各自独立,不发生任何关系;当国际犯罪的主体是国家等国际法主体时,国际犯罪与国际不法行为之间具有交叉关系,即国际不法行为中程度严重者属于国际犯罪,但国际犯罪不完全是国际不法行为。     

过失危险犯之存在性与可存在性思考

决定某类过错行为 ,包括过失危险行为在内可以犯罪化的基础不是主观过错 ,而是危险行为本身所具有的社会危害性。过失危险犯只能存在于危害公共安全法益的犯罪中 ,由于公共安全法益本身的特殊性 ,这类法益价值的外延已经突破其本身的价值而及于它的安全性 ,即威胁它的安全就是侵犯它的价值 ,而使过失危险行为具有直接侵犯公共安全法益价值的本质 ,进而具备犯罪化的报应基础。设立过失危险犯与刑法谦抑原则不冲突 ,反而有利于刑法诱导和刑法忠诚。     

论犯罪预备、未遂和中止在司法实践中的价值取向

应当追究刑事责任的犯罪的预备、未遂和中止行为，在理论上统称为犯罪的未完成形态。它一方面是对刑法分则某些条文规定的具体犯罪构成要件的修正，另一方面又是对该种犯罪从宽裁量刑罚的情节。鉴于我国刑法只在总则中对其作出规定而分则条文尚未涉及，究竟什么犯罪处罚未完成形态？什么犯罪不处罚？现行刑法并未明确规定，这就给司法实践中留下了较大的价值取向空间。是否对所有犯罪的未完成形态都需要追究刑事责任？回答当然是否定的。那么，对一些犯罪处罚未完成形态而对另一些犯罪不处罚，其价值取向理由何在呢？犯罪的未完成形态是犯罪…     

论美国“文化遗产犯罪量刑准则”及其对我国的启示

美国＂文化遗产犯罪量刑准则＂是在美国＂1987年量刑准则＂基础上制定、专门针对文化遗产犯罪的刑事处罚制度。＂文化遗产犯罪量刑准则＂以确定性的量刑方法为指导,实施量刑等级制度。其主要特色在于确定了若干加重量刑的标准,较以往的美国有关文化遗产犯罪的法律在量刑上更为确定和严厉。借鉴美国＂文化遗产犯罪量刑准则＂,克服我国文化遗产犯罪的刑事处罚制度中存在的保护范围不太广、量刑情节不具体等缺陷,无疑有利于加强我国文化遗产的法律保护。     

关于行贿犯罪的几个问题

行贿是引发受贿犯罪的温床 ,加强对行贿犯罪的研究对从源头上遏制受贿犯罪有重要意义。“不正当利益”包括非法利益和非法提供的帮助或方便 ;行贿行为有典型行贿和经济行贿 ,构成犯罪均需达到一定数额或情节严重 ;行贿的内容应从财物发展为财物和非财产性利益 ;“从宽处罚”的特别规定应适用于所有行贿犯罪行为。     

单位累犯立法化

单位犯罪在当今社会十分普遍,单位的二次、三次犯罪也不鲜见,单位的屡次犯罪对社会造成了严重的危害。但我国现行刑法只规定了单位犯罪,并没有认可单位累犯。纵观其他国家刑法的规定,有的国家将单位累犯明确规定为法人累犯,并对其作出了具体的刑罚处罚。面对日益猖獗的单位屡次犯罪层出不穷的现象,我国刑法没有相关的单位累犯处罚政策。如果能将单位累犯立法化,构建适合我国的单位累犯制度,惩治单位累犯的措施,保护国家和人民的利益。     

经济犯罪、商业犯罪、财产犯罪的罪刑关系研究

经济犯罪、商业犯罪、财产犯罪是市场经济中常发多见的犯罪形式,但是目前在中外的刑法典和刑法学中对它们的规定和研究存在一定的偏差;经济犯罪是经济主体在经济干预或者调控的过程中实施的严重侵犯经济秩序和经济利益的行为;商业犯罪亦即商事犯罪,是指商事主体在商品生产、商品经营或者商业服务过程中实施的严重侵犯商事活动秩序和他人商业利益的行为;财产犯罪是行为人在对财产的占有、使用、收益、处分的过程中实施的严重侵犯他人财产权益的行为;三者在主体、罪过、目的、动机、客体、行为方式、手段、定罪情节、处罚原则等方面都存在明显差异,但它们却完整地构成了以三者为主体、以财产犯罪为基础的市场经济犯罪新体系。     

经济犯罪数额价值的科学折算方法

犯罪数额是衡量罪行轻重、如何处罚的标准之一,特别在主观上以获取经济利益为目的的如盗窃、诈骗、贪污、受贿等犯罪中,更是一项主要内容,对于定罪量刑具有十分重要的意义。只有准确地认定违法或犯罪行为侵犯财产的数额,科学合理地确定其经济价值,才能正确地认定行为的违法或犯罪的性质,从而恰当地处罚,做到不枉不纵,罚当其罪。正是由于犯罪数额对于定罪量刑的重要意义,我国法律和规范性法律文件十分重视对犯罪数额的严格界定。 但是,现行的以经济犯罪“数额”作为定罪标准的方法,存在着很大的弊端:     

论刑事违法性判断与民事不法判断的关系

刑事违法性的判断与民事不法的判断,是基于不同性质法律进行的判断,有其各自的判断体系,因而侵害个体性利益的犯罪同时也是民事不法行为。犯罪与民事不法行为,不是非此即彼的关系。对于侵犯个体性权益的危害行为是否犯罪的判断过程中,考虑到维护法制统一、刑罚的辅助性等原因,刑事违法性的判断对民事不法的判断结论应具有依赖的关系,即实质的从属性,刑事违法性的判断以民事不法的成立为必要条件。     

论劳动教养立法的几个基础性问题——建立我国轻罪处罚制度的理论创新

轻罪处罚制度的不足是我国刑事立法和刑事司法制度中的一个板块性缺损。中国刑事立法犯罪概念的特点决定了中国刑法上的犯罪实际上是严重或较为严重的犯罪 ,而不包括轻罪 ,因此 ,应当以劳动教养立法为契机建立中国的轻罪处罚体系。轻罪处罚法律制度的建立和完善 ,在理论和实践两个方面都面临一系列必须回答的基本问题。这些问题的解决除了需要立法和司法等方面的客观条件外 ,还需要具有根本性意义的理论创新。这就需要从理论上形成和提出问题 ,并给予科学的说明 ,为轻罪处罚制度提供必需的理论支撑。     

What is a Crime?

This article presents a philosophical account of the natureof crime. It argues that the criminal law contains both fault-basedcrimes and strict liability offences, and that these two representdifferent paradigms of liability. It goes on to argue that thegist of fault-based crimes lies in their being public wrongs,not (as is often thought) because they wrong the public, butbecause the public is responsible for punishing them, i.e. becausethey merit state punishment. What makes wrongs deserving ofpunishment is that they are seriously blameworthy, inasmuchas they evince a disrespect for the values violated. But theyonly merit state punishment when they violate important values,not simply due to the well-known pragmatic considerations againstthe use of the criminal law, but to the intrinsic expressiveforce of criminal conviction. Finally, the analysis of fault-basedcrimes points to a role for strict liability in regulating actionsthat are not seriously blameworthy but do increase the riskof values being damaged.     

Character,purpose, and criminal responsibility

This paper explores analyzing criminal responsibility from the Humean position that blame is for character traits. If untoward acts indicate undesirable character traits, then the agent is blameworthy; if they do not, then the actor is not blameworthy — he has an excuse. A distinctive feature of this approach is that that voluntariness of acts is irrelevant to determining blameworthiness.This analysis is then applied to a variety of issues in criminal law. Mens supports inferences to character traits, and the Humean approach provides a reason for rejeting strict criminal liability. The Humean approach also helps resolve a number of issues about attempts, such as punishment for impossible attempts and the defense of abandonment. It also supports the broad outlines of the defense of mistake and provides a third alternative in the Wooton-Hart debate over punishment and treatment.     

Towards Efficiency in Attributing Criminal Liability to Corporations: Canadian and Brazilian Regimes Compared

This article compares Canadian treatment of corporate criminal liability with that in Brazil, examining whether there are ways in which one system can learn from the other. It is argued that the Canadian model could provide a starting point for revision of Brazilian legal principles in this area that, would encourage the public to recognize that crimes committed by corporations should be taken seriously. However, because criminal liability requires a high burden of proof and is therefore difficult to secure, the Brazilian regime of strict liability may ultimately be useful in encouraging compliance by corporations, assuming sanctions are severe enough and detection of violations by law enforcers is enhanced. The solution may therefore consist in the use of both these regimes, as is currently the case with anticorruption law in the UK.     

Public Reason and the Need to Identify State-Relevant Desert

Plausible retributivist justifications for punishment assert that the commission of a moral wrong creates a pro tanto reason to punish the person who committed it. Yet there are good case-based and theoretical reasons to believe that not all moral wrongs are the proper subjects of criminal law or that they are within the proper domain of the state. This article provides these reasons, which suggest that a plausible retributivist justification for punishment must make distinctions between state-relevant and non-state-relevant moral wrongs and (consequently) state-relevant and non-state-relevant desert. The article makes the case for Rawlsian public reason as a plausible method for making these distinctions.     

Reflections on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Prince</Emphasis>, Public Welfare Offenses, <Emphasis Type="Italic">American Cyanamid</Emphasis>, and the Wisdom of the Common Law

The fundamental requirement of Anglo-American criminal law is that crime must consist of the concurrence of a guilty mind—a mens rea—with a guilty act—an actus reus. And yet, the criminal law is shot through with discordant lumps of strict liability—crimes for which no mens rea is required. Ignoring the conventional normative objections to this aberration, I distinguish two different types of strict criminal liability: the type that arose at common law and the type associated with the public welfare offenses that are the product of twentieth and twenty-first century legislation. Using famous cases as exemplars, I analyze the two types of strict liability, and then examine the purposes served and incentives created by subjecting individuals to strict liability. I conclude that common law strict liability is rational in that it advances the purposes of the criminal law, while the public welfare offenses are at best pointless and at worst counterproductive. I suggest that in this respect the common law contains more wisdom than the results of the legislative process.     

过失危险犯质疑及其理论归属

过失危险犯违反过失犯罪的基本理论,其实质是故意犯罪,不应以加大业务过失犯的处罚为理由设置过失危险犯。我国刑法没有过失危险犯的立法例,妨害传染病防治罪、妨害国境卫生检疫罪罪状中的危险应从刑法规范论的角度进行理解,不能望文生义。针对一些严重违反规章制度造成危险状态的行为的归责问题,立法不应设置过失危险犯而应设置新的抽象危险犯类型。     

论一般没收财产刑应予废止

由没收财产刑的体系地位与适用对象可以看出 ,没收财产刑是我国刑罚体系中最重的附加刑。但如果从罪刑法定原则的要求来看 ,没收财产刑如果作为一种剥夺部分财产的刑罚 ,在已经有罚金刑规定的情况 ,没有存在的必要 ;作为对危害国家安全罪和其他严重犯罪适用的判处没收财产 ,难于看出其特殊的性质 ;作为判处死刑、无期徒刑的附加刑 ,违反刑法的基本目的 ,其存在具有一定的超刑事责任范围的任意处置的违反罪刑法定原则基本精神的倾向。因此 ,笔者认为 ,一般的没收财产刑应予废止。     

Strict Liability’s Criminogenic Effect

It is easy to understand the apparent appeal of strict liability to policymakers and legal reformers seeking to reduce crime: if the criminal law can do away with its traditional culpability requirement, it can increase the likelihood of conviction and punishment of those who engage in prohibited conduct or bring about prohibited harm or evil. And such an increase in punishment rate can enhance the crime-control effectiveness of a system built upon general deterrence or incapacitation of the dangerous. Similar arguments support the use of criminal liability for regulatory offenses. Greater punishment rates suggest greater compliance. But this analysis fails to appreciate the crime-control costs of strict liability. By explicitly providing for punishment in the absence of moral blameworthiness, the law undermines its moral credibility with the community and thereby provokes subversion and resistance instead of the cooperation and acquiescence it needs for effective crime control. More importantly, the system’s lost moral credibility undermines the law’s ability to harness the powerful forces of stigmatization, social influence, and internalized norms. Given the serious limitations inherent in the real-world application of general deterrence and preventive detention programs, the most effective crime-control strategy is to build the criminal law’s reputation for being just, which means avoiding the use of strict liability.     

美国环境犯罪严格刑事责任的演化与评析

为了确保食品、药物及环境等涉及公共福利领域的安全,美国法院发展并确立严格刑事责任制度,该制度包括公共福利犯罪原则和有责任的公司管理人员原则。确立环境严格刑事责任的目的是确保刑法在保护环境和促进环境法遵守方面的效率。公共福利犯罪原则和有责任的公司管理人员原则减轻了美国起诉部门的证明责任,降低了司法成本,同时提高了犯罪的成本,增强了刑法的威慑力。这体现了美国环境刑事政策的价值取向是社会利益保护优先和效率优先。     

经济自由与刑法理性:经济刑法的范围界定

刑法对任何行为的惩罚都要有正当化根据,要坚持犯罪化的基本原则。当今世界不少国家刑法都呈现泛化倾向,我国经济刑法也明显存在调整范围过度的现象。传统刑法理论认为经济犯罪的客体是国家经济秩序,这种理解难以符合市场经济本质和前行方向,容易引起经济刑法处罚范围的不当扩大。经济犯罪是市场主体滥用经济自由而导致对其他平等主体或社会、国家公共利益的伤害(危险),对其法益要从实质上解释,形式上只是违反特定经济制度或秩序,不产生具体法益侵害的行为,应由经济行政法调整,不宜纳入刑法范围。当前我国经济犯罪的司法认定要重视刑法解释方法的运用,以限缩经济刑法的处罚范围。