帮助行为正犯化的网络语境 ——兼及对犯罪参与理论的省思

网络犯罪的帮助行为较传统犯罪的帮助行为出现了异化,依据传统共犯理论难以实现对网络帮助行为严重社会危害性及其较高独立性的充分评价,司法解释层面与立法层面均创制了网络帮助行为正犯化的归责模式。帮助行为正犯化与犯罪参与理论密切相关,实质客观说为帮助行为正犯化的创制提供了契机,但实质客观说与我国双层区分制抵牾,对我国共犯立法双层区分制的准确理解与坚守,可以避免一些不必要的帮助行为正犯化的立法。     

正犯与共犯之区别

德、日、韩等国家的共犯论体系是以正犯为中心建立起来的,共犯是以正犯为其前提的概念。刑法以分工分类法对共犯人进行分类,正犯不仅是其中的核心概念,也是共同犯罪定罪、量刑的中心。因此,在共犯论中,最基本的问题便是怎样区分正犯与共犯。在我国的刑法理论中,并没有正犯概念,我国刑法将参与共同犯罪的行为人分为组织犯、主犯、从犯、胁从犯和教唆犯。有关正犯与共犯的区分问题,在我国的刑法理论界,有规范性实行行为说和实质客观说之争,虽然重要作用说具有相对合理性,但是,在共犯论体系不同的语境之下,探讨两者的区分,可谓无奈之举。这一问题的根本解决,最好是在修订刑法条文时,规定相关条款。     

实质刑法的体系化思考

实质刑法以理性主义为思考方法,以古典自然法学派的思想为哲学基础,主张形式与实质二分的罪刑法定原则;实质刑法主张实质二阶层犯罪论体系,构成要件是开放的实质评价类型,违法性本质是考虑利益衡量的结果无价值论,主张规范责任论且责任要素包括责任能力、故意\过失和期待可能;主张客观实质的共犯理论,并从客观主义视角运用实质分析方法回应或处理诸如共犯的处罚根据、共犯本质、共犯与正犯的区分等众多具体问题。实质的刑法解释论贯穿在实质刑法体系化构建之始终,其重要性彰显无遗。体系化视野下的实质刑法观是刑法知识教义学化的体现,它是对我国刑法知识的建设性思考。     

“正犯主犯化”:趋势、原因及启示

主犯与正犯分别处于我国和德日刑法共同犯罪人的核心地位,有必要明确二者的关系。在德日刑法史上,正犯的内涵经历了主观说、形式客观说和实质客观说的演变。随着重要作用说和犯罪事实支配理论成为学界通说,正犯的认定标准倒向了实质客观说。德日刑法中的正犯与我国刑法中主犯的界限日益模糊,呈现出"正犯主犯化"趋势。该趋势的形成与哲学思潮由自然(实证)主义向新康德主义的转变有关;在刑法领域,该思潮的转向主要通过把刑罚的合目的性引入到犯罪论的方法,以化解犯罪论与刑罚论的冲突和消弭"李斯特鸿沟"。"正犯主犯化"趋势对我国共同犯罪的研究具有重要启示:一方面,不能以德日刑法中的正犯、共犯概念代替主犯、从犯的规范用语;另一方面,不能割裂定罪与量刑的关系,引进所谓的"双层区分制"。对于外国刑法理论,应该在明确该理论产生的社会背景和发展动向的基础上,回归到中国的具体现实,结合具体问题分析我国刑法的优劣,再做出坚持还是借鉴的选择。     

片面共同正犯的成立及其范围

片面共同正犯理论主要是为了解决暗中行为人的行为认定与处罚范围问题.以往文献中的多数否定其成立的观点不仅没有结合正犯理论(构成要件说下的单独正犯与功能性支配的共同正犯理论)中对客观正犯行为的有力学说,而且以共同正犯的处罚原则即“部分行为全部责任”作为否定片面共同正犯的理由.否定说这一因果倒置的论述不能成立.将片面共同正犯与片面帮助犯的成立条件进行割裂,甚至运用完全相反的理由去说明有紧密联系的两种行为类型不合逻辑.基于客观行为共同说强调物理因果力的肯定说把握了片面共同正犯的实质问题.在正确解读“部分行为全部责任”的正犯处罚原则的前提下,运用犯罪实行概念、实质共犯的支配理论中的部分学说能够为解决片面共同正犯处罚范围这一理论空白提供新的启示.     

正犯与共犯的区别

目前,各国关于共犯体系存在着“单一制”和“区分制”两大立法类型.在区分制的立法类型下,如何区别“正犯”与“共犯”存在着多种不同的观点.在德、日等单层区分制下,正犯与共犯的区分起着定罪量刑的双重功能,因此,重视犯罪人在犯罪过程中的实质支配力或作用大小的行为支配论有其合理性.而我国刑法对共同犯罪采用的是以作用分类为主,分工分类为辅的双层区分体制,在这种体制下,应以实行行为说作为正犯与共犯的区分标准.     

大陆法系正犯与共犯区分理论评述——兼谈对我国共犯形式客观说之反思

正犯与共犯区分问题上,形式客观说虽貌似简洁明快,条理清晰,但实质上却是将难题皆推到了下一层次之判断中(实行行为性层面),而对下一层次判断,亦常常会呈现一种模糊状态.形式客观说一方面强调构成要件之定型性,以维持形式上之罪行法定意义,另一方面又从实质之角度把握构成要件,将构成要件行为从整体上予以扩充,反而又使构成要件失去定型意义,此不得不被认为与其基本出发点相违背.反之,权衡相较,大陆法系之行为支配理论对我国之正犯与共犯区分问题不无借鉴意义.     

犯罪参与类型再思考——兼议分工分类与作用分类的反思

犯罪参与类型的设置在本质上是对构成要件符合性的解释，以此为理论基点，在犯罪参与立法上形成了一元参与体系与二元参与体系。在二元犯罪参与体系之下，以犯罪事实支配理论为代表的实质客观说形成了正犯界定的实质化倾向，但此种理论学说完全颠覆了其赖以建立的前提即基本构成要件与修正构成要件之间的制度性区别。我国刑法学界传统观点在共犯人类型上形成的分工分类法与作用分类法的认识过于表面化，对于犯罪参与类型与构成要件之间的关联应为学界研究的重点。     

不能用行为共同说解释我国刑法中的共同犯罪

试图用德、日的行为共同说来解释我国刑法规定的共同犯罪,不仅是行不通的路径,而且其理论根据也不可靠。我国刑法规定的共同犯罪之所以不能用行为共同说来解释,归根到底是因为行为共同说是区分正犯与共犯的区分制犯罪参与体系的产物,而我国刑法采取的是不区分正犯与共犯的单一正犯体系。德、日刑法中的共同正犯或共犯必须在定罪阶段（犯罪论层次）确定,而我国刑法中的共同犯罪则是在量刑（处罚）阶段才涉及的问题。     

我国刑法共犯参与体系性质探讨——从统一正犯视野

在各国关于共同犯罪的刑事立法中,存在着区分正犯与狭义共犯的二元参与体系和不作上述区分的统一正犯体系两大类型,两种体系各有不同的特点。我国刑法并未提到正犯的概念,我国学者在共犯研究中鲜有涉及到我国犯罪参与体系性质的问题。我国刑法对共犯分类采用的是统一正犯体系,与传统的统一正犯体系相比又具有我国的特色。确定我国刑法所规定的犯罪参与体系性质对于我国共同犯罪理论与实务上一系列问题的解决有重要意义。     

共同正犯“部分实行全部责任”的法理及适用

根据因果共犯论,共同正犯"部分实行全部责任"归责原则的法理根据在于各行为与法益侵害结果之间的因果性。我国立法明确否定共同过失犯罪,故解释论上难以肯定过失共同正犯,但司法实务中所讨论的过失共同正犯的实例,常常存在回避结果发生的义务违反,因而完全可以以过失的同时犯对结果承担责任;肇事"逃逸"的罪过形式是故意而非过失,故指使"逃逸"可以成立共犯。只要片面行为与结果之间存在物理的因果性,就应肯定片面共同正犯的成立。承继共犯正犯否定说是因果共犯论的当然归结,因而利用被害人不能反抗的状态中途参与取财的,仅成立盗窃罪共同正犯,而非抢劫罪共同正犯;未参与盗窃仅事后参与暴力的,不成立事后抢劫的共犯。     

Responding to retributivists: a restorative justice rejoinder to the big three Desert theories

Retributive theories of legal punishment fail to justify the imprisonment of convicted offenders. There are three prominent retributive theories that attempt this: Fair Play theory, Moral Communication theory, and Intuitive Desert theory. Fair Play retributivists seek to imprison offenders in order to re-balance the distribution of benefits and burdens, which is upset by criminal offences. Moral Communication retributivists seek to imprison offenders as a means of communicating society’s condemnation of criminality. Intuitive Desert retributivists seek to imprison offenders because it is a deserved response to wrongdoing (the supporting evidence is our intuitive reactions to criminality). These theories are critiqued and attention is drawn to the superiority of certain restorative justice values and practices.     

共同正犯相关问题研究

作者探讨共同正犯的相关问题 ,提出共同正犯是共犯类型 ,并对国外刑法理论关于共同正犯理论的犯罪共同说、行为共同说和意思主体共同说进行了评析 ,提出了共同正犯成立的基本范围 ,分析了共同正犯的主观要件和实行行为形态 ,并就共谋共同实行行为、继承的共同实行行为、分担的共同实行行为等存在较大争议的问题进行分析 ,提出了自己观点。     

论共犯关系的竞合

共犯竞合是指共同犯罪中共犯人兼任多种共犯形态的一种犯罪现象 ,它不仅存在于以分工分类的德日刑法中 ,而且在我国主要以作用分工的共犯理论中也现实存在。对于不同共犯理论中的共犯竞合 ,其解决的方法和机能存在差异。德日刑法中的共犯竞合在于从竞合的共犯形态中选择择一共犯人形态进行定罪量刑 ,而我国的共犯竞合理论仅是为研究、了解共犯人在共犯中的不同身份以及对共犯事实的作用大小 ,进而为认定各共犯人是否为主犯或从犯服务。     

CO‐OFFENDING AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DELINQUENT CAREER*

This article examines the role of co‐offending in the development of the delinquent career. Hypotheses derived from Reiss's (1986, 1988) taxonomic theory of co‐offending are tested, using police‐reported data on the delinquent careers and co‐offending of 55,336 Canadian offenders. Support is found for a taxonomic theory and for age‐related and functional theories of co‐offending. The taxonomy consists of two types of offenders—high activity (3 percent) and low activity (97 percent)—whose co‐offending patterns differ during the teenage years but not during childhood. For low‐activity offenders as teenagers, the proportion of co‐offenses decreases with criminal experience. The rate of co‐offending by high‐activity offenders as teenagers is lower at onset than for low‐activity offenders, and it varies little with criminal experience. For both offender types, the proportion of co‐offenses decreases with age, is slightly less in males, and varies with the type of offense. For both offender types, the proportion of co‐offenses in childhood offending is greater than in the teenage years and is unrelated to the offender's age or criminal experience.     

Gender Differences in Specialization in Intimate Partner Violence: Comparing the Gender Symmetry and Violent Resistance Perspectives

Research on male domestic violence offenders has typically considered them to be highly specialized offenders, and specialized theories and policies have been developed to address this type of offending. Some scholars have suggested that intimate partner violence is not as specialized as has been previously assumed. Especially in terms of gender differences, intimate partner violence research and theory suggest some variability in the level of specialization apparent for offenders. The current study uses the gender symmetry and violent resistance perspectives of women’s use of intimate partner violence to examine gender differences in specialization among a sample of intimate partner violence arrestees. Analyses employed multivariate models estimating the diversity index as a measure of specialization in general and multilevel item response theory to assess specialization in intimate partner violence specifically. Results indicate that female arrestees demonstrate significantly greater levels specialization as compared to male arrestees, providing support for the violent resistance perspective. Implications of these results and directions for future research are discussed.     

Pygmalion in the reintegration process: Desistance from crime through the looking glass

The study of desistance from crime has come of age in recent years, and there are now several, competing theories to account for the ability of long-term offenders to abstain from criminal behavior. Most prominently, recent explanations have borrowed elements from informal social control theory, differential association theory and cognitive psychology. In the following, we argue that labeling theory may be a neglected factor in understanding the desistance process. Drawing on interview data collected as part of a study of an offender reintegration program, we illustrate how the idea of the “looking-glass self-concept” and others is a useful metaphor in understanding the process of rehabilitation or recovery in treatment programs.     

A national population based examination of the association between age-versatility trajectories and recidivism rates

Purpose

To compare theoretical explanations of the age-versatility curve including the hypotheses of: self-control theory stating that versatility is followed by specialization; taxonomic theory stating that adolescent-limited offenders are specialists and life-course offenders are versatile and orthogenetic theory stating that specialization and versatility are present in a large number of offender groups.

Methods

These explanations were tested with Israeli national population-based data on all first and subsequent juvenile offenders (n = 17,176) with 248,114 registered police contacts from 1996 to 2008.

Results

Semi-parametric group-based modeling identified two trajectory-groups that characterized the age-versatility curve of police contacts before first conviction. The trajectory-groups were labeled as versatility (n = 2,447; 14.2%), and specialization (n = 14,729; 85.8%). After controlling for 19 documented demographic, familial, and criminogenic risk factors, Cox regression showed that juvenile offenders in the versatility group were at increased risk of recidivism compared to offenders in the specialization group.

Conclusions

These results partially adhere with taxonomic theory than the remaining theories and indicate that assuming a trajectory of elevated pre-conviction versatility increases the risk of recidivism.     

论间接正犯的着手

间接正犯的着手是共犯理论中立场对立鲜明、争议颇大的问题,主、客观学派对于间接正犯着手的考察相去甚远,而在大陆法系国家的司法实务中也未曾达成共识。事实上,对间接正犯着手的考察应该站在客观主义的基本立场下,辅之以间接正犯的人身危险性考量,借鉴保安处分制度的优势,进而保证刑法的公平正义。