事先有备能否阻却防卫行为的正当性——从一件聚众斗殴案的定性看传统犯罪构成理论的困境及破围

正当防卫并不排斥事先做好防范、准备的情形,而传统刑法理论中犯罪构成只包含积极的构成要件,并将成立正当防卫与符合犯罪构成置于相互对立的地位,不利于分析、判断具体犯罪的成立与否。借鉴德日刑法学递进式＂三阶层犯罪构成体系＂理论,结合我国刑事立法和司法实践,应该将正当防卫、紧急避险等排除犯罪性的行为（违法阻却事由）和刑法第13条＂但书＂情节并列作为消极要件纳入我国的犯罪构成要件。     

事先有备不能阻却防卫行为的正当性——徐海旺、潘良明等人寻衅滋事案

正当防卫并不排斥事先做好防范、准备的情形,而传统刑法理论中犯罪构成只包含积极的构成要件,并将成立正当防卫与符合犯罪构成置于相互对立的地位,不利于分析、判断具体犯罪的成立与否。借鉴德日刑法学递进式“三阶层犯罪构成体系”理论,结合我国刑事立法和司法实践,应该将正当防卫、紧急避险等排除犯罪性的行为（违法阻却事由）和《刑法》第13条“但书”情节并列作为消极要件纳入我国的犯罪构成要件。     

非犯罪化与安乐死——以违法性阻却事由和期待可能性理论为视角

非犯罪化代表了刑事立法政策的一个方向———缩小刑法的干预范围。安乐死非犯罪化是一种观念的更新,但若依据我国现行刑法学“四要件说”犯罪构成理论,则安乐死行为符合故意杀人罪的构成要件,鉴于此,本文提出应借鉴大陆法系犯罪构成论的违法阻却事由和期待可能性理论来解决安乐死行为的不为罪和不处罚问题。     

三大部门法视野下阶层式犯罪体系之暗合研究

德日的刑法、民法与行政法皆明确区分违法和责任,形成了三大部门一致的违法(犯罪)构成体系。与四要件犯罪体系相比较,阶层式犯罪体系明确区分违法和责任,准确反映了刑法的内在体系,在判断过程的层次性、逻辑体系的周延性、犯罪客体、正当行为定位、违法阻却事由和责任阻却事由区分、保安处分等方面更有优势,具有实质合理性。我国刑法、民商法和行政法在立法、司法解释、司法判例等诸多方面均暗含着违法和责任的影子,默契支持着阶层式犯罪论体系。     

复杂疑难案件下犯罪构成理论的优劣对决——犯罪构成四要件说与德日犯罪三阶层论的对决

德日犯罪三阶层论和犯罪构成四要件说具有相同的入罪要素和犯罪构成雏形。两者的显著区别在于出罪要素上,即前者具有犯罪豁免性质的超法规违法阻却事由和超法规责任阻却事由的出罪要素,而后者没有犯罪豁免事由的出罪要素。德日犯罪三阶层论具有明显违反法治精神的缺陷,在处理复杂疑难案件上并不比犯罪构成四要件说更有优势。对于各种类型的复杂疑难案件,并非更换犯罪构成体系即可解决问题,主要应从刑法解释论、罪数形态论、认识错误论、共同犯罪论、违法实质论等其他相关理论来探求解决问题之道。     

论犯罪构成与犯罪阻却事由的关系

从刑事立法角度而言 ,犯罪阻却事由与犯罪构成是基于同一虚拟事实所设定的具有不同内容要求的法律规范形式 ,两者是一种并列关系 ;从刑事司法角度而言 ,犯罪构成与犯罪阻却事由是基于同一事实而引用的具有不同价值取向的价值评价体系 ,两者是一种基础与上层的关系     

犯罪论体系的去苏俄化

犯罪论体系是刑法知识的主轴,因此,犯罪论体系的去苏俄化是刑法知识的去苏俄化之关键所在。苏俄四要件的犯罪论体系形成过程中存在以皮昂特可夫斯基为首的教科书派和以特拉伊宁为代表的反教科书派之间的观点冲突,我国犯罪论体系的苏俄化,主要是受到苏俄教科书派的影响。对苏俄犯罪论体系应从三个方面进行反思性思考:一是分则与总则的关系,这里存在三阶层犯罪论体系的分则性思维与四要件犯罪论体系的总则性思维的对立;二是违法与责任的关系,这里存在三阶层犯罪论体系的规范论与四要件犯罪论体系的存在论的区别;三是出罪与入罪的关系,在三阶层的犯罪论体系中,出罪与入罪经过三重审查:在构成要件该当性阶层,将那些不具备构成要件的行为予以删除。在违法性阶层,将那些虽然具备构成要件该当性但不具有违法性的行为予以排除。在有责性阶层,将那些虽然具备构成要件该当性和违法性,但不具备有责性的行为予以删除。在三阶层的犯罪论体系的构造中,前一要件独立于后一要件,因此每一个阶层的判断都是独立的判断。尤其是在违法性和有责性中,将违法阻却事由和责任阻却事由予以排除,在入罪过程中实现出罪功能。而四要件的犯罪论体系只是论述了正面的犯罪成立条件,把正当防卫等出罪条件置于犯罪论体系之外,因而具有功能上的缺陷。     

"非犯罪人化"刑事政策初探

为了遏制当代世界性的持续高位的犯罪态势,应当实行非犯罪人化的刑事政策,即将那些只具有法定犯罪构成类型的行为而没有犯罪人格的行为人,排除于犯罪人之外.这样才能摆脱刑法制度危机,才能充分利用有限的刑法资源,集中应对真正的犯罪人,从而有效地抑制犯罪的发生.非犯罪人化政策,应当贯穿于刑事立法、司法以及犯罪预防之中.     

犯罪论体系对应受行政处罚行为的可参照性

“质量区别说”的立法选择并不决定性地影响应受行政处罚行为参照犯罪论体系。应受行政处罚行为得以参照犯罪论体系进行判定，源于对法律保留、比例原则和人格尊严等宪法价值的遵循。相较于“要件论”，“阶层论”犯罪构成体系的构成要素更为充分、位阶性更强、对人权保障和司法实践的促进性更显著，应为应受行政处罚行为之判定所参照。在构成各个阶层时，应当基于行政处罚的特点进行改良：除非特别处罚规范明确规定，构成要件该当性阶层原则上不以危害结果为必要；基于法秩序统一原理，除了特别处罚规范包含的豁免事由，违法性阶层可援引刑法和民法中的违法性阻却事由，只是认定各个事由时应逐次进行法益权衡，突出所涉行政法益的特殊性；在确立责任主义的基础上，除非特别处罚规范明确要求故意作为责任条件，否则过失是常态，可予以推定。     

超法规犯罪阻却事由的价值

在现代法治社会,符合刑法规定的构成要件是认定犯罪的前提。但是,犯罪不仅仅是事实上符合刑法规定的犯罪构成,而且在危害性上是应当予以刑罚处罚的行为。为了将一些表面上符合刑法规定的构成要件但实质上不属于应予刑罚处罚的行为排除在犯罪之外,各国刑法在规定犯罪构成要件的同时,也都规定有阻却犯罪成立的要素。只有这些阻却要素不存在时,才能认定为犯罪,这些要素往往被称为犯罪阻却事由。由于立法者的理性所限,刑法不可能将所有阻却犯罪的事由都规定在刑法中。     

The Possibility of Lawful Act Economic Duress: Pakistan International Airlines Corp v Times Travel (UK) Ltd

The voidability of a contract procured by ‘economic duress’ is now well-established, but the precise boundaries of the doctrine remain contested. In Pakistan International Airlines Corp v Times Travel (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 40, the Supreme Court confronted the longstanding controversy as to whether a threat to perform a lawful act can provide grounds for a threatened party to avoid a contract for economic duress. This note argues that the Court's decision to affirm the existence of ‘lawful act duress’ is welcome. It is further argued that the specific kind of lawful act duress identified by the majority and relevant to determining the appeal, described as ‘deliberate maneuvering via illegitimate means’, provides helpful (and defensible) clarification of the content of this doctrine, and that the Court was correct to hold that the contract in Times Travel was not voidable on this basis.     

Expediency,Legitimacy, and the Rule of Law: A Systems Perspective on Civil/Criminal Procedural Hybrids

In recent years an increasing quantity of UK legislation has introduced blended or ‘hybridised’ procedures that blur the previously clear demarcation between civil and criminal legal processes, typically on the grounds of normatively-motivated political expediency. This paper provides a critical perspective on instances of procedural hybridisation in order to illustrate that, first, the reliance upon civil law measures to remedy criminal law infractions can raise human rights issues and, second, that such instrumental criminal justice strategies deliberately circumvent the enhanced procedural protections of the criminal law. By conceptualising the rule of law as a structural coupling between the political and legal systems, and due process rights as necessary and self-imposed limitations upon systemic operations, this paper employs a systems-theoretical approach to critique this balancing act between expediency and principle, and queries the circumstances under which legislation contravening the rule of law can be said to lack legitimacy.     

Duress and criminal responsibility

While the plea of duress is generally accepted as a defense against criminal prosecution, the reasons why it exonerates are subject to dispute and disagreement. Duress is not easily recognizable as either an excusing or justifying condition. Additionally, duress is generally not permitted as a defense against criminal homicide, though some American jurisdictions allow the defense in felony-murder cases. In this paper, I present an argument for how and why the presence of duress can defeat a finding of criminal responsibility. This is intended to establish the philosophical foundation for the legal acceptability of the duress defense, even though I conclude that the defense does not qualify as either an excuse or a justification. I also argue that the duress defense should be allowed in cases of homicide.     

一个根本不存在的共犯种类--胁从犯--胁从犯的刑法依据和政策依据质疑

以刑法第28条作为胁从犯的存在依据,实属牵强附会,刑法第28条是关于主犯和从犯的补充规定;按作用分类法的理论,胁从犯是不存在的,刑法中只有主要作用和次要作用、辅助作用的规定,一些论者关于胁从犯的"较小作用"、"作用小于从犯"、"作用最小"的观点没有刑法依据.以毛泽东同志关于"首恶必办、胁从不问、立功受奖"的论述作为胁从犯的政策依据,也值得推敲,毛泽东选集中的"胁从"之说在当时主要是指听从"首恶"指挥跟从"首恶"国民党官兵,是今天刑法中"从犯"的立法依据,而不是胁从犯的政策渊源.     

The effects of beliefs and information about hypnosis on the legal defence of automatism through hypnosis

Abstract

The aims of this study were to assess the impact of public conceptions about the nature and coercive powers of hypnosis, and information regarding different approaches to hypnosis, on the plea of automatism through hypnosis in a criminal trial. Subjects were assigned to three groups. Two were presented with criminal cases in which automatism through hypnosis was implicated, as well as duress; one of these groups received information about different approaches to hypnosis. The third received the same cases, but with duress alone. Results showed that, when automatism through hypnosis was implicated as well as duress, the defendant offering the plea was judged less responsible, however, he was not judged less guilty than when duress alone was the defence. Also, subjects presented with the plea of automatism tended to be more sceptical about the idea than those not presented with this plea. The provision of information on different approaches to hypnosis was largely ineffective in altering beliefs and judgments. Judgments of guilt and responsibility were, however, strongly influenced by beliefs about automatism through hypnosis.     

我国刑法中的紧急避险与被迫行为关系之多维检视

行为人在受到他人强迫的情况下,实施了符合法益优越原则的侵害行为,是应当按照被迫行为还是紧急避险来加以处理,这突显出被迫行为与紧急避险之间的关系问题在刑法理论及实践上之重要性。对此,通过从刑事立法、理论及司法实务等多维视角对被迫行为与紧急避险的关系加以探讨,应当承认被迫行为属于以期待可能性理论为基础之免责或责任减轻事由,无论其是否符合法益优越原则,均应与紧急避险在本质上加以区别。     

Motives,Reasons, and Responsibility in Hate/Bias Crime Legislation

Hate/bias crimes, according to what we may call the literal interpretation, are crimes distinguished by their connection to a certain kind of motive. Hate crime laws and sentencing provisions state that such motives may result in penalty enhancements. According to the standard objection to hate crime laws, this position is problematic: first, criminal law should not be used to pass moral judgments on motives. Its concern should be with actions as modified by intentions, not with the values and reasons of perpetrators. Second, our motives are not directly responsive to the will, so we should not be held responsible for them. In reply to the second part of the objection, this article defends a version of the literal interpretation of hate crime that conceives of it as acting on a bad reason. Hate crime laws add punishment not for motives/thoughts, but for the decision to treat a patently bad reason (such as racism) as a reason to commit a criminal act. If the act itself is reason-responsive, we can be held responsible for what reasons we act on. Given that the truth or falsity of hate/bias on these grounds is not a disputed matter, we can justify using the criminal law to recognize the moral status of such motives.     

对社会危害性理论刑法学地位的新的曲解与新的辩护

在我国刑法学中,社会危害性理论的刑法学地位问题一直在争议之中。有学者将社区犯罪观和刑事和解观作为新的突破口,试图将社会危害性理论予以消解,以期最终将社会危害性理论从我国刑法学中清除。但是,由于包含着诸多曲解,故这一清除不仅没有实现,反而可被用来加固社会危害性理论在我国刑法学中的地位。     

Compassionate Killings: The Case for a Partial Defence

The focus of this article is upon compassionate killings, that is, criminal cases where a parent/spouse has killed or assisted to die a child/spouse who was suffering from severe disabilities, debilitating injury, chronic or terminal illness. We argue that the partial defence of diminished responsibility, while appropriate for some cases, fails to acknowledge the compassionate and relational nature of these acts and thus fails to identify the quality of the harm committed. We also argue that the general defences of duress of circumstances and necessity, even if they were to be become available, are inappropriate. Developing the concept of ‘compassion’, which is a consideration in relation to prosecution for assisted suicide, we argue for the introduction of a partial defence of ‘compassionate killing’ which would reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter in recognition of the killing as a responsive, relational act of care.     

犯罪中止时间性构成条件探微

根据现行刑法规定,犯罪中止成立的必备条件之一是必须发生在“犯罪过程中”,即人们所谓的时间性构成条件从刑法的谦抑性思想和主客观相统一原则的角度而言,“犯罪过程”应始于着手犯罪,而非始于犯罪预备行为;为了贯彻鼓励行为人主动放弃犯罪,有效地保护社会合法权益的立法精神,应将“犯罪过程”的终点确定为发生行为人追求的危害结果。