罪责的客观化与期待可能性理论的命运

当代刑法对风险控制与危害预防的强调,使得罪责概念的内容经历了重大的变化。随着对行为人的控制能力的强调,以选择自由为基础的传统规范责任论被废弃。期待可能性被从责任论中剥离出来,其重要性也日益呈下降的趋势。期待可能性理论在当代所遭遇的命运,折射出刑法任务观的重新定位对刑法体系中具体制度与理论的重大影响。     

A Human Right not to be Punished? Punishment as Derogation of Rights

In this essay, I apply international human rights theory to the domestic discussion of criminalization. The essay takes as its starting point the “right not to be punished” that Douglas Husak posited in his recent book Overcriminalization. By reviewing international human rights norms, I take up Husak’s challenge to imbue this right with further normative content. This process reveals additional relationships between the criminal law and human rights theory, and I discuss one analogy: the derogation by states of an individual’s human rights under specified conditions has certain similarities to the punishment by states of an individual who holds a right not to be punished. Along the way, I highlight the normative implications of defining a human right not to be punished under both generalist and specificationist perspectives on moral rights. Noting the similarities as well as the differences in the concepts of punishment and derogation, this essay aims to contribute to the exchange between theories of human rights and the criminal law.     

Legislative duty and the independence of law

This essay considers the nature of duties incumbent on legislators in virtue of the office itself. I argue that there is no duty for a legislator to enact a criminal law based on morality; there is no duty to incorporate substantive moral conditions into the criminal law; and there is therefore no duty derivable from the nature of the legislative office itself to make conditions of culpability depend on those of moral responsibility. Finally, I argue that the relation between morality and the criminal law is therefore much less direct than assumed in most theories of the criminal law.     

从归因到归责:客观归责理论研究

客观归责理论是德国刑法学在因果关系理论基础上发展起来的学说,旨在解决客观上的可归责性问题。归因与归责的区别在于:归因是一个事实问题,通过因果关系理论解决;归责是一个评价问题,通过客观归责理论解决。客观归责理论所确立的有关规则,对犯罪构成的客观要素进行实质审查,从而使犯罪构成论更加合理化。我国有必要对客观归责理论加以借鉴。     

A Justification of Command Responsibility

In this article, I advance a culpability-based justification for command responsibility. Command responsibility has attracted powerful, principled criticisms, particularly that its controversial “should have known” fault standard may breach the culpability principle. Scholars are right to raise such questions, as a negligence-based mode of accessory liability seems to chafe against our analytical constructs. However, I argue, in three steps, that the intuition of justice underlying the doctrine is sound. An upshot of this analysis is that the “should have known” standard in the ICC Statute, rather than being shunned, should be embraced. While Tribunal jurisprudence shied away from criminal negligence due to culpability concerns, I argue that the “should have known” standard actually maps better onto personal culpability than the rival formulations developed by the Tribunals.     

Negotiating the Boundaries of Crime and Culture: A Sociolegal Perspective on Cultural Defense Strategies

In this article 1 offer a principled strategy for the courts to identify and to handle the uses of culture as a defense in a criminal proceeding. I begin by discussing the relationship between culture and behavior illuminated by sociologists of culture. I then explain the three categories into which cultural defenses fall–cultural reason, cultural requirement, and cultural tolerance–and the response of criminal courts in the United States to each. I argue that where culture offers an alternative explanation of the defendant's intent, it is highly relevant to determinations of criminal liability. However, where a defendant uses culture only to explain why he wanted to harm the victim and asks that the court be tolerant of such behavior, considerations of culture should not be allowed. In reaching this conclusion, I draw on theories of multiculturalism to consider the benefits and burdens of maintaining the facade of a "cultureless" criminal law in an increasingly heterogeneous society.     

Negligence,Mens Rea,and What We Want the Element of Mens Rea to Provide

It is widely agreed that the top three Model Penal Code culpability levels suffice for criminal liability, but the fourth is controversial. And it isn̵     

When is Negligent Inadvertence Culpable?

Doug Husak suggests that sometimes an actor should be deemed reckless, and not merely negligent, with respect to the risks that she knowingly created but has forgotten at the moment of action. The validity of this conclusion, he points out, depends crucially on what it means to be aware of a risk. Husak’s “neutral prompt” and “counterfactual actual belief” criteria are problematic, however. More persuasive is his suggestion that we understand belief, in this moral and criminal law context, as a concept whose meaning is determined by its function as a culpability standard. Husak concludes that inadvertent actors are often less culpable than knowing-but-later-forgetful actors; this is plausible, but there are also numerous counterexamples.     

论多层面犯罪理论整合模型——以科学发展观为视角

随着西方犯罪学理论的引进和我国本土犯罪学理论的衍生，我国犯罪学理论呈现出争奇斗妍、互相争鸣的局面。如何保证犯罪学遵循科学发展观指明的道路健康发展，对刑事司法更好地发挥指导作用？我们认为有必要对犯罪学理论进行验证和整合。通过对理论整合的三种观点进行讨论，我们认为对犯罪学理论既不能不整合，也不能整合过度。结合犯罪学界四种整合模型，我们提出了多层面整合模型，并论证了整合的四个原则：整合的底限是要保证理论的科学性；整合的目的是要能解释尽可能多的犯罪现象；整合的方法是多层面、有限制；整合之后的新理论仍然需要进一步的验证。     

刑法典修订以来若干重要理论问题新探索(上)──《刑法教科书》(2000年版)的新发展

刑法法典化和刑法法典成熟化是刑事立法现代化的一种趋势;对犯罪概念应坚持形式定义与实质定义的结合与统一;刑法上主要有两种犯罪分类方法,一是根据犯罪的性质,一是根据犯罪的严重程度;犯罪构成可以分为法定的犯罪构成与现实的犯罪构成;事业单位、机关、团体、民办非企业单位作为法人犯罪主体时,应当对其内涵予以正确界定;犯罪客体是犯罪主体的犯罪行为所侵害的、为我国刑法所保护的社会利益,它既是犯罪的组成部分,又是犯罪构成的组成部分;应在刑法上规定罪过的概念并坚持“无罪过不为罪,也不受刑罚”的罪过原则,罪过不仅指故意与过失,而且还包括其他因素,罪过不仅有存在与否的区别,还有程度的差别;“持有”作为犯罪行为的形式,通常表现为作为,但有时也表现为不作为,甚至表现为两者的交叉,因此把它视为犯罪行为的第三种形式亦未尝不可;国家对犯罪人及其犯罪行为的评价和判断,属于刑事责任的内容;犯罪和犯罪构成的质变,由组成要素的性质、数量、结合方式三个因素决定,研究犯罪和犯罪构成的质变与部分质变,可以以此来构建刑法分则理论新体系。     

THE STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY OF PROCESSES GENERATING CRIMINAL AND ANALOGOUS BEHAVIORS*

It is possible to distinguish between broad-domain theories that offer an explanation for all phenomena of interest to a discipline and narrow-domain theories that attempt to explain a subset of those phenomena. In criminology, this distinction has prompted theorists and researchers to confront the question of whether the same etiological process can explain variation in all types of criminal offending behavior or whether it will be necessary to adopt different theories to explain variation in different kinds of criminal behavior. One broad-domain theory, advanced by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), contends that a variable called “self-control” can account for variation in all kinds of criminal conduct as well as variation in many acts that are “analogous” to crime in some ways but are not actually criminal. Analogous behaviors include, among other things, smoking, drinking, involvement in accidents, gambling, and loitering. Using data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (N = 369 males), we attempt to define operationally the concept of self-control with a set of variables measured at ages 8–9. We then examine the empirical association between this self-control measure and self-reported involvement in a variety of criminal and analogous acts during adolescence. In support of Gottfredson and Hirschi's position, our results indicate that self-control is associated with both outcomes and that the strength of the association is approximately equal. Contrary to the expectations of their theory, however, was our finding that the covariance between criminal and analogous behaviors could not be explained entirely by variations in self-control. This finding suggests that factors other than time-stable differences in criminal propensity do matter for criminal and legal, but, risky behaviors.     

风险社会的刑法风险及其防范

在风险社会刑法出现了一些新动向:刑法的任务由保护法益转向保护国民的安全感;预防理念从消极预防转向积极预防;犯罪圈不断膨胀;传统归责理论有所突破。这些新动向使刑法在遏制风险的同时,自身也潜藏着风险:一是不利于实现社会福利最大化;二是可能导致泛刑法化与重刑化;三是刑法的自由保障机能被弱化;四是责任原则有大范围超越的风险。要消除这些风险,必须平衡好允许的危险与禁止的危险的关系;协调好自由保障与风险防范的关系;权衡好成本与收益的关系。总之,"最好的社会政策也是最好的刑事政策"这句名言在今天仍然应当被坚持。     

Response to Tudor: Remorse-based Sentence Reductions in Theory and Practice

Steven Tudor defends the mitigation of criminal sentences in cases in which offenders are genuinely remorseful for their crimes. More than this, he takes the principle that such remorse-based sentence reductions are appropriate to be a ‘well-settled legal principle’—so well settled, in fact, that ‘it is among those deep-seated commitments which can serve to test general theories as much as they are tested by them’. However, his account of why remorse should reduce punishment is strongly philosophical in character. He sets to one side the many practical difficulties in implementing such reductions in the real world of criminal justice institutions so that he can focus on the question of whether a plausible account of sentencing can show that remorse should mitigate punishment. I contend that Tudor’s defense of such reductions is unpersuasive in certain respects. Yet even if it can be made more persuasive, I argue that the conditions that would have to be satisfied for remorse-based sentence reductions to be justifiably implemented are so many and various that they would likely exceed our abilities to responsibly grant them in real world legal contexts. I therefore claim that Tudor has failed to provide a defense of the ‘remorse principle’ that serves to explain or justify existing legal practices.

大陆法系犯罪论体系的嬗变

通过探讨大陆法系的犯罪论体系的嬗变,指出它仍然存在诸多需要进一步研究的问题,进而,认为对我国传统的犯罪构成理论的批判是值得商榷的.我国传统的犯罪构成理论仍然具有生命力,应该暂缓引进大陆法系的犯罪论体系.     

德国刑法中的超越承担过失理论介评

过失犯的成立以行为人具有注意能力为前提，但在超越承担过失中，行为人行为时并无注意能力，却又应当受到处罚。为了解决这种处罚与责任主义之间的矛盾，德国刑法学界提出了“实行行为前置说”、“单一行为说”、“罪责前置说”与“不真正义务违反说”等学说，然而均存在种种缺陷，因此仍有必要深入思考过失犯的本质等问题。     

What’s Inside and Outside the Law?

In this article I take up a conceptual question: What is the distinction between ‘the law’ and the behavior the law regulates, or, as I formulate it, the distinction between what is ‘inside’ the law and what is ‘outside’ it? That conceptual question is in play in (at least) three different doctrinal domains: the constitutional law doctrines regarding the limits on the delegation of legislative powers; the criminal law doctrines regarding mistakes of law; and the constitutional rights doctrines that turn on the distinction between state action and the acts of non-state actors. I argue that legal doctrines should turn solely on normative considerations and should not turn on answers to conceptual questions. However, the doctrines I discuss appear to turn on the conceptual question regarding what is ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the law. I show how each of these doctrinal areas appears to raise this conceptual issue, and I explain how the doctrines might or might not escape being held hostage to conceptual controversy.     

我国刑事赔偿制度归责原则反思

对刑事赔偿的归责原则,我国有学者主张适用过错责任原则,有学者主张适用违法责任原则,还有学者主张适用结果责任原则,等等。这些原则在解决应否赔偿的问题上都存在难以克服的缺陷。之所以如此,主要是因为刑事赔偿制度与一般侵权赔偿制度有重大区别,刑事赔偿程序由国家向受害者支付赔偿费用的程序以及追偿程序两大程序构成,这两大程序应适用不同的归责原则:前一程序应适用结果责任原则,后一程序应适用过错责任原则。我国国家赔偿法对刑事赔偿归责原则的规定存在严重缺陷,应当进行彻底重构。     

Restoring the Victim: Emotional Reactions, Justice Beliefs, and Support for Reparation and Punishment

Psychological responses to criminal wrongdoing have primarily focused on the offender, particularly on how (and why) offender punishment satisfies people’s need for justice. However, the restoration of the victim presents another way in which the “psychological itch” that injustice creates can be addressed. In the present article, I discuss two lay theories of how crime victims can be restored: a belief that the harm caused to crime victims should be directly repaired (a restorative justice approach) versus a belief that victim harm should be addressed via the punishment of the offender (a retributive justice approach). These two lay theories are discussed with regard to their emotional and ideological determinants, as well as situational and chronic factors that can affect whether people adopt a reparative or punitive “justice mindset” in dealing with victim concerns (and crime in general).     

罪责的社会化与规范责任论的重构——期待可能性理论命运之反思

当前期待可能性理论研究中的认识误区在于,将期待可能性等同于规范责任论本身.罪责概念并没有固定的连续意义,随着刑法任务观的调整,它经历了重要的意义裂变.罪责的客观化与社会化意味着责任基础的改变,最终引起规范责任论的重构.期待可能性的命运不仅折射出罪责领域所经历的变革,也折射出刑法的整个基本运作框架发生重大转型的事实.