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.     

论被害人过错影响定罪量刑的根据

被害人过错影响定罪量刑的根据,西方有责任分担说和谴责性降低说两种学说。责任分担说从分析造成客观危害的原因入手,引出了被害人过错应当分担部分责任的结论;谴责性降低说着眼于加害人的主观面,提出了被害人过错会导致加害人应受谴责性降低的观点。两种学说均只揭示了事物的一个方面,并存在缺陷。主客观相统一是现代刑法的主轴,只有既重视主观又强调客观才能完整地说明被害人过错影响定罪量刑的根据。     

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。     

论犯罪未遂的处罚根据

在现代各国刑事立法和刑法理论中，犯罪未遂的情形应予处罚已经成为一项公认的原则。但对犯罪未遂的处罚根据却存在诸多争论。客观主义强调行为产生法益侵害的客观危险性，主观主义则基于社会防卫而强调行为人的性格危险性。犯罪未遂的处罚根据与犯罪的本质及其基本特征、国家的法理念与价值选择、社会正义的评判等因素紧密相关。它应当包括实质的处罚根据与形式的处罚根据，二者的紧密结合较好地说明了犯罪未遂的处罚根据。其中，前者核心在于行为人主观恶性与行为的客观危害性的统一，即犯罪未遂的社会危害性。     

Internet mediated crimes and theoretical approaches

Purpose: in the literature, the term ‘Internet crime’ has been coined to indicate the scenario in which a victim of homicide or other crimes is met through a chat room, and lured to death at the hands of the murderer. Various criticisms have been made of this new concept, on the grounds that the outcome is no different from that of other crimes committed without the use of Web resources, and so the method used has no particular influence. Indeed, it has been claimed that informatic crime just reflects a technological change in the nature of crime rather than a new form of criminal behavior attributable to the use of the Internet for criminal purposes. Method: our reflections were prompted by our experience as expert forensic psychiatry witnesses in three cases in which the aggressors had confessed to having had an exclusively virtual relationship with the victims, in which they spent a lot of time daily in a chat room. Conclusion: this scenario offers points for reflection on the nature of Web-mediated victim–aggressor interactions, to assess the effects on the planning and commission of the crime. Discussion. it’s our opinion that there really is such a thing as Internet-correlated crime, because in this case the quality and quantity of the Internet interactions progressively altered the men’s perception of the real relationship between themself and their victims.     

我国国家赔偿归责原则之反思与重构

按国家赔偿法的规定,国家赔偿的归责原则是违法原则。这个原则存在着自相矛盾、与刑事诉讼法规定不一致、过于严格限制受害人获得国家赔偿以及与国际上国家赔偿归责原则多样化趋势不协调等缺陷。国家赔偿的归责原则应当是一个归贵原则体系,在这个体系中,有一般性的、具有普适性的一般原则,又有特殊性的、仅针对特殊事项适用的特殊原则。一般原则仍然是违法原则,而特殊原则包括过错原则、无过错原则和结果原则等,各项原则所适用的具体范围又有着一定的差异和不同。     

Does Control Make a Difference? The Moral Foundations of Shareholder Liability for Corporate Wrongs

The doctrine of limited liability, as traditionally understood, prevents shareholders from being held personally liable for corporate wrongs. Several authors have recently argued that the doctrine should be modified to make some or all shareholders individually liable for torts committed by corporations in which they hold shares. This article distinguishes three types of argument that might provide a moral basis for shareholder liability in such cases. I contend that while these arguments support holding at least some shareholders liable for corporate torts, they fail to justify a general regime of unlimited pro rata shareholder liability. The level of control shareholders exercise over a company makes an important difference to their moral duties to compensate victims of corporate wrongdoing.     

德国刑法中的双重罪过立法及其对我国的借鉴意义

德国刑法中的双重罪过立法主要是指罪过由对行为的故意与对结果的过失组合而成的故意犯罪的立法,主要分布在公共危险之犯罪中,共涉及20余个罪名。双重罪过立法严格贯彻了明确性原则、责任主义和刑罚个别化,体现了较为鲜明的法治立场。我国刑法总则把罪过形式的判断根据明确限定为"危害社会的结果",但分则对部分犯罪的罪过形式规定不明确,致使难以解释抽象危险犯的罪过形式,在侵害犯和具体危险犯上难以贯彻责任主义,同时无法消除罪过形式解释上的混乱。从德国刑法中的双重罪过立法来看,在完善我国刑法中的罪过立法时,不仅应当满足判断罪过形式的实际需要,更应当注重贯彻法治对刑法的基本要求,同时还应坚持刑法文本的逻辑性和适度性。     

以违法与责任为支柱构建犯罪论体系

对犯罪实体的认识不能仅停留在"客观"与"主观"两个概念上;犯罪论体系应当以价值或目的作为出发点,从而体现评价;以违法与责任为支柱构建犯罪论体系,具有充分根据与内在合理性。     

《刑法》第349条第1款的规范阐释——以“明知”为切入点

《刑法》第349条第1款规定的包庇、窝藏行为,其性质会因行为人"明知"的有无、内容和程度而改变,从而构成包庇毒品犯罪分子罪,窝藏、转移、隐瞒毒品罪,走私、贩卖、运输、制造毒品罪,窝藏、包庇罪或非法持有毒品罪等不同的犯罪,甚至完全可能是无罪。这就涉及到诸多刑法条文的规定。因此,应以"明知"为切入点,往返于规范与事实之间,把《刑法》作为统一的整体,对《刑法》第349条第1款进行体系解释,方可得到合理的结论。