论犯罪故意在三阶层体系中的地位

在引入三阶层体系的背景之下,学界对我国《刑法》第14条中犯罪故意的体系性地位产生了诸多争议。在犯罪论体系的发展过程中,随着不法的主观化和罪责的客观化、规范化,心理性故意确立了作为主观构成要件的地位,而罪责故意与违法性认识(不法意识)则留在罪责层面,成为罪责的核心要素。无论是以不法论的基础还是从我国实定法的角度来看,心理性故意均应归属于构成要件而非罪责;在承认故意的双重地位的前提下,对容许性构成要件错误采取"法律效果转用的罪责理论"是迄今为止最为妥当的见解;关于故意与违法性认识(不法意识)的关系,我国《刑法》采取的是罪责理论而非故意理论。在三阶层体系之下,我国《刑法》第14条的犯罪故意应当区分心理性故意、罪责故意与违法性认识(不法意识),其中,心理性故意应当归属于构成要件,而罪责故意与违法性认识(不法意识)则归属于罪责。

The Systenatic Position of Intention in the Structur of Crime

Under the background of the introduction of the three-level system, the academic circles have had a lot of controversy about the systemic status of criminal intent in Article14 of China’s Criminal Law. In the development of the crime theory system, with the subjectivization of wrongfulness and the objectivization and standardization of guilt, psychological intention establishes the status as the element of subjective composition, while the awareness of criminal intent and illegality(the consciousness of lawlessness) remains at the level of guilt and becomes the core element of guilt. Whether it is the basis of wrongfulness or from the point of view of Chinese criminal law, psychological intent should belong to definition rather than the guilt, under the premise of recognizing the dual position of intent, the "the theory of guilt for the transfer of legal effect" to the element of permissibility is by far the most appropriate insight, and the relationship between intentional and illegal cognition(unlawful consciousness), Chinese criminal law adopts the theory of guilt rather than the theory of intent. Under the three-level system, Article 14 of our criminal law should distinguish between psychological intent, criminal intent and illegal cognition(unlawful consciousness), in which psychological intent should belong to the definition, while the intentional crime and illegality awareness(unlawful consciousness) belong to the culpability.