美国环境犯罪严格刑事责任的演化与评析

为了确保食品、药物及环境等涉及公共福利领域的安全,美国法院发展并确立严格刑事责任制度,该制度包括公共福利犯罪原则和有责任的公司管理人员原则。确立环境严格刑事责任的目的是确保刑法在保护环境和促进环境法遵守方面的效率。公共福利犯罪原则和有责任的公司管理人员原则减轻了美国起诉部门的证明责任,降低了司法成本,同时提高了犯罪的成本,增强了刑法的威慑力。这体现了美国环境刑事政策的价值取向是社会利益保护优先和效率优先。     

Probing the Depths of the Responsible Corporate Officer’s Duty

Many criminal law scholars have criticized the responsible corporate officer doctrine as a form of strict and vicarious liability. It is neither. It is merely a doctrine that supplies a duty in instances of omissions. Siding with Todd Aagaard in this debate, I argue that a proper reading of the cases yields that the responsible corporate officer doctrine is just duty supplying, and does not allow for strict liability when the underlying statute requires mens rea. After analyzing Dotterweich, Park, and their progeny, I probe the depths of this duty-supplying doctrine, including to whom the duty is owed, whether the duty is grounded in statute, cause of peril, or contract, and what the content of the duty is. Although the responsible corporate officer doctrine unveils questions we may have about duty generally, it is no more problematic than other duty-supplying doctrines in the criminal law.     

Corporations as Moral Agents: Trade-Offs in Criminal Liability and Human Rights for Corporations

This article argues that a common way of defending corporate criminal liability creates a dilemma: it provides a strong justification for giving human rights to corporations. This result follows from approaches to punishment and human rights which predicate each on the status of moral agency. In short, if corporations are moral agents in a sufficient sense to attract criminal liability, they are eligible holders of human rights. The article also discusses the doctrinal application of this philosophical claim. Drawing on US jurisprudence, it illustrates how the European Court of Human Rights might deploy corporate moral agency as a theoretical foundation for its otherwise weakly-reasoned attribution of human rights to corporations. If proponents of corporate criminal liability are dissatisfied with these conclusions, they face difficult policy trade-offs: they must abandon the doctrine, or adopt alternative approaches to punishment or human rights.     

The Trial of Joseph Dotterweich: The Origins of the “Responsible Corporate Officer” Doctrine

This article analyzes the origins of the “responsible corporate officer” doctrine: the trial of Joseph Dotterweich. That doctrine holds that an officer may be personally liable for the criminal act of a subordinate if the officer was, in some indefinite way, able to prevent the violation. Applying this doctrine, the prosecution of Dotterweich entailed strict liability for a strict liability offense. The underlying offenses—the interstate sale of one misbranded and adulterated drug and one misbranded drug—were said to be strict liability offenses. And then, with respect to Dotterweich as the corporation’s general manager, the government argued that he was strictly liable because he stood in “responsible relation” to the company’s acts. The government never tried to prove that the company, Buffalo Pharmacal, was negligent, nor did it try to prove that Dotterweich was negligent in his supervision of the employees of Buffalo Pharmacal. The prosecutor and judge were candid about this theory throughout the trial, although the judge conceded that it seemed bizarre and unfair. The defense lawyer repeatedly sought to inject what became known throughout the trial as the “question of good faith,” but was circumvented at almost every turn. What would thus seem to be the crux of any criminal trial—the personal fault of the defendant—was carefully shorn from the jury’s consideration. The government’s theory was so at odds with intuitive notions of liability and blame that, as one probes into the case, and looks at the language used in the government’s appellate briefs, imputations of moral fault inevitably crept in. Yet the government was not entitled to make such accusations, as it had pruned moral considerations from the trial. The article argues that the responsible corporate officer doctrine can never enjoy a secure place in our legal system. First, the doctrine is at a minimum in tension with, and often in direct opposition to, basic principles of the criminal law; and second, the doctrine fails, when followed to its logical conclusions, to accord with basic notions of fair play. The article concludes that the responsible corporate officer doctrine is either unnecessary, in cases in which the evidence establishes personal fault, or unjust, in cases in which it creates liability in the absence of personal fault through the unspecified notion of “responsibility.” The Dotterweich case illustrates what is contemplated by the latter possibility, and why it is problematic in any judicial system that purports, in the words of the Model Penal Code, “to safeguard conduct that is without fault from condemnation as criminal.”     

行政犯违法性认识错误不可避免的司法认定及其处理

从实证数据来看,传统的"不知法不免责"仍潜移默化地影响法院处理行政犯违法性认识错误问题:判决书中大多数情况下予以回避,少数情况下采取不一而足的应对.应该将刑法责任主义作为指导实践中处理行政犯违法性认识错误的基本原理.当今世界绝大多数国家均在刑法典或者判例中确立了行政犯违法性认识错误的免责事由.刑法中应该规定行政犯违法性...     

国际航空犯罪法人刑事责任及其国内立法转化研究

2010年《北京公约》和《北京议定书》首次规定了国际航空犯罪法人责任,法人责任以法人的高级管理人员代表法人实施劫持航空器等国际航空犯罪为要件,法人为此承担刑事、民事或行政责任。公约对法人犯罪及其责任的立法需要转化为国内法才能适用。世界各国国内法对法人犯罪及其责任的态度差别较大,英国、加拿大、法国等国刑法规定有航空犯罪的法人刑事责任,德国国内法规定有航空犯罪的法人行政责任,意大利刑法规定有航空犯罪的法人民事责任,我国仅在个别航空犯罪中规定有法人犯罪及其刑事责任。我国法人犯罪及其刑事责任的立法和理论具有较强的包容性,可在我国刑法中取消法人犯罪法定化限制,全面规定包括航空犯罪在内的法人犯罪及其刑事责任。     

Joint Criminal Enterprise

The doctrine of joint criminal enterprise is in disarray. Despite repeated judicial scrutiny at the highest level, the doctrine's scope, proper doctrinal basis and function in relation to other modes of complicity remain uncertain. This article examines the doctrine's elements and underlying principles. It argues that while joint criminal enterprise is largely used to make individuals liable for offences committed by their associates in excess of the common criminal purpose, its proper function is to police the limits of associate liability and thus to exculpate rather than inculpate. The doctrine governs not only instances of accessorial liability; it also applies where the parties involved are joint principal offenders. As this puts into question the prevalent view that joint criminal enterprise is a form of secondary participation that results in accessorial liability, the article concludes that it is best seen as a doctrine sui generis.     

合规视野下的企业刑事责任问题

在企业的刑事归责问题上,西方国家传统上遵循的是以企业员工的行为和主观过错推论企业行为和主观过错的原则。如今,这一归责方式正在受到普遍的质疑和挑战,一种建立在“组织责任”基础上的理论正在兴起,并为企业合规引入企业归责原则确立了理论上的依据。我国刑法所确立的单位犯罪制度,面临着单位犯罪与自然人犯罪“入罪标准不统一”“同罪不同罚”,单位所承担的刑事责任与行政责任难以保持均衡,以及认定单位主观意志较为困难等方面的问题。唯有建立“企业独立意志理论”,将单位视为一种独立的生命有机体,承认其具有实施独立行为和具有独立主观意志的能力,才能走出上述困境,并将企业合规融入单位归责原则之中。     

The Responsibility Gap in Corporate Crime

In many cases of criminality within large corporations, senior management does not commit the operative offense—or conspire or assist in it—but nonetheless bears serious responsibility for the crime. That responsibility can derive from, among other things, management’s role in cultivating corporate culture, in failing to police effectively within the firm, and in accepting lavish compensation for taking the firm’s reins. Criminal law does not include any doctrinal means for transposing that form of responsibility into punishment. Arguments for expanding doctrine—including broadening of the presently narrow “responsible corporate officer” doctrine—so as to authorize such punishment do not fare well under the justificatory demands of criminal law theory. The principal obstacle to such arguments is the large industrial corporation itself, which necessarily entails kinds and degrees of delegation and risk-taking that do not fit well with settled concepts about mens rea and omission liability. Even the most egregious and harmful management failures must be addressed through design and regulation of the corporation rather than imposition of individual criminal liability.     

案卷移送主义视野下的非法证据排除规则

早在新民主主义革命时期,一些革命根据地就在刑事诉讼中形成了案卷移送主义的司法传统。在第一部刑事诉讼法典颁布以后,案卷移送主义被视为职权主义审判方式的重要配套措施。在对抗制审判方式改革和刑事诉讼法的两次修改过程中,案卷移送主义不仅由庭前移送发展到庭后移送,而且由司法层面上升到立法层面。尽管案卷移送主义在特定条件下具有一定积极意义,但是在案卷材料与法庭之间的联系没有被彻底切断的情况下,非法证据排除规则存在的必要性就会大打折扣。因为,案卷移送主义不仅导致法庭的非法证据调查流于形式,而且导致法庭难以排除受到辩护方质疑的非法证据。     

The Problem with Entrapment

In R v Looseley; Attorney General’s Reference (No. 3 of2000) the House of Lords articulated a legal framework to govern‘entrapment’ in criminal cases. Their Lordshipsregarded the need for judicial intervention to assist entrappeddefendants as uncontroversial. This article argues that thedoctrine they set out, in fact, necessitates substantial, andlargely unarticulated, departures from principles the courtsordinarily stress as fundamental to the criminal law. In particular,entrapment doctrine determines liability for criminal acts byreference to the kind of environment inhabited by their perpetrators,a perspective the law ordinarily attempts to exclude. This articlesuggests that the anomalous treatment of entrapment can be understoodas a device to prevent the police from relocating the temptationto commit crime to environments in which they are not ordinarilyconfronted and to ensure that those from backgrounds in whichserious criminality is not usually a plausible option will escapepunishment if tempted to commit crime by the police.     

英美国家企业刑事责任论的最新发展——以英国《2007年企业过失致人死亡罪法》为例

首先回顾英国{2007年企业过失致人死亡罪法》的出台过程与背景，分析该法的政策意义，并指出有效控制与处罚企业违法行为的政策目的是这一法案得以通过的重要原因。之后，在上述论断的基础上，介绍了英美国家企业刑事责任论近年的发展情况，并分析其中从个人到组织、从主观到客观的发展趋势。最后，提出在企业犯罪频发的现阶段，为了更好地发挥刑罚的预防功能，我国也需要对目前的单位刑事责任论进行反思。     

Indirect Co-Perpetration

National and international criminal law systems are continually seeking doctrinal and theoretical frameworks to help them impose individual liability on collective perpetrators of crime. The two systems move in parallel and draw on each other. Historically, it has been mostly international criminal law that leaned on domestic legal systems for its collective modes of liability. Currently, however, it is the emerging jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court that is at the forefront of innovation, with the doctrine of indirect co-perpetration taking the lead in international prosecutions. The article assesses the potential contribution as well as the limits of this compound doctrine to domestic criminal law jurisprudence, particularly with regard to small-group criminality. Four modes of indirect co-perpetration are discussed, namely shared control, concerted control, controlling board, and flawed triangle perpetration. A doctrine of indirect co-perpetration would enable liability in these modes of perpetration, perhaps with the exception of the latter, which marks the limits of its applicability.     

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。     

公司法人人格否认理论与股东有限责任

一般认为,公司法人人格否认理论是股东有限责任的例外适用和有益补充。本文认为,公司法人人格否认理论是对股东有限责任的根本否定,而股东有限责任作为有限公司制度的基础和支柱,其价值远远高于公司法人人格否认理论。公司人格的滥用问题应通过强化董事责任的方式在合同法和侵权法领域加以解决。     

公司机会准则的司法裁判

源于美国普通法的公司机会准则,具有平衡公司与董事之间利益诉求冲突的功能。为使这一功能在实践中得到充分发挥,我国《公司法》应当借鉴美国法中的丰富判例与成熟规则,对公司机会认定标准与董事得以合法利用的情形作出明确细致的规定,以增强该制度的可操作性,促进司法裁判的有效开展。     

论未遂犯的处罚根据

世界各国的刑法大都规定了未遂犯,未遂犯为何遭受处罚即未遂犯的处罚根据则是中外刑法学者期望解开的谜团.为解开这个谜团,大陆法系出现了主观的未遂论、客观的未遂论和折中的未遂论的理论对立.主观的未遂论认为未遂犯的处罚根据是实现犯罪的行为者的意思或性格的危险性的外部表现.客观的未遂论认为未遂犯的处罚根据是惹起构成要件结果的客观危险性.折中的未遂论认为未遂犯的处罚根据在于实现犯罪的现实危险性和行为人的主观恶性.通过比较研究,我们认为折中的未遂论应是我国刑法中未遂犯的处罚根据.     

中国刑事案卷制度研究——以证据案卷为重心

中国刑事程序的流转及司法决策的作出皆以各种证据和文书材料构成的案卷为主要载体。英美法系国家与中国的刑事案卷制度,在案卷的完备性与简单性、案卷使用时空的伸展性与抑制性方面表现出重大差异。中国与大陆法系国家的刑事案卷制度相似性较多,其中最为重要之处在于法院应审查起诉机关移送的侦查卷宗,以此作为定案依据;二者主要在案卷制作的单一性与多元性、案卷作用的绝对性与相对性方面存在区别。中国刑事案卷制度的独特性可从司法权力组织的类型、司法目的与诉讼构造角度予以解释。中国刑事案卷制度的大部分特点在未来相当长时间内仍将保留,但在形成和使用上将发生变化。     

继承的共同正犯研究

继承的共同正犯,是指对某一个犯罪,先行行为者着手实行后,在行为尚未全部实行终了阶段,他人(后行行为者)与先行者之间产生了共同实施犯罪的意思,此后共同实施犯罪的实行行为的情形。是否应当承认继承的共同正犯概念,后行者是否应当对先行者行为所造成的结果承担责任,对此,刑法理论界存在着肯定说、否定说与限定的肯定说等多种观点。应当认为继承的共同正犯概念有其存在的合理性,而限定的肯定说则更有利于准确界定各行为人的刑事责任。     

因果关系错误问题及其应对——以行为危险现实化说的再阐释为中心

因果关系错误,是为了解决在因果关系上认定过宽,让行为人对一些罕见的偶然结果也要承担既遂责任的问题而提出的概念,是试图将在客观违法阶段难以解决的问题转移至主观责任阶段加以解决的尝试。但这种尝试不仅无法解决具体问题,还会加重责任阶层判断的负担,导致违法阶层判断与责任阶层判断失衡。因此,在客观层面处理因果关系错误问题成为学说主流,其中,行为危险现实化说应当成为首选方案。只是,当前对行为危险现实化说的理解带有较浓厚的相当因果关系论色彩。行为危险现实化说强调因果关系的客观性,认为在有无因果关系的判断上,没有必要以内容模糊的规范性因素即“异常性”作为判断依据,而只要以科学鉴定所确认的行为对现实结果发生的贡献度或者参与度为根据,判断现实结果能否评价为行为危险的现实化即可。