Harm and Wrongdoing in Criminalisation Theory

Contemporary theories of criminalisation address, with varying emphasis, themes concerning the harmfulness and the wrongfulness of the conduct. In his article for the present issue, Antony Duff relies chiefly on notions of wrongfulness as the basis for his proposed criminalisation doctrines; whereas in their 2011 volume on criminalisation, Andrew Simester and Andreas von Hirsch invoke both wrongfulness and harmfulness as prerequisites for prohibiting conduct. The present article assesses the comparative merits of these approaches, and argues in favour of the latter, two-element perspective. In this article, the author puts forward a number of reasons suggesting why the two-element approach (of wrongfulness and harm) is preferable. These reasons include, firstly, an inductive argument—that the kinds of wrongful conduct for which criminalisation seems a plausible response are those that include an element of harm or risk of harm. Secondly, a defining role for the state is one of resource-protection: of safeguarding the means and resources through which citizens can live good lives. Thus the concept of citizens’ living resources—and the related conception of harm—should be made a constitutive and explicit element of criminalisation theory, rather than subsuming resource-protection under a general rubric of wrongfulness. Thirdly, a two-element approach provides reciprocal limiting principles concerning the scope of criminalisation. One can, for example, employ wrongfulness requirements to limit the criminalisation of conduct that has remote harmful consequences; and, conversely, use a harmfulness requirement as means for restricting the criminalisation of wrongful acts.     

社会危害性理论：进一步的批判性清理

社会危害性理论是苏联刑法学的遗产之一,它至今仍在我国刑法学上占据着统治地位。基于罪刑法定原则,本文对社会危害性理论作了进一步的批判性清理。本文对社会危害性的形成史进行了历史考察,对犯罪概念,包括形式概念、实质概念与混合概念进行了法理辨正,指出了社会危害性与刑事违法性之间的相悖性,由此形成犯罪认定中犯罪构成的形式判断与社会危害性的实质判断之间的对立性,并对犯罪构成体系中的社会危害性观念作了评析。     

Pathways Towards New Criminalisation: The Case of Stalking in Portugal

Stalking, which is a form of interpersonal violence, has been increasing and has a significant impact on affected victims. However, despite established scientific consensus, the juridical–legal system, specifically in Europe, is still extremely asymmetric. Portugal, compelled by scientific data and the Istanbul Convention, was the most recent country to approve specific legislation against stalking. In this critical review, we describe the previous national situation and provide examples from other countries to elucidate the trajectory of the recent criminalisation process, analyse the existing legal content and reflect upon the implications and challenges associated with this legal progression.     

后现代主义法学理论述评

本文重点评析了后现代主义“法学”在学术研究范式上的转变及其对传统法律理论的挑战,并就我们在依法治国的伟大征程中如何扬弃西方法学理论,繁荣和发展有中国特色的法学研究提出几点看法。     

Criminalisation,modernisation, and globalisation: the US and international perspectives on domestic violence

The growth of modernisation in a society is intimately connected to the growth of legal evolutions related to criminalisation. While modernisation expands the boundaries of tolerance in an open society, it also expands the boundaries of crime and criminalisation. As modernisation expands on a global scale, the process of redefining crime, criminalisation, and victimisation also occurs on a global scale. In the modern societies of the West, the advance of modern law and justice and the progress of the notions of human rights have expanded the boundaries of freedom. They have also expanded the boundaries of criminalisation in a number of social, cultural, political, and economic domains. One of the major areas of criminalisation that has rapidly expanded with modernisation and globalisation, particularly in the West, is domestic violence. During the last 30 years, a series of laws have evolved in these societies that criminalise a wide variety of behaviours related to domestic violence. A comparative study of legislative developments on domestic violence in the United States, Brazil, India, Japan, Bangladesh, and Ghana suggests that, in each, a relatively homogenous set of laws against domestic violence has evolved.     

苏俄刑法学关于社会危害性理论的论争

社会危害性理论在苏俄刑法学一直占据中心地位.社会危害性被认为是犯罪的本质属性,成为区分罪与非罪的实质标准,在立法中,它一直作为犯罪实质概念的组成部分,并以此为基础创建了俄罗斯独特的刑法制度.在漫长的理论发展过程中,学者们在社会危害性的理论地位、社会危害性的构成要素及其判定方式上产生了激烈的论争,这无疑深化了对社会危害性理论的研究.在今天,这一理论的统治地位仍未动摇.     

去社团的社团理论——耶林论社会团体的功能与地位

在耶林看来,就功能价值而言,社会组织虽然在一定意义上具有正面功能,但由于其无限扩张的本性,使其内部关系和外部功能都产生了异化,从而在根本上具有负面价值;而从团体—国家关系上来说,团体迟早将被国家兼并,尚未兼并的团体则必须依赖国家的扶持方能正常运行。于是,耶林不仅从根本上否认了团体的正面价值,而且还从终极意义上否认了团体的独立存在。这些观念与耶林的受益人主体说及法人否认说不同,乃是一套政治学意义上的社团否认说,与耶林全能国家的政治观念实是一枚硬币的两面。     

Critical Legal Studies versus Critical Legal Theory: A Comment on Method

Over the last decade the Conference on Critical Legal Studies (CCLS) has rekindled an important debate about the study of legal ideologies. The work by scholars within this movement is provocative because it demands that we take seriously the contradictory needs and ideological parameters of liberal legalism. The growing body of work associated with this movement has not, however, included a criticism of the ideological underpinnings of legal methods in general and doctrinal analysis in particular. We begin with the premise that scholarship must include a self-critical method.
In Part I—The Political-Economic Constraints of Liberal Legal Scholarship—we explore why questions of methods, i. e. of how one asks and answers questions, has not been a central issue within CCLS. In Part II—Reformulation of Method—we present a beginning toward a framework for developing a self-critical method for understanding legal ideologies.     

中国通论犯罪构成理论体系评判

如果将犯罪构成理论理解为解释法律的理论体系，那么理论体系的设定就应当遵循安全性、可操作性两个价值前提。依据这两个价值前提评价我国通论的四要件犯罪构成理论体系，该理论体系的一次性评价的体系设计，出罪通道的不畅通，导致刑法运行安全方面的保障欠缺；将一个总体的犯罪评价对象即犯罪行为，拆分为四个方面的理论体系思路，难于符合人的一般思维习惯；具有可操作性方面的问题。因此，通论四要件的犯罪构成理论体系不具有选择的合理性。     

社会危害性中法益侵害的刑法蕴意

"社会危害性"理论是指导我国刑事司法研究和实践的基本理论,它界定了刑事处分承受主体的行为界限和本质,厘清了定罪量刑的实质内客.我国的社会危害性理论传承于前苏联刑法理论并作了有益的发展,但在实践中仍饱受语意模糊之诟病.法益侵害说是大陆法系刑法理论的重要学说,该说认为违法行为的本质是对法益的侵害.普遍认为,该理论较之社会危害性的学说更为具体明确,有较强的可操作性,易于司法应用.社会危害性论的理论范畴其实亦涵盖了法益侵害的主要内容,但是却未发挥更强的实践作用.应当探究法益侵害内核在社会危害性论中的理论地位,进一步明晰社会危害性理论的核心内涵,以期完善并增强危害性论的实践功效,并促进理论发展,以便更好地服务于我国刑事司法实践.