Mistake of Fact or Mistake of Criminal Law? Explaining and Defending the Distinction

This article makes six points. First, under any plausible normative perspective, the distinction between mistake (and ignorance) of criminal law and mistake of fact must at least sometimes be drawn. Second, the fundamental distinction is between a mistake about the state’s authoritative statement of what is prohibited (“M Law”), and a mistake about whether that prohibitory norm is instantiated in a particular case (“M Fact”). Third, when an actor makes a mistake about an evaluative criterion whose content the fact-finder has discretion to elaborate, it is impossible both to allow this discretion and to faithfully realize a jurisdiction’s policy of treating M Fact and M Law differently. Fourth, the claim that every unreasonable M Fact is really a M Law elides important differences between the two kinds of mistake. Fifth, various borderline objections, such as the famous Mr. Fact/Mr. Law example, do not undermine the fundamental distinction, although in rare instances, they do constitute genuine counterexamples that do not effectuate the principles and policies that the distinction ordinarily serves; and even here, they are exceptions that prove (the rationale for) the rule. Sixth, specification or evolution of a criminal law norm, such as the criterion for nonconsent in rape law, can convert a legally relevant M Fact into a legally irrelevant M Law. This phenomenon does not undermine the fundamental distinction between these types of mistake; to the contrary, it reveals the significance of that distinction.     

Review of “Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law”

This is a review of the challenging book in which Larry Alexander and Kimberly Ferzan propose sweeping revisions to the structure of substantive criminal law.     

Intoxication and Culpability

I tackle the difficult problem of specifying how voluntary intoxication affects criminal culpability generally and recklessness in particular. I contend that the problem need not be conceptualized as an instance of actio libera in causa, namely the situation in which persons do something at t1 to culpably create the conditions of their own defense at t2. Instead, I argue that we need only consider intoxicated defendants at t2 in order to justify their punishment. In the course of defending my view, I challenge conventional wisdom about both the nature of recklessness and the effects of intoxicants. I conclude by discussing a possible ground on which involuntary intoxication might be treated differently.     

论我国《刑法》第147条的罪过形式——基于刑法立法的解读

无单放货现象大量发生严重危害了我国的航运秩序、贸易秩序和提单制度,而我国长期以来对此缺乏专门的法律进行规制。为此,最高人民法院于2009年2月出台了专门针对无单放货的司法解释,即《最高人民法院关于无单放货的规定》(以下简称《规定》)。本文对《规定》关于承运人无单放货责任性质,《规定》关于承运人无单放货抗辩事由,《规定》关于无单放货行为归责原则,《规定》关于无单放货赔偿范围和责任限制丧失,《规定》关于无单放货诉讼时效等若干重要问题进行了评析。文章既分析和肯定了《规定》的重要作用和价值,又指出了《规定》所存在的一些疏漏,进而提出了一些具体的完善建议,从而期望为我国海上贸易事业的发展就尽一份绵薄之力。     

对象错误与打击错误--与倪培兴同志商榷

对象错误与打击错误是刑法理论上易于混淆的问题。对象错误属于主观认识错误 ,而打击错误为客观因素而造成的行为错误 (偏差 ) ,行为人主观上对对象并无错误而言。两者不仅在客观上形式不同 ,而且 ,法律性质也并不相同。由于两者错误的性质不同 ,不应当将其混淆。     

On Psychopaths and Culpability

Law and Philosophy -     

以实质故意论破解事实错误与法律错误的区分难题:以环境犯罪为例

国外通常不在刑法典中对犯罪故意下定义,而我国刑法第14条第1款规定明知自己的行为会发生危害社会的结果,并且希望或者放任这种结果发生,因而构成犯罪的,是故意犯罪,采一种实质的故意概念。无论采平面式还是阶层式的犯罪构成体系,事实错误与法律错误的区分的实质均在于能否肯定故意犯罪的成立。就猎捕、杀害珍贵和濒危野生动物而言,可根据行为人的职业、知能水平、行为的地点、时间、次数等因素,判断是否可能认识到所捕杀对象的野生性、稀少性、要保护性等特征,即有无实质的违法性意识,是否达到了值得以故意犯罪予以非难的程度。     

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。     

德国私法上意思表示错误理论之分析检讨

本文立于对德国私法上意思表示错误理论基本问题之批判分析 ,认为德国错误法规则的设计 ,以心理为划分基准创立的动机错误与表示错误的二元构成理论 ,不仅存在基准不明确 ,难于区分动机错误与表示错误的缺陷 ,而且在目的论之所在 ,对二者加以区别对待 ,不符合实际交易中的要求 ,对其正当化也存在理论上的困难。指出应不再区别对待动机错误与表示错误 ,而应站在信赖保护的立场上 ,引进对相对人行为方式综合评价的思路。     

Culpability and the Politics of Love

In L’amour du censeur, a seminal work published in French in 1974 but as yet untranslated into English, Pierre Legendre uses the Freudian Oedipus complex as a reading grid with which to decipher the libidinal dynamics underpinning Christian civilisations. This paper exposes Legendre’s work, and complements it by elucidating the play of the different modalities of identification conceptualised by Freud in Group Psychology. Horizontal and vertical identifications channel the investments that lend consistency to a political figure, an ideology, a discourse. Legendre’s work reminds us that the primary function of a given civilisation is to institute a workable libidinal economy for its subjects, and that politics names the knot of the social bond.     

Entrapment,Culpability, and Legitimacy

Law and Philosophy - In this paper, I offer a novel account of entrapment. This account suggests that the wrongness of pursuing punishment in cases of entrapment consists of two distinct...     

论德国民法的二元错误制度及其借鉴意义

德国民法错误制度的适用对象包括了表示中的错误及意思形成中的错误,具有清晰的二元特征,另外就这两种错误分别规定了错误方可以获得救济的条件.其不足之处主要是对表示中的错误限制得不够严格,以及未充分考虑相对人的因素.我国现行民法中的重大误解制度问题颇多,今后可在吸取德国民法错误制度的优点而避免其不足的基础上设计出合理的错误制度.     

Military Veterans, Culpability, and Blame

Recently in Porter v. McCollum, the United States Supreme Court, citing “a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service,” held that a defense lawyer’s failure to present his client’s military service record as mitigating evidence during his sentencing for two murders amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The purpose of this Article is to assess, from the just deserts perspective, the grounds to believe that veterans who commit crimes are to be blamed less by the State than offenders without such backgrounds. Two rationales for a differential treatment of military veterans who commit crimes are typically set forth. The Porter Court raised each, stating that we should treat veterans differently “in recognition of” both “their service” and “the intense stress and mental and emotional toll” of combat. The former factor suggests there being a “social contributions” or gratitude-based discount, whereas the latter factor points towards a “mental disturbance” discount. This Article analyzes the two accounts and raises some doubts about both. This Article then argues that a military veteran who commits a crime should not be blamed to the full extent of his blameworthiness, not necessarily because of his mental capacity nor because of his social contribution, but because the State’s hand in producing his criminality undermines its standing to blame him.     

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。