论犯罪被害人过错制度的构建

犯罪被害人在犯罪的产生、进程和发展中扮演着重要的角色。与犯罪学对被害人的研究相比,刑法学中对被害人所进行的研究甚少,但作为刑法学中心任务的定罪量刑中却不能不涉及被害人因素特别是犯罪被害人过错的问题。犯罪被害人过错一定程度上影响和制约对犯罪人的定罪科刑。探究犯罪被害人过错,无论是对刑法学理论体系的完善,还是在实践中对国家刑罚权的运作,     

论刑法视野中的被害人行为

被害人行为是笔者最初在研究被害人过错后,通过理性思辨提出的一个崭新概念;通过刑法视野中被害人行为的境外比较可以看出,我国现行刑法关于被害人行为的规定还有待于立法完善。借鉴国外立法,条件成熟时,对于被害人的同意行为、被害人的过错行为、被害人的和解行为等,我国刑法应作出原则性的规定,对于被害人的告诉行为,在确定告诉才处理案件时应该确立一个清晰明确的标准。将被害人行为纳入刑法学研究视野后,应当进行刑法学理论的重构。     

关于犯罪被害人学研究

犯罪是一种危害社会,触犯国家(或地区)刑事法律,应当受到刑罚处罚的行为。犯罪行为的三个因素,通常被认为是犯罪人(即加害人)——侵害行为——被害者。而早期的刑法学,只重视犯罪人的行为特征及其人格的研究,而对犯罪行为的指向者——被害人的研究,由于其所居地位的特性则一向不被重视。犯罪学,主要是研究犯罪者个人的心身素质方面各有关因素的特性及外在的社会环境条件方面的相关因素的特性,阐明驱使犯罪人实施犯     

确定侵权行为民事责任应区分故意和过失

在民法学和刑法学上,过错都包括故意和过失两种形式。通常,民法学界认为,区分故意和过失只在刑法上对于定罪量刑具有重要意义,而在民法上,它对于确定行为人是否承担民事责任及其责任范围都不具有意义。这是因为侵权行为民事责任的有无及范围,完全取决于损害的有无和大小,它并不因行为人是故意还是过失而有所不同。对此,     

论过错程度

过错作为民事责任最一般、最普遍和最基本的基础，其本身可由注意义务和预见能力的程度差别而划分成多个等级序列，谓之过错程度。在民法中，过错程度的划分，对确定当事人就何种过错承担民事责任以及承担责任时划分责任范围的大小，都有着重要的理论和实践意义。     

18例输卵管妊娠相关医疗损害法医学鉴定分析

目的 分析输卵管妊娠误诊后发生医疗损害的案例,探讨发生医疗损害的原因,过错行为与损害后果的因果关系以及原因力大小,为此类案件的法医学鉴定提供评价思路。方法 收集18例输卵管妊娠相关医疗损害的法医学鉴定案件,从患者年龄、孕产史、生育需求、危险因素、诊疗情况、医疗过错、损害后果、原因力大小等方面进行回顾性分析。结果 18例均为输卵管妊娠,其中17例医疗行为存在过错,导致14例患侧输卵管切除,2例失血性休克死亡,1例宫内胎儿停止发育并患侧输卵管切除。另1例虽有输卵管切除的损害后果,但医疗行为无过错。结论 正确的诊断有助于制定合理的治疗方案,防止病情进展,减少严重不良后果和医患纠纷的发生。科学、合理地分析医疗过错行为与损害后果之间的因果关系及原因力大小,对此类医患纠纷的顺利解决有重要意义。     

确立律师过错赔偿制的探讨

律师过错赔偿制(以下简称“律赔制”),是指律师在执行职务过程中,如果发生了由于自己的过错行为给委托人或聘请单位造成经济损失的法律事实,律师事务所应当承担赔偿责任的制度。目前我国律师界、司法界对我国是否要确立“律赔制”,并如何实施有着不同意见。笔者拟对该问题作进一步探讨。     

两大法系刑法中的行为理论比较研究

行为在刑法理论中地位的确立是近代刑法的最大成就。关于行为内容的探讨,大陆法学从各个不同视野观察行为而形成的行为理论有因果行为论、目的行为论、社会行为论、人格行为论等四种,认为无行为即无犯罪;英美法系刑法学则主张修正大陆法学的行为理论,以“事态”取代行为,以控制原则取代犯罪行为要件。他们在行为方面的理论探讨有着特定的借鉴意义。虽然行为概念不是最理想的表述,但目前却无可替代。     

论危险责任及其立法

损害赔偿责任,依其是否以加害人有过错(过失)为要件,主要可区分为有过错之加害行为及无过错之加害行为。因其间在事实特征上存在有过错及无过错之区别,其规范需要因此可能不同,而在规范规划上必须区分为二个类型:将有过错之加害行为规定为侵权责任;将无过错之加害行为规定为危险责任。分别按其类型特征规划其赔偿责任之成立要件及理赔的方法。德国立法例采侵权责任与危险责任在不同法典并立的立法模式,而中国立法例采合并立法之模式,将侵权责任与危险责任一体规定于《侵权责任法》一部法典中。《侵权责任法》第6条及第7条虽分就有过错之加害行为及无过错之加害行为加以规定,但未因此分别称为侵权责任及危险责任,而通称为侵权责任。并就无过错之加害行为,基本上亦规定其加害人"应承担侵权责任"。因此,其规定之有过错之加害行为及无过错之加害行为的责任要件虽然不同,但并无特别凸显其应有不同之法律效力的规定。特别是对无过错之加害行为的责任,并未一般地附以责任限额及强制责任保险之配套要求。该种不同,将来在其适用之实务上的发展究竟产生什么影响,今后在比较法上值得注意。     

论混合过错

混合过错又称过失竞合,是指加害人与受害人都有过错并相关联,导致受害人遭受损害。作为过错的一种特殊形式,混合过错不同于一般过错和共同过错的基本特征在于,损害的发生既不是由单个加害人的过错造成,也不是由两个以上加害人的共同过错造成,而是由加害人与受害人双方过错的结合所致。由当事人为自己行为负责的民法规则所决定。混合过错作为特殊的过错形式,必然会对加害人承担的责任范围及相应的受害人请求权实现程度产生直接的影响。探讨混合过错的有关问题,不论对于民事审判实践还是民法理论研究,无疑都是有意义的。笔者就混合过错中以下四个方面的问题谈些个人看法。     

论被害人过错与刑法宽容

任何形式的＂犯罪———被害＂,无一不是被害人与犯罪人之间二元互动的结果。事实上,被害人通过其致害因素,直接或间接地、有意或无意地参与了与犯罪人之间的互动。可以说,所有的被害人都对自己的被害亦即犯罪的发生负有不同程度的责任。既然如此,那么在对犯罪人定罪量刑时,就应当考虑被害人的过错因素,对犯罪人给予适当宽容。     

由王马玲案看被害人过错问题

曾在＂反暴力拆迁＂案中造成＂一死六伤＂的女主角王马玲,在二审判决中由一审＂故意杀人罪、有期徒刑8年＂改判为＂故意伤害罪、有期徒刑5年＂,改判的主要原因在于被害人存在过错。大量案例显示,在故意伤害案中,被害人过错是一个经常出现的情节,鉴于被害人过错与法益损害结果的产生具有刑法规范上的因果关系,而这种因果关系的存在事实上降低了刑法期待行为人实施合法行为的可能性,因而对其细致考量将对行为人公正的刑事责任非难具有重要价值。当前,被害人过错在司法实践中作为酌定量刑情节之定位影响了其效用发挥,因而对其法定化、标准化和规范化的适用是司法工作的当务之急。     

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。     

论被害人过错影响刑事责任之正当依据

有关被害人过错影响刑事责任的正当依据主要存在"风险创设"、"比较过错"、"值得保护"以及"自我答责"、"期待可能性"几种代表性的理论。这些理论在一定程度上说明了被害人过错影响刑事责任的正当性基础,但这些理论的共同缺陷在于:首先,脱离刑事责任的内在结构本身,片面地理解犯罪构成对刑事责任的决定性作用;其次,将被害人过错理解为纯客观情境因素,无视被害人这一"人"的能动要素对犯罪构成各个层面的复杂、全面的影响。因此,这些理论的解释力和说明性都是有限的。只有从刑事责任的内在构造入手,分析被害人过错对刑事责任内在构成要素的全面影响,才能真正探寻到被害人过错影响刑事责任的正当依据。     

Criminal Law, the Victim and Community: The Shades of ‘We’ and the Conceptual Involvement of Community in Contemporary Criminal Law Theory

The article addresses the argument, put forward by Lernestedt, that the proprietor of the ‘criminal-law conflict’ is the community (or the community and the offender) and discusses his proposed theoretical model of criminal law trial. I raise questions regarding the legitimacy of such a model, focusing on four counts. Firstly, I assert that his assumptions about the state the individual and the old/new versions of criminal law theory are society-dependent. Secondly, I address some problems with the concept of community and particularly with the proposed conception of community, which seems to mostly exclude the offender. Thirdly, I question the need for (or added value of) such a proposed conceptual involvement of the community as an actor in the criminal law process and theory. Lastly, some potential problems with the idea of the victim as a mere “representative of us” are mentioned, including the possibly undesirable demands and limitations on the victim’s agency and issues of respect for the victim’s individuality.     

Victim and Society: Sharing Wrongs, but in Which Roles?

This paper discusses what kinds of conflicts arise when a crime has been committed, and with whom—and in which of their possible roles—the offender should be seen as having such conflicts. The possible roles of the victim are in focus, as is the constitutive role of the act of criminalizing a certain kind of behavior. It is argued that while in the tort conflict the victim should be seen as a party qua him- or herself in a ‘fuller’ sense (and with full freedom on how to handle the conflict, including dropping it), in the criminal law conflict it is community, the ‘we’, that should be looked upon as the party to the conflict with the offender. The victim should not be seen as excluded from the criminal law conflict, though: to the contrary, he or she is a member of community and has an important role to play. This role, however, needs to be strictly defined in a way that gives the victim the function of a certain kind of representative for ‘us’, the community. This role should not allow the victim much room to influence how the criminal law conflict is handled. The model I am suggesting presupposes—I think, at least—that criminal law conflict and tort conflict should be handled together at the same trial.     

Rethinking The Ends of Harm

In The Ends of Harm, Victor Tadros claims that the general justifying aim of the criminal law should be general deterrence. He also takes seriously that we cannot use people as a means, and thus he argues that we may only punish people in the name of general deterrence who have a ‘duty’ to suffer. Tadros claims that this duty arises as follows: An offender initially has a duty not to harm the victim. If the offender violates that duty, the offender still has a duty to stop the harm from occurring (so that, for example, an offender would have to jump in front of his own bullet). And if the harm does occur, then the offender has a duty to rectify that harm. This duty to rectify, argues Tadros, requires the defendant not only to compensate the victim but also to protect the victim to the extent that he would have been able to have been harmed to prevent the threat from occurring. Tadros further advances intricate arguments for why the state may therefore punish the offender to protect other potential victims to the extent of the offender’s duty to rectify. This symposium contribution seeks to explore three problems with Tadros’ analysis, ultimately arguing that Tadros’ theory fails on its own terms. First, attempts present a substantial problem for Tadros’ regime because attempts do not give rise to duties to prevent harm because there is no harm to be prevented. Tadros’ attempt to account for attempts, as completed offenses of diversions of security resources, ultimately leads to punishments that bear little resemblance to the crime attempted. Such a wildly counterintuitive result creates problems for a regime premised on general deterrence, which must be understood and respected. Second, Tadros’ regime will often exempt the rich from suffering criminal punishment. Tadros claims that duties to prevent harms from occurring (by jumping in front of bullets) are only enforceable when compensation will be inadequate. However, affluent offenders may be able to fully compensate. Moreover, since the scope of the duty to suffer will be determined by what remains of the duty after the victim is compensated, affluent offenders will be able to compensate more and thereby suffer less. Again, the actual sentences will thereby bear little resemblance to the rationale for criminalization, thus threatening the deterrent message of the law. Moreover, a system that exacerbates distributive inequalities will not achieve public respect. Third, Tadros cannot justify taking the duty that the defendant owes to the victim and forcing the victim to transfer this asset to the state. In his quest to articulate a theory that does not impermissibly use defendants, he ultimately endorses a theory that impermissibly uses their victims. He thus fails to achieve the very goal he sets for himself, which is to achieve general deterrence without impermissibly using anyone.     

论司法精神病鉴定听证制度构建

饱受争议的司法精神病鉴定相比其他类鉴定项目较为特殊,鉴定意见决定了当事人的责任能力、受审能力、证人的作证能力、妇女的性自卫能力、罪犯的服刑能力等,直接涉及当事人的切身利益,对案件的影响较大。然而鉴定本身缺乏实验数据支持的学科特点,以及依靠文证材料的鉴定方法,很容易导致当事人对鉴定的怀疑和争议。为解决以上问题,尝试将具有形式公开、当事人参与等特点的听证制度引入该领域,从静态和动态两个方面构建全新的听证制度和程序,以保证在鉴定意见出具之前双方当事人能够充分陈述、举证、质证、阐述争点、行使辩论,对个人主张负举证、说服责任,在参与、监督鉴定的过程中消除疑惑、争议,更能理解鉴定意见的得出。     

The effects of legal and extra-legal characteristics on organizational victim decision-making

A variety of factors influence decisions to mobilize formal social control. With few exceptions, studies considering the effects of legal (e.g., case specific) and extra legal (e.g., offender and victim characteristics) variables have concentrated on sentencing under criminal law, an outcome subject to sample selection bias given that the majority of cases never reach this stage. Analyses of earlier decision points (e.g., victim calls for service, police use of force, and arrest), have focused on street crime and single jurisdictions. A neglected research context is the organizational victim’s response to employee fraud. Using a sample of 663 fraud cases, this study applies Black’s (The behavior of law, San Diego, Academic, 1976) theory of law to victim organizations’ decisions to mobilize formal social control. Results demonstrate that extralegal characteristics weigh heavily on decisions to initiate both criminal and civil outcomes. Specifically, offenders’ education and age decreased the odds of criminal legal mobilization. Mobilization of criminal law was also more likely by government agencies. Implications for Black’s theory and directions for further research are discussed.     

故意传播艾滋病行为的刑法适用

故意传播艾滋病的行为,不构成我国刑法中的传播性病罪,在当代的医疗水平下,可以认为该行为构成故意杀人罪。在审判时,被害人没有死亡的,只能追究行为人故意杀人未遂的刑事责任。经被害人承诺的故意传播艾滋病行为,也构成故意杀人罪。危及公共安全的故意传播艾滋病行为则会构成以危险方法危害公共安全罪。