刑事犯、行政犯统一化之提倡——兼论涉及行政法规范的犯罪的故意认定

区分刑事犯、行政犯的标准不具有可操作性，无论是以伦理道德的标准还是以生活秩序的标准，都无法明确划清二者的界限。区分刑事犯、行政犯是德日为解决本国立法背景下的特定问题而创制的理论，在我国当前的刑事立法模式下，区分二者并无现实意义。行政犯的故意成立原则上也不需要违法性认识，对刑事犯和行政犯在故意的认识因素上应适用统一标准。     

Grading Arson

Criminalizing arson is both easy and hard. On the substantive merits, the conduct of damaging property by fire uncontroversially warrants criminal sanction. Indeed, punishment for such conduct is overdetermined, as the conduct threatens multiple harms of concern to the criminal law: both damage to property and injury to people. Yet the same multiplicity of harms or threats that makes it easy to criminalize “arson” (in the sense of deciding to proscribe the underlying behavior) also makes it hard to criminalize “arson” (in the sense of formulating the offense(s) that will address that behavior). This article asks whether adopting one or more arson offenses is the best way for criminal law to address the conduct in question, or whether that conduct is more properly conceptualized, criminalized, and punished as multiple distinct offenses.

刑法因果关系的判断标准及其在不作为犯中的运用

如何判断因果关系是刑法因果关系理论所应解决的核心问题。大陆法系和英美法系国家关于认定因果关系的理论对于我国具有重要的借鉴意义。从刑法规范的立场来看,条件说较好地解决了因果关系的判断标准问题,采用条件说不会不当地扩大处罚范围。在此基础上,就如何判断不作为犯的因果关系提出了具体的判断标准和方法。     

论共犯关系之脱离

共犯关系脱离是指部分共犯退出共同犯罪后如何评价其罪责问题。尽管各国刑法对共犯关系的脱离都没有明文规定,但大陆法系国家尤其是日本刑法的相关理论和判例已经形成了较为完备的理论学说。分析评价共犯关系脱离的各种学说,研究共犯关系脱离的判断标准以及共犯关系脱离的类型等问题,对于在我国刑法中倡导共犯关系脱离的理论,解决司法实践中存在的此类问题有重大现实意义。     

THE NEW PENOLOGY: NOTES ON THE EMERGING STRATEGY OF CORRECTIONS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS*

The new penology argues that an important new language of penology is emerging. This new language, which has its counterparts in other areas of the law as well, shifts focus away from the traditional concerns of the criminal law and criminology, which have focused on the individual, and redirects it to actuarial consideration of aggregates. This shift has a number of important implications: It facilitates development of a vision or model of a new type of criminal process that embraces increased reliance on imprisonment and that merges concerns for surveillance and custody, that shifts away from a concern with punishing individuals to managing aggregates of dangerous groups, and that affects the training and practice of criminologists.     

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.     

严格责任还是特别辩护权?——对我国事态犯罪归责方式的反思

事态犯罪是一种新型犯罪。该类犯罪使刑法首次将调整对象由传统的行为性危害行为括及于事态性危害行为,因此对犯罪证明责任这一刑法基本理论问题产生了重大冲击。严格责任是解决相关问题的最简便方法,但与我国的刑事法制环境不相适合。因此,为了实现控辩双方权益的平衡,应当设立事态犯罪嫌疑人特别辩护权制度。     

Preventive Justice and the Presumption of Innocence

When the state aims to prevent responsible and dangerous actors from harming its citizens, it must choose between criminal law and other preventive techniques. The state, however, appears to be caught in a Catch-22: using the criminal law raises concerns about whether early inchoate conduct is properly the target of punishment, whereas using the civil law raises concerns that the state is circumventing the procedural protections available to criminal defendants. Andrew Ashworth has levied the most serious charge against civil preventive regimes, arguing that they evade the presumption of innocence. After sketching out a substantive justification for a civil, preventive regime, I ask what Ashworth’s challenge consists in. It seems that there is broad disagreement over the meaning and requirements of the presumption of innocence. I thus survey the myriad possibilities and extract two claims that have potential bearing on preventive regimes. One claim is that of substantive priority—the criminal law comes first when assessing blame. This is the claim at the root of objections to pretrial detention based on consideration of the crime charged. The second strand of argument is one of procedural symmetry. This is the concern that with respect to citizen/state relations, certain procedures are required, including, for example, proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the offense or defense. Having extracted these claims, I then assess their applicability with respect to the preventive regime defended. I first conclude that the criminal law must share blame and censure with other fora, and thus, the criminal law only has substantive priority when criminal proceedings have been instituted. I then survey whether procedural symmetry is required, specifically assessing whether the preventive regime I defend requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. My tentative conclusion is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is warranted.     

行政违反加重犯初探

行政违反加重犯,是指以"行政违反+加重要素"为构造的犯罪;行政违反加重犯的实行行为与犯罪结果,应当根据刑法原理与刑法分则条文的保护法益予以确定和判断;司法解释为了限制处罚范围所附加的定罪条件,不是行政违反加重犯的构成要件要素;不能根据行政违反的过错形式确定行政违反加重犯的罪过形式;行政违反加重犯的成立,不要求行为人现实地认识到行为的违法性,但要求行为人具有违法性认识的可能性;行政许可既可能是阻却构成要件符合性的事由,也可能是阻却违法性的事由;对于使用欺骗等不正当手段获得行政许可的,应根据行政许可的性质判断是否阻却犯罪的成立;对行政违反加重犯的处罚,不得违反禁止双重危险的原则。     

对强奸罪中轮奸、共犯既未遂问题的思考

目前刑法理论界对于强奸罪中轮奸的成立要件及其是否存在着既遂、未遂问题的观点不一。笔者试图通过一个案例来引出自己的观点,即轮奸作为强奸罪的一种加重处罚的情形,其本身不是单独罪名,故不存在既、未遂的提法,而是应以其轮奸行为是否实际发生作为该款项成立的依据。同时,传统的刑法理论通说认为,共同犯罪中的犯罪完成形态只能是整体既遂或整体未遂,即既遂後不存在部分未遂或中止的可能。笔者认为,在特殊共同犯罪中,基于某种实行犯的行为的不可替代性,故仍应存在部分个体未遂或中止的可能,这是对普通共同犯罪中“部分行为全体负责”这一原则的必要例外与补充。     

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.     

过失危险犯之存在性与可存在性思考

决定某类过错行为 ,包括过失危险行为在内可以犯罪化的基础不是主观过错 ,而是危险行为本身所具有的社会危害性。过失危险犯只能存在于危害公共安全法益的犯罪中 ,由于公共安全法益本身的特殊性 ,这类法益价值的外延已经突破其本身的价值而及于它的安全性 ,即威胁它的安全就是侵犯它的价值 ,而使过失危险行为具有直接侵犯公共安全法益价值的本质 ,进而具备犯罪化的报应基础。设立过失危险犯与刑法谦抑原则不冲突 ,反而有利于刑法诱导和刑法忠诚。     

我国刑事程序立法理念的嬗变

立法理念是立法的先导,立法理念在很大程度上决定立法的走向。法律修改亦是如此。我国刑事诉讼法从立法到修改,再修改,立法理念经历了一个嬗变过程,这个过程反映了我国刑事程序立法的不断进步。正确确立我国刑事诉讼法再修改的理念,是我们当前的迫切任务。     

身份犯的处罚根据论

身份犯的处罚根据问题是身份犯理论研究的基础性范畴,它直接决定了身份犯具体问题的展开。发端于大陆法系刑法中的"义务违反说"、"法益侵害说"以及建立在二者基础之上的"综合说"都不能圆满地说明身份犯的处罚根据;我国学者关于此问题的个别看法也不无纰漏。以"身份法益侵害说"作为身份犯的处罚根据,则是一种合理的选择。     

形式犯实质犯区分之争述评

在大陆法系刑法理论中,以行为与法益的关系为标准,可以将犯罪划分为形式犯和实质犯。在我国刑法理论中,没有必要采取这种分类。     

刑法学视域下的克隆人及其立法

克隆人是现代生命科技发展带给人类社会的一个挑战。从技术应用的目的上看,克隆可以被划分为治疗性克隆与生殖性克隆。在有关克隆人是否具有犯罪性以及刑法应否禁止克隆人的问题上,存在着"肯定论"与"否定论"两种截然相反的观点。站在刑法的视域下,生殖性克隆人是一种完全不同于治疗性克隆人的行为,它无法摆脱伦理上的非难性,已经超出了社会可承受的范围,其本质是一种反社会的犯罪行为,对于这种行为,刑法应当将其入罪化,并配设适宜的刑事责任。当前我国现行立法中已经对生殖性克隆人作出了明令禁止,但却未就从事生殖性克隆人研究的刑事责任作出任何规定,也未出台有关克隆技术规范的专门立法。为此,需要制定一部《克隆技术管理法》,并修改现行刑法的规定,增设"非法从事生殖性人体克隆研究罪"。     

风险社会的刑法调适——以危险犯的扩张为视角

风险社会的实质是人类在从现代技术手段获益的同时,却无法完全掌控这些手段,陷入对自身行为所可能带来的风险无法预测与控制的境地。风险社会的风险源于人的决策与行为,因此,如何有效管控人的行为,最大限度地规避与控制各种潜在风险,成为人类社会所面临的共同任务。作为社会调控最后手段的刑法也必须针对当前的风险状况及时做出回应。现行刑法基于传统的以实害犯为主的立法模式,无法有效地规制各种风险行为。危险犯的立法设计,特别是抽象危险犯的设置,能够将刑法的保护防线提前,从而达成法益保护的早期化,有利于对社会共同体的安全保障,是应对风险行为的有效处置手段。     

片面共犯性质及其意义

片面共犯是客观存在的一类犯罪现象,本质上符合共同犯罪的构成要件。将片面共犯视为共同犯罪,有其深刻的哲学依据、法理依据、立法依据和实践意义。我国刑法对共同犯罪的定义并未排除片面共犯,将＂共同故意＂限制在＂双向的犯意联络＂的范围内,是对刑法规范的误读。完全可以通过创新传统的刑法理论,使本属共同犯罪一部分的片面共犯回归共同犯罪。