论共同过失犯罪

关于共同过失犯罪问题,刑法理论界和司法实践部门聚讼颇多,特别是围绕共同过失犯罪能否成立共同犯罪的问题,国内外刑法理论界更是长期存在着肯定与否定之争,难以形成基本的共识。面对我国现代社会发展的新形势,立足于刑事司法实践,借鉴于前人的研究成果,应从正确贯彻刑事政策、完善刑法理论、正确理解共同过失的构造、正确追究刑事责任、兼顾诉讼便利等方面确认共同过失犯罪应当成立共同犯罪。     

The Reasonableness in Recklessness

Criminal Law and Philosophy - Recklessness involves unreasonable/unjustified risk-taking. The argument here is that recklessness in the criminal law is best understood as nevertheless containing an...     

Recklessness Without the Risk

Criminal Law and Philosophy - Risk is at the core of criminal recklessness, but its exact constitution comes into focus only in unusual cases. In rethinking criminal law, Larry Alexander and...     

重大过失理论的构建

传统大陆民法理论关于重大过失的解说既无法提供明确的认定方法,又内在地欠缺解释力。重大过失应当是一种有认识的过失,但同时须在客观上制造了巨大的危险。它是一种偏主观的、行为人很大程度上可避免的过错,是一种具有较强道德可责难性的过错。它是介于故意与普通过失之间、更接近于故意的一种独立过错类型。有认识的认定应坚持知道与有理由知道两级分类,并有效运用司法推论和立法推定。危险巨大性的认定主要涉及损害可能性与损害程度两方面判断。重大过失的法律效果原则上与故意相同,但有例外。     

侵权过失相抵规则中的“过失”研究

对过失相抵规则中“过失”的判断应当采用较为客观的善良管理人注意义务这一标准,即具有一般知识与经验的人诚实地处理事务时所应当具有的状态。在过失与重大过失之外,我国司法审判实践中还存在着一种更轻程度的过失即违反对己义务的过失。过失相抵规则在侵权领域的适用具有正当性与必要性,在适用过失相抵规则的各比较因素中,比较双方过错程度这一因素更具合理性。     

Negligence, Belief, Blame and Criminal Liability: The Special Case of Forgetting

Commentators seemingly agree about what negligence is—and how it is contrasted from recklessness. They also appear to concur about whether particular examples (both real and hypothetical) portray negligence. I am less confident about each of these matters. I explore the distinction between recklessness and negligence by examining a type of case that has generated a good deal of critical discussion: those in which a defendant forgets that he has created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm. Even in this limited kind of example, no single perspective on blame and liability proves to be defensible. Nonetheless, a discussion of this type of case is helpful because it enables us to appreciate the difficulties in understanding the nature of negligence and the ensuing uncertainty about whether penal liability for negligence is ever warranted.     

Introduction to the Special Issue on Peircean Semeiotic

This special issue should go a long way towards increasing the understanding of Peirce’s semeiotic and its applicability for solving problems in legal studies. In fact, the New Science of Semiotics should result in developing a rigorous and systematic methodology for legal studies making it a true semiotic science which I suggest calling “jurisology.”