DETERRENCE WITHOUT PUNISHMENT

Deterrence is conceivable without formal punishment administered by the state provided that informal social disapproval and self-condemnation are the predictable consequences of criminal behavior. Unfortunately. such consequences cannot be counted on in modern secular societies, partly because of the social heterogeneity that prevents consensus on what is heinous behavior. This article considers the feasibility of symbolic redefinition of criminal acts so as to make social disapproval and self-condemnation more probable. The crime of rape is used to illustrate this approach. The issue is: Can collective efforts at symbolic redefinition of crime be mobilized through the political process and thereby prevent some crimes from occurring that otherwise would take place?     

合规视野下的企业刑事责任问题

在企业的刑事归责问题上,西方国家传统上遵循的是以企业员工的行为和主观过错推论企业行为和主观过错的原则。如今,这一归责方式正在受到普遍的质疑和挑战,一种建立在“组织责任”基础上的理论正在兴起,并为企业合规引入企业归责原则确立了理论上的依据。我国刑法所确立的单位犯罪制度,面临着单位犯罪与自然人犯罪“入罪标准不统一”“同罪不同罚”,单位所承担的刑事责任与行政责任难以保持均衡,以及认定单位主观意志较为困难等方面的问题。唯有建立“企业独立意志理论”,将单位视为一种独立的生命有机体,承认其具有实施独立行为和具有独立主观意志的能力,才能走出上述困境,并将企业合规融入单位归责原则之中。     

犯罪主观方面认识因素再探讨——以我国主流刑法学教科书为评论对象

犯罪主观方面的认识因素是犯罪成立的必备要件,对其内涵合理的界定及充实,是科学厘定犯罪行为人对此承担义务的依据;我国刑法理论界,对诸如行为的违法性不属于行为人认识的内容,已经达成共识,但又将对行为性质和行为客体的认识纳入认识的范畴,存在体系上的内在冲突,其根源在于将构成要件与构成要件事实的等同;将认识因素有无的标准界定为以主观标准为主、客观标准为辅,貌似科学,实际上难于把握;唯有坚持客观标准,以常识、常情、常理平等地对待相应的行为人,方能将刑法中的主客观一致原则坚持到底。     

Crime and the Family

Although there has been a great deal of speculation about the relationship of crime and the family, the nature of that relationship is not well understood. After tracing the origins of the theory that crime can be genetically transmitted from parents to children, I go on to critique current biological theories of crime. Next I discuss work emerging from several disciplines that helps explain the environmental influence of families on crime. Arguing that familial influences cannot be understood apart from the structural context in which families exist, I focus on two structural factors, gender and social class. I conclude with a discussion of the policy implications of current research and with recommendations for steps we can take to reduce familial contributions to criminal behavior.     

肖志军案中的刑法难题和价值取向——不作为、因果关系与间接故意之新界

丈夫拒绝签字导致妻子死亡的行为属于间接故意杀人。肖志军因具有法定的救助义务而成立不作为;刑法应偏向患者利益,在医疗领域中采用风险增高理论来判断因果关系;在拒签时,肖志军认识到了妻子死亡的具体危险性,这决定了他属于间接故意的杀人。在社会救助体制缺失时,刑法期待通过强化个人责任而确立"全力救助患者生命"的价值导向。     

Do cities influence co-offending?

The nexus between urbanity and crime is interpreted as being congruent with either social breakdown or subculture theory. Each of these perspectives offers differing conceptualizations of the causal mechanisms responsible for this linkage, but adjudicating between them has proven exceedingly difficult because their respective predictions are similar. Each theory posits that an urban environment amplifies criminal activity. Using data derived from the FBI's National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), this study contributes to the literature by investigating whether urbanization influences co-offending behavior. The determination of whether urbanity affects co-offending has theoretical relevance because social breakdown theory argues that urbanity produces interpersonal estrangement that impedes the development of friendship networks needed to facilitate group-based criminal offending. Conversely, subculture theory postulates that an urban environment propagates deviant subcultures that act to engender group-based rather than individualist criminality. Multivariate regression results furnish evidence supporting social breakdown theory by demonstrating that urbanity decreases co-offending behavior.     

Theorizing Criminal Law Reform

How are we to understand criminal law reform? The idea seems simple—the criminal law on the books is wrong: it should be changed. But 'wrong’ how? By what norms 'wrong’? As soon as one tries to answer those questions, the issue becomes more complex. One kind of answer is that the criminal law is substantively wrong: that is, we assume valid norms of background political morality, and we argue that doctrinally the criminal law on the books does not embody those norms. Another kind of answer is that the criminal law as it stands presupposes certain empirical facts, and yet those facts do not hold. Traditionally, criminal law reform has been informed by both these answers. Analytical theorists examine doctrine for its conceptual structure, and social scientists examine the actual workings of the criminal justice system. This tidy picture is, however, challenged by social constructivist accounts of the criminal law. They challenge the stability and conceptual purity of doctrine, and they challenge the objectivity of social science. On the basis of these challenges, they undermine the ambitions of traditional criminal law reform, and argue that the only reforms to the criminal law that matter are politicized ones—that criminal law reform is pointless unless it serves the interests of the marginalized and the dispossessed. It seems undeniable that in some sense our perceptions of crime in our society are indeed moulded by social forces, and that crime does not exist independently of the social structures and processes that help to define and control it. But why should those insights have the implications for our understanding of criminal law reform that they are alleged to have? How could it follow from those insights that criminal law reform either becomes radicalized or valueless? The aim of this paper is to show that what can legitimately be taken from the emphasis on the social constructedness of crime does not require wholesale abandonment of the traditional picture of criminal law reform, even though it may require some modifications of that picture.     

Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes

Several studies have sought to link punitive public attitudes to attribution style and/or lay theories of crime. This research finds that those who believe criminal acts are the result of freely chosen and willful behavior are more likely to be punitive than those who feel crime is the result of external circumstances and constraints. These analyses focus on only one dimension of attributions: locus of control (internal/external). In this analysis, we include a second dimension, thought to be a better predictor of attitudes in social psychological research: stability/instability. In addition to measuring lay theories of crime causation, we also test for “belief in redeemability” (or beliefs about the ability of deviants to change their ways). Our hypothesis is that this other dimension of personal attributions (stability/instability) may be as critical in explaining support for highly punitive criminal justice policies as beliefs about criminal responsibility. We find evidence supportive of this model in an analysis of data from postal survey of residents of six areas in England.     

犯罪本质特征新说 --社会学与刑法学立场分野下的认识

行为具有严重的社会危害性,在社会学意义上无疑是犯罪。但在刑法学意义上讲,却并非如此。刑法上的犯罪,离不开法律的规定。刑事违法性,是立法者将那些具有严重社会危害性的行为纳入犯罪圈的标识,是判定罪与非罪的惟一标准。在个罪成立与否的判定中,既要考虑刑法分则的规定,也要考虑刑法总则规定的犯罪定义,以防止形式的犯罪构成解释论。在刑法学中,犯罪的本质特征应该是立法者选定的行为的严重社会危害性,而非仅为行为的严重社会危害性。     

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。     

以危险方法危害公共安全罪何以成为口袋罪

从道路交通秩序领域到市场经济秩序领域、公民个人权利领域、社会管理秩序领域,以危险方法危害公共安全罪的触角已经越伸越长。从交通肇事到生产经营非食品原料、"碰瓷"、偷窨井盖,危险方法行为犯罪行为方式可谓五花八门。以危险方法危害公共安全罪越来越显示出口袋罪的特征。产生这一结果固然有罪名本身的因素,但根本原因在于三个方面:一是对于刑事政策的不合理解读,二是对于社会效果内容的片面阐释,三是无视罪名的确定性内容。其实质是忽视了政策与规范之间的关系,过分关注结果的危害性而淡化了行为规范内容和主观心态。只有在司法中切实坚持罪刑法定原则,才不致使以危险方法危害公共安全罪成为口袋罪。     

严格责任下的醉驾型危险驾驶罪

醉驾行为与危害结果之间的关联性并不贴合犯罪故意中"必然会"或"可能会"的紧密程度,醉驾人对危害结果也并不持有"追求或放任"的意志因素,因此醉驾型危险驾驶罪不属于我国《刑法》规定的故意犯罪。同时,现行规定不要求醉驾型危险驾驶罪的构成需要危害结果已经发生,因此也不属于传统理论上的过失犯罪。实际上,我国《刑法》对醉驾型危险驾驶罪作如此规定,是为了凸显刑法对醉驾行为最为严厉的惩罚性,是一种突破我国传统刑法罪过理论的立法模式,与英美刑法的严格责任有相通之处。     

A Critique of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime

Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) general theory of crime is appealing because of its versatility and simplicity: in the general theory, criminal behavior is a function of low or absent individual self-control. However, the theory does not adequately account for distinctive features of male violence committed against women nor does it adequately consider the implications for women of taking primary responsibility for caregiving and socialization, those aspects of parenting that are most critical to the development of self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi's inattention to gendered power differences and inequalities results in a theory of crime that does not challenge social relations and institutions, creates a false gender-neutrality when gender specificity is appropriate, and implicitly blames woman-dominated child-care for contemporary criminal behavior.     

论犯罪构成之主体要件不适格

刑事责任能力是指通过行为触犯刑法规范并承担刑事责任的资格。刑事责任能力内容包括犯罪能力和刑罚能 力。刑事责任能力是罪责的前提条件,先于犯罪行为存在。犯罪主体作为犯罪构成要件是不适格的,它不应该成 为犯罪构成要件。     

Cesare Lombroso: Methodological ambiguities and brilliant intuitions

This paper on Cesare Lombroso aims to assess his contribution to the criminological sciences. Although much praised worldwide, Lombroso was also the target of scathing criticism and unmitigated condemnation. Examination of Lombroso's method of data collection and analysis reveals his weakness. Indeed, his approach was extremely naive, simplistic and uncritical, aimed at irrefutably demonstrating the hypotheses that he championed, without exercising the methodological caution that was already beginning to characterize scientific research in his day. However, we must acknowledge that his biological theories of crime are undergoing new developments as a result of the recent success of biological psychiatry. On the other hand we should recognize that his work was not limited to his biological central theory; rather, it covered a range of cues and concepts, for the most part ignored, that demonstrate his interest in the economic, cultural and social factors that impact on crime. For these reasons, Lombroso appears to have anticipated many modern conceptions regarding delinquent behavior and criminal justice, such as those of restorative justice, the so-called "situational" theories of criminal behavior and white collar crime.     

原因自由行为可罚性之论证

原因自由行为,是指行为人由于故意或过失使自己陷于无责任能力状态,并在此状态下实施的危害社会的行为。根据刑法中的行为理论,在原因自由行为中,结果行为不具有刑法意义,原因行为与结果行为之间存在直接的因果关系,原因行为才应当被认定为实行行为。     

In Search of the Responsible Subject: History, Philosophy and Social Sciences in Criminal Law Theory

This paper examines the way in which English criminal law's conception of responsibility has changed since the eighteenth century, and explores the relationship between changes in legal framework, changes in processes of criminalisation and punishment, and broader social, political and economic changes. It argues that the development of ideas of individual responsibility for crime are responses to problems of co-ordination and legitimation faced by systems of criminal law, and that these problems can be expected to change according to the environment in which the system operates, with important factors including the distribution of political interests and economic power; the prevailing cultural and intellectual environment; the organisation and status of relevant professional groups and the vigour of alternative means of social ordering. Substantively, the paper explores the hypothesis that criminal responsibility has shifted from a conception founded in ideas of character to a capacity-based conception over the relevant period. Methodologically, the aim is to historicise the structure as well as the content of criminal law within a socio-theoretic framework, constructing a dialogue between criminal law theory of a doctrinal and philosophical temper and socio-historical studies of criminal justice.     

精神病患者限定责任能力评定分级依据的研究

目的研究对限定责任能力进行分级的依据。方法根据责任能力的程度将92例限定责任能力案例分为三组,进行卡方检验、方差分析、因子分析和判别分析。结果三组在作案类型和责任能力量表评分上存在显著差异;反映作案预谋和准备的因子1在所有因子中最重要;作案现实动机、作案时间选择性、作案当时情绪、对作案行为的罪错性认识、生活自理能力损害和现实检验能力损害可以作为限定责任能力分级的判别因子。结论限定责任能力可以被划分为三级。     

注意规范保护目的与交通过失犯的成立

交通过失犯的本质应是结果回避义务,判断该义务之有无应以预见因果关系为内容的结果预见可能性为前提;注意规范保护目的是判断此种因果关系成立与否的理论,只有当行为人违反了注意规范保护目的而致损害法益结果发生时才能成立交通过失犯。注意规范保护目的是以作为刑法规范下位规则的交通法规为基础的可普遍适用于交通过失犯的判断标准,它属于交通过失犯中的违法要素,使用它无须通过客观归责理论。注意规范保护目的理论能合理限定交通过失犯的成立范围,有效克服我国司法实践中普遍存在的以交通事故责任书直接作为刑法上交通过失犯成立依据的不妥做法。