论我国刑法中的聚众犯罪

聚众犯罪是指我国《刑法》明文规定以聚集特定或不特定多人进行违法犯罪活动为构成要件的犯罪。我国《刑法》共用11个条文规定了14个聚众犯罪,其中大多数聚众危害社会是构成犯罪的必要条件,少数是该罪的选择行为要件。聚众犯罪的主要特征有法定性、聚众进行、实施的是复数行为等。从犯罪形态上看,聚众为着手,实施具体违法犯罪活动为既遂。它与煽动犯罪、教唆犯、组织犯、首要分子既有联系又有区别,与组织犯部分交叉重合。聚众犯罪的一罪数罪标准在于行为个数、数行为之间是否牵连、牵连时定一罪是否能体现罪刑相适应。     

Corrective Justice as A Principle of Criminal Law: A Prolegomenon

This article argues that corrective justice is an adequate principle of criminalization. On my interpretation, corrective justice holds that, in order for an action to count as a crime, there needs to be a plausible normative story about an offender having violated the interests of a victim in a way that disturbs their relationship as equal persons and a subsequent story about responding to crime in a way that corrects this disturbance. More specifically, I claim that corrective justice is concerned with the protection of interests that persons have in owning private goods throughout standard interactions with other persons. The argument proceeds in three steps. First, I specify the subject-matter that principles of criminal law need to ground and provide an outline of the idea of corrective justice. Second, I show that corrective justice can account for the main cases of crime and the salient modes of criminal responsibility. I also argue that corrective justice can make sense of two prima facie recalcitrant types of cases (rape and inchoate offenses). Third, and finally, I address two objections to my corrective justice theory of criminal law. The first concerns the implications corrective justice has for locating criminal law along the private/public law divide. The second objection raises the putatively problematic consequences corrective justice has for understanding the separation between criminal and civil law.     

继承的共同正犯研究

继承的共同正犯,是指对某一个犯罪,先行行为者着手实行后,在行为尚未全部实行终了阶段,他人(后行行为者)与先行者之间产生了共同实施犯罪的意思,此后共同实施犯罪的实行行为的情形。是否应当承认继承的共同正犯概念,后行者是否应当对先行者行为所造成的结果承担责任,对此,刑法理论界存在着肯定说、否定说与限定的肯定说等多种观点。应当认为继承的共同正犯概念有其存在的合理性,而限定的肯定说则更有利于准确界定各行为人的刑事责任。     

关于“教唆不满十八周岁的人犯罪的,应当从重处罚”的理解与适用

我国通说的刑法理论认为犯罪主体必须具有刑事责任能力,无刑事责任能力之人实施的危害行为不构成犯罪;同时,教唆不具有刑事责任能力之人实施"犯罪"构成间接正犯,对其也可以适用刑法第二十九条第一款的规定即从重处罚。这种观点一方面认为无刑事责任能力之人实施的危害行为不构成犯罪,另一方在他人教唆的情况下,无刑事责任能力之人却又可以实施"犯罪,"这种解释显然无法成立。     

Criminal Behavior: A Real Option Approach With an Application to Restricting Illegal Insider Trading

Traditionally, criminal behavior is analyzed within an expected utility framework. This paper offers an alternative model to analyze criminal behavior based on real option models. It is shown that all criminal decisions can be analyzed as real options, in a sense that they confer the possibility but not the obligation to commit a crime in the future. The criminal option model is a richer model compared to conventional economic models of crime, because it takes into account four additional variables. As such, the conventional economic analysis of crime is a special case of criminal option models. The criminal option model is then applied to the enforcement of illegal insider trading. Based on the six value-drivers of criminal options, an active management strategy can be developed for the criminal as well as for the legislator.     

关于器官移植活动中涉及的犯罪现象的刑事法律认定

本文论述了器官移植活动中涉及的犯罪现象,其中包括合法化下的犯罪和非法状态下的犯罪现象,指出了如何对器官移植活动中引发的故意伤害罪,盗窃、侮辱尸体罪等进行法律认定。针对目前器官移植中可能出现的犯罪倾向,建议通过刑事立法对这一领域进行规制,促进器官移植的健康发展。     

PATTERNS OF DRUG USE,DRUG TRAFFICKING,AND OTHER DELINQUENCY AMONG INNER-CITY ADOLESCENT MALES IN WASHINGTON,D.C.*

This paper examines (1) the relationship between drug involvement among inner-city youths and the commission of other kinds of crime, (2) the role of drug use in crime commission, (3) the connection between crime and drug procurement, and (4) the factors that distinguish between individuals as a function of (a) levels of involvement in drug trafficking and (b) drug usage and criminal activity. Drug use and trafficking were both related to other criminal activities; the type of drug involvement was related to the type of crimes reported. The heaviest users were significantly more likely than nonusers to commit property crimes and drug traffickers were significantly more likely to commit crimes against persons than were respondents who did not sell drugs. Adolescents who used and sold drugs were the most likely to commit crimes against persons and property, and at the greatest rate. Still, for every type of crime reported in the past year, only a minority of offenders reported ever using drugs while committing the crime or said that they committed any type of crime in order to obtain drugs or money to obtain drugs. Most youths appear to commit crime for reasons completely independent of drugs.     

Race,Crime, and Criminal Justice

Fifty years ago, the U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice under President Johnson did not frequently mention race and ethnicity in its discussion of and recommendations for the criminal justice system, but it did have a lot to say about race and crime. Through the use of arrest rates to measure racial differentials in criminal involvement, the Commission concluded that Blacks commit more crime as a consequence of Black people living in greater numbers in criminogenic “slum” conditions. To address racial differences, the Commission favored the Great Society programs of Johnson's War on Poverty. Contemporary criminologists continue to debate the racial distribution of crime, the causes of crimes, and the best policies to reduce crime and racial differentials. The Commission did not anticipate the current debate among scholars regarding how much racial disproportionality exists in the criminal justice system and its causes and consequences. The policies that led to mass incarceration have been significant drivers of continued criminal justice racial disparity. Those policies are inconsistent with the recommendation in The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (1967), upending the pursuit of a more fair and just system.     

Speech and Crime

What kind of constitutional standards are applicable to communications likely to cause listeners to commit crimes? An examination of the tension between the highly protective approach to advocacy of crime taken by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio and the provisions in many criminal codes that make those who encourage criminal violations generally punishablefor solicitation is followed by an analysis of the penological reasons for punishing crime-causing communications and of the relevance to such communications of the justifications for freedom of expression. After an account of the Supreme Court decisions dealing with this subject and a summary critical examination of interpretive approaches to the First Amendment, the author suggests standards for constitutional appraisal of prohibitions of communications that may cause crime. The central proposals are that most statements of fact and value be accorded virtually absolute protection; that dominantly situation-altering utterances, such as agreements, offers of agreement, and orders, be treated as outside the scope of First Amendment protection; and that simple encouragements to commit specific crimes, a kind of action-inducing communication, be granted a degree of protection that depends heavily on context, with criteria like those contained in Brandenburg applicable to public ideological solicitation but with much less restrictive standards applicable to private solicitation.     

Attempt: The Conduct Requirement

The law relating to the conduct requirement for criminal attemptsis confused and incoherent. This article examines this incoherence,rejects the Law Commission's provisional proposals to splitthe crime of attempt into two separate inchoate offences andsuggests a reformulation of the conduct requirement in attempts.     

Limiting the psychotherapist-patient privilege: the therapeutic potential

The author first explores the law of the psychotherapist-patient privilege along with the traditional rationale for the privilege. The results of studies challenging the assumptions upon which the privilege rests are summarized. Finally, the potential therapeutic advantages are explored. The author suggests that the absence of an absolute privilege might in fact prevent harmful behavior. Those patients who communicate to their therapists the desire or intent, for example, to commit a crime, might not act on their urges for fear of disclosure of the communication in a future criminal proceeding.     

犯罪动机的本源、性质和形成

犯罪动机的本源是人的需要，需要与动机的区别在于动机具有需要中所没有的行为指向和行为手段与方式。需要无是非善恶之分。通常所谓的犯罪意图或意向就是犯罪动机。犯罪动机具有主观恶性和有意识性的特点，不存在所谓中性的或善的犯罪动机，也不存在所谓的无意识犯罪动机。犯罪动机的形成过程经历从需要不能满足、缺乏调节能力、采用犯罪手段三个阶段。犯罪动机可以独立于犯罪行为而存在，犯罪动机的产生并不意味着犯罪行为的必然发生。     

犯罪论中数额的地位

在我国刑法中,关于犯罪数额的立法形式比较多,种类多样。我国刑法条文中有关数额的实体法规定,在入罪、此罪与彼罪、量刑等多个方面发挥作用。不能把刑法中所有的定量因素都理解为数额犯,数额犯是指法定的决定某一行为是否构成犯罪在量上的表现。要论证数额在犯罪构成中的地位,需要解决以下几个理论问题：（1）数额为什么能决定一个行为是否构成犯罪？（2）行为人主观上对数额没有认识的情形下,如何成立数额犯的故意犯罪？（3）数额犯是否存在未遂形态？上述三个问题的理论推理结论是：数额是犯罪成立要件要素。     

论刑事一体化视角的危险驾驶罪

近十年来,危险驾驶罪逐步成为我国刑法体系中发案数位列第一的罪名。但是,每年将30万左右的人贴上罪犯标签并使之承担过重的犯罪附随后果,甚至沦为社会的对立面,这无论对于国家、社会还是危险驾驶者个人来说,都是巨大损失,属于司法和个人的“两败俱伤”。基于刑事一体化的理念,有必要对危险驾驶罪进行体系化治理。实务中直接适用“但书”规定得出无罪结论是一种大而化之的做法,存在说理不足、与罪刑法定原则相抵触的“硬伤”。“但书”规定只能在行为缺乏刑事不法,以及虽具备刑事不法但存在免责事由,从而缺乏处罚必要性等事实得以确认之后才能有限适用。为限定本罪的适用范围,在司法上,需要准确理解本罪的客观构成要件要素,尤其要对抽象危险进行必要的司法“印证式”判断,以确定立法者所预设的法益危险是否存在,妥当认定违法阻却事由,准确认定本罪的自首,提高缓刑适用率,将认罪认罚之后的从宽处罚落到实处;在立法政策上,有必要根据犯罪发生的实证数据进行调整,适度提高入罪门槛,将“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪限定为“不能安全驾驶”的情形,同时配套修改公职人员政务处分法,建立轻微犯罪的前科消灭制度,以有效降低犯罪的附随效果;在犯罪的情境预防方面,强制汽车制造商安装车载酒精监测装置是减少犯罪的关键手段。     

论律师伪证罪的犯罪形态

理论界关于律师伪证罪为行为犯还是结果犯的争论,对于从理论上深入探讨律师伪证罪和保障司法实践中正确处理本罪与此罪的审理秩序等程序正当性问题,均具有重要意义。然而,无论是行为犯还是结果犯都存在或是实践中,或是理论中的问题而无法解决。鉴于律师伪证罪行为的特殊性和现实司法实践现状认为,应当赋予法官一定自由裁量权,对律师伪证罪行为从多方面因素共同考虑律师伪证行为的社会危害性,从而确定对其行为的追究与否。     

The Concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise and Domestic Modes of Liability for Parties to a Crime: A Comparison of German and English Law

The concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) has becomea useful tool in international criminal law. It allows courtsto hold individuals criminally liable for group activities towhich they have contributed in a criminally relevant way. Theconcept allows for an attribution of criminal responsibilityof unforeseen consequences of such group activities, and itseems to enable the prosecution and the courts to extend criminalliability to high-level perpetrators that use subordinated personsfor their criminal aims. The advantages of such a tool are obvioussince the crimes under international criminal law are mostlyof a systematic, large-scale and collective character, whiledomestic criminal law mainly deals with less complex crimesthat are normally committed by individuals who can easily belinked to the crime. Due to this empirical or criminologicalfact, it seems logical that the normal modes of liability forparties to a crime used in domestic criminal law need to beadapted, and that a rather extensive assignment of criminalliability for secondary parties is justified in internationalcriminal law. This article seeks to question this assumptionby undertaking a comparative analysis of domestic modes of liability.The author aims to show, on the one hand, to what extent theconcept of JCE is in line with the general concept of partiesto a crime in domestic criminal law. On the other hand, theauthor argues that abandoning the idea of JCE as an independentmode of liability may lead to better compliance with the principlesof legality and individual criminal responsibility and therebyincrease the legitimacy of international criminal law.     

The Problem with Entrapment

In R v Looseley; Attorney General’s Reference (No. 3 of2000) the House of Lords articulated a legal framework to govern‘entrapment’ in criminal cases. Their Lordshipsregarded the need for judicial intervention to assist entrappeddefendants as uncontroversial. This article argues that thedoctrine they set out, in fact, necessitates substantial, andlargely unarticulated, departures from principles the courtsordinarily stress as fundamental to the criminal law. In particular,entrapment doctrine determines liability for criminal acts byreference to the kind of environment inhabited by their perpetrators,a perspective the law ordinarily attempts to exclude. This articlesuggests that the anomalous treatment of entrapment can be understoodas a device to prevent the police from relocating the temptationto commit crime to environments in which they are not ordinarilyconfronted and to ensure that those from backgrounds in whichserious criminality is not usually a plausible option will escapepunishment if tempted to commit crime by the police.     

关于对现行犯适用先行拘留的思考

现行犯是指正在预备犯罪、实行犯罪或者犯罪后即时被发觉的人。刑事诉讼法规定对现行犯可以适用先行拘留。对刑诉法所规定的"先行拘留",理论和实践中众说纷纭,诸如立案前拘留、逮捕前拘留、无证拘留和有证拘留等等。这些观点均有违立法精神,造成了司法实践中对拘留的适用无所适从。先行拘留和拘留是有区别的,对现行犯可以先行拘留,应当理解为"先抓获后拘留"。     

犯罪心理学研究的核心问题——刑事责任的心理基础

在“刑事一体化”背景下 ,犯罪心理学的研究应以行为人承担刑事责任的心理基础为核心。对故意犯罪而言 ,刑事责任的心理基础主要表现为行为人恶劣的犯罪动机和对法律的蔑视态度 ;就过失犯罪而言 ,刑事责任的心理基础主要表现为行为人人格的缺陷和对法律的轻视态度。因此 ,犯罪动机和犯罪人格是行为人承担刑事责任的主要主观依据 ,也是犯罪心理的具体表现和核心内容。     

信用卡诈骗罪客观方面要件的认定探讨

信用卡是个舶来品。曾几何时 ,在很多国人脑海里 ,它还只是一个抽象的概念 ,转眼间却成了很多人日常生活中不可或缺的支付手段。信用卡在日常生活中的被广泛使用与人们对信用卡有关知识的相对缺乏 ,使得信用卡成为犯罪分子可以利用来进行犯罪活动的工具。本文从客观方面对信用卡诈骗罪的定性问题进行了研究