当罚、可罚与要罚：犯罪构造客观要件的逻辑递进

犯罪成立的主客观要素并非完全一一对应,立法上存在着以条件的面目出现、无需主观认识的客观事实。可罚性和要罚性是区分＂内在＂和＂外部＂的客观处罚条件的标准,同时,与可罚性的关系则是区分＂内在＂的客观处罚条件与罪量要素、结果加重犯之结果的标准。就此,从犯罪成立的客观要素观之,各要件要素之间存在着当罚、可罚与要罚的逻辑递进。     

可罚的违法性理论:中日刑法之比较考察

可罚的违法性理论强调刑事违法行为应当具有科处刑罚程度的质和量。日本学理和司法实践中广泛讨论可罚的违法性理论,实务中也多有应用;我国同样存在与之相类似的罪量概念。由于中日刑事立法和司法上的诸多差异,相似制度的适用效果也有许多不同。对于我国刑法中的罪量以及与之相关的问题,本文进行了一体化的探讨。不主张将可罚的违法性理论全盘纳入,而应当吸收该理论的精神实质,促进我国的刑事法制建设。     

两岸刑法中客观处罚条件规定的评析

客观处罚条件原本是德国、日本刑法中的一种立法现象,我国台湾地区刑法是民国时期《中华民国刑法》在台湾地区的延续,在立法上,由于受到德日刑法的强烈影响,在客观处罚条件的规定上与德日刑法一脉相承,甚至将客观处罚条件的立法技术发挥到了极致,含有客观处罚条件的罪名远远超过德日刑法,但有关客观处罚条件的理论定位,台湾学者之间争议特别大。由于我国大陆犯罪论体系本身的特点决定了我国大陆刑法中不存在犯罪成立意义上的客观处罚条件,但存在刑罚权发动意义上的客观处罚条件。     

我国刑法理论中期待可能性理论适用范围的限定

期待可能性理论体现了“法不强人所难”的立法思想 ,表达了刑法对人性的尊重、对人追求个体幸福的本能的肯定 ,从而受到大陆法系国家的普遍重视 ,现在西欧各国的刑法典中均有体现。近年来 ,为了解决“阻却犯罪事由与犯罪构成契合点”的难题 ,我国学者首次引进了期待可能性理论 ,然而 ,由于我国的犯罪构成理论与大陆法系国家迥然有别 ,而使得移植期待可能性理论过程中出现了困难。本文通过对大陆法系刑法理论框架中期待可能性理论含义的分析、该理论适用范围在德、日两国修正发展过程的探讨 ,拟为我国刑法理论框架中限定期待可能性理论的适用范围     

试论外国刑法中客观的处罚条件

在外国刑法中,某些行为符合犯罪构成要件,具备违法性和有责性,并不必然受到刑事处罚,会要求附加一定的客观条件,该客观条件的存在,是特定犯罪行为引发刑事处罚结果所必需的,这就是所谓的客观的处罚条件。理论界对于客观处罚条件的概念、特征、范围、分类、体系地位等问题有不同的看法,而刑法之外的目的优先说比较可取。     

刑法定量因素相关概念辨析

定量因素与客观处罚条件,实质违法性、可罚的违法性虽有一定联系,但含义不同。客观处罚条件与定量因素表面相似,但本质不同,实质违法性、可罚的违法性看似与定量因素无关,实质上具有相同功能,后者不同于前两者的是其在刑法中有明丈规定。     

可罚的违法性理论利弊之启示

可罚的违法性通过对违法行为的"质"与"量"两个方面提出要求,将部分轻微违法行为非罪化,从而彰显刑法谦抑思想。但该理论存在着不足之处,其在犯罪论体系中的位置难有定论,且"可罚"与否的判断基准难以把握。该理论的利弊分别启示我们:立法时对于轻微违法行为入刑须慎重,尤其是对于涉及民生的问题;在改造现行犯罪构成时应当将社会危害性的"量"作为独立要件纳入犯罪构成之中;在解释刑法时应当取实质解释之立场。     

日本刑法中的可罚的违法性理论及其对我国的借鉴

起源于德国而在日本刑法理论界曾盛极一时的可罚的违法性理论,是以刑法的谦抑主义,违法相对论和实质的违法性为理论基础的,它具有明显的免罪机能和一定的合理性,能移植到我国资以借鉴,对于我们重新审视犯罪的本质特征,对于我们正确评价和适用刑法的“但书”规定都有着积极的参考意义。     

论我国刑法中未成年人的刑事责任

未成年人犯罪问题已日益为国际社会及世界各国所关注。未成年人的身心特点决定了对其犯罪应采用有别于成年人犯罪的刑事责任追究制度。我国现行刑法对未成年人犯罪明确规定了从宽处罚和不适用死刑的原则。从有助于我国未成年人犯罪刑事政策的贯彻落实考虑 ,本文对未成年人犯罪刑事责任和从宽处罚的原因进行探讨 ,并对“降低刑事责任年龄”观点提出异议 ,为司法实践正确解决未成年人犯罪的刑事责任提出新的思路。     

Donald Davidson and section 2.01 of the model penal code

Abstract

In a 1967 article that is considered a classic of criminal justice scholarship, Abraham Blumberg portrayed defense attorneys for accused offenders as more responsive to the demands of the court entourage for smooth and expeditious functioning than to the needs of their clients for a stalwart representation. The article suggests that Blumberg's view, while provocative and with a considerable element of accuracy, may have reflected a somewhat jaundiced and overstated perspective when he was on the verge of leaving law practice for academia. The article also speculates about the current accuracy of Blumberg's observations.     

Sex offender punishment and the persistence of penal harm in the U.S

The U.S. has dramatically revised its approach to punishment in the last several decades. In particular, people convicted of sex crimes have experienced a remarkable expansion in social control through a wide-range of post-conviction interventions. While this expansion may be largely explained by general punishment trends, there appear to be unique factors that have prevented other penal reforms from similarly modulating sex offender punishment. In part, this continuation of a “penal harm” approach to sex offenders relates to the past under-valuing of sexual victimization. In the “bad old days,” the law and its agents sent mixed messages about sexual violence and sexual offending. Some sexual offending was mere nuisance, some was treatable, and a fraction “deserved” punishment equivalent to other serious criminal offending. In contrast, today's sex offender punishment schemes rarely distinguish formally among gradations of harm or dangerousness. After examining incarceration trends, this article explores the historical context of the current broad brush approach and reviews the unintended consequences. Altogether, this article reinforces the need to return to differentiation among sex offenders, but differentiation based on science and on the experience-based, guided discretion of experts in law enforcement, corrections, and treatment.     

Medico-legal assessment of malpractice under the Austrian penal code

In recent years, Austria has seen some change in the approach to errors in medical practice. The privileged position of the medical practitioner within the meaning of the former penal code, in force till 1974, no longer exists; however, errors leading to insignificant damage to the patient's health may remain free from punishment. In any case, nowadays, the categories of the dogmatics of negligence are applied to the doctor's professional activity. The traditional concept of 'malpractice' as formerly applied has virtually been displaced from the medico-legal assessment of an error in medical practice. The patient-doctor relationship based on trust is increasingly being supplemented by legal norms. Accordingly, the doctor's liability appears increasingly as the doctor's typical professional risk. Yet, in Austria, the doctor's liability is still kept within limits. The situation, with some cases in point, is analysed and described.