Criminal Law, the Victim and Community: The Shades of ‘We’ and the Conceptual Involvement of Community in Contemporary Criminal Law Theory

The article addresses the argument, put forward by Lernestedt, that the proprietor of the ‘criminal-law conflict’ is the community (or the community and the offender) and discusses his proposed theoretical model of criminal law trial. I raise questions regarding the legitimacy of such a model, focusing on four counts. Firstly, I assert that his assumptions about the state the individual and the old/new versions of criminal law theory are society-dependent. Secondly, I address some problems with the concept of community and particularly with the proposed conception of community, which seems to mostly exclude the offender. Thirdly, I question the need for (or added value of) such a proposed conceptual involvement of the community as an actor in the criminal law process and theory. Lastly, some potential problems with the idea of the victim as a mere “representative of us” are mentioned, including the possibly undesirable demands and limitations on the victim’s agency and issues of respect for the victim’s individuality.     

论集合犯

“集合犯”在海外刑法理论中是使用比较普遍的一个概念 ,而我国理论界只是在近年才有学者关注。基于我国刑法已经取消了对“惯犯”的规定 ,因此 ,有必要借鉴海外刑法理论对于集合犯的研究 ,联系我国刑法理论和现行刑法的规定 ,对刑法中的集合犯的基本理论问题予以研讨。     

共犯处罚根据论的反思与修正:新混合惹起说的提出

混合惹起说虽然是共犯处罚根据论的通说,但是其最大不足在于,无法有效应对新型网络共同犯罪。造成这种问题的根本原因是,混合惹起说以限制从属性说作为理论基础,主张只有犯罪结果对正犯与共犯而言均具有违法性,才可能处罚共犯。然而,既然共同犯罪的本质是行为的共同而非犯罪的共同,成立共犯理应只需从属于正犯的实行行为,而且,对正犯的违法性评价未必连带作用于共犯,因而可以采取最小从属性说,无须采取限制从属性说。如此,就需要对混合惹起说进行修正:处罚共犯,只要求犯罪结果对共犯而言具有违法性即可,无需对正犯也具有违法性。这样既可以有效地应对新型网络共同犯罪等问题,也可以对共犯故意创造"利益冲突状态"的行为作出准确评价。     

共犯最小从属性说之再提倡——兼论帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪的性质

限制从属性说以正犯行为同时具有构成要件该当性与违法性作为共犯的成立前提,因而面临无法有效应对新型网络共同犯罪的危机.为解决这一危机,该说中有着眼于帮助对象必须是他人的"犯罪",主张帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪只是"帮助犯的量刑规则"的,也有以刑法分则条文的定罪机能为根据,提出"帮助犯正犯化"说的.但是,共犯的违法性不从属于正...     

“正犯主犯化”:趋势、原因及启示

主犯与正犯分别处于我国和德日刑法共同犯罪人的核心地位,有必要明确二者的关系。在德日刑法史上,正犯的内涵经历了主观说、形式客观说和实质客观说的演变。随着重要作用说和犯罪事实支配理论成为学界通说,正犯的认定标准倒向了实质客观说。德日刑法中的正犯与我国刑法中主犯的界限日益模糊,呈现出"正犯主犯化"趋势。该趋势的形成与哲学思潮由自然(实证)主义向新康德主义的转变有关;在刑法领域,该思潮的转向主要通过把刑罚的合目的性引入到犯罪论的方法,以化解犯罪论与刑罚论的冲突和消弭"李斯特鸿沟"。"正犯主犯化"趋势对我国共同犯罪的研究具有重要启示:一方面,不能以德日刑法中的正犯、共犯概念代替主犯、从犯的规范用语;另一方面,不能割裂定罪与量刑的关系,引进所谓的"双层区分制"。对于外国刑法理论,应该在明确该理论产生的社会背景和发展动向的基础上,回归到中国的具体现实,结合具体问题分析我国刑法的优劣,再做出坚持还是借鉴的选择。     

正犯与共犯之区别

德、日、韩等国家的共犯论体系是以正犯为中心建立起来的,共犯是以正犯为其前提的概念。刑法以分工分类法对共犯人进行分类,正犯不仅是其中的核心概念,也是共同犯罪定罪、量刑的中心。因此,在共犯论中,最基本的问题便是怎样区分正犯与共犯。在我国的刑法理论中,并没有正犯概念,我国刑法将参与共同犯罪的行为人分为组织犯、主犯、从犯、胁从犯和教唆犯。有关正犯与共犯的区分问题,在我国的刑法理论界,有规范性实行行为说和实质客观说之争,虽然重要作用说具有相对合理性,但是,在共犯论体系不同的语境之下,探讨两者的区分,可谓无奈之举。这一问题的根本解决,最好是在修订刑法条文时,规定相关条款。     

一个根本不存在的共犯种类--胁从犯--胁从犯的刑法依据和政策依据质疑

以刑法第28条作为胁从犯的存在依据,实属牵强附会,刑法第28条是关于主犯和从犯的补充规定;按作用分类法的理论,胁从犯是不存在的,刑法中只有主要作用和次要作用、辅助作用的规定,一些论者关于胁从犯的"较小作用"、"作用小于从犯"、"作用最小"的观点没有刑法依据.以毛泽东同志关于"首恶必办、胁从不问、立功受奖"的论述作为胁从犯的政策依据,也值得推敲,毛泽东选集中的"胁从"之说在当时主要是指听从"首恶"指挥跟从"首恶"国民党官兵,是今天刑法中"从犯"的立法依据,而不是胁从犯的政策渊源.     

析共同正犯的几个问题

共同正犯理论是刑法理论的一个重要组成部分。根据我国的立法实际,采用形式的客观说来界定共同正犯的概念更为可取。就共同正犯的性质而言,它是介于正犯与共犯之间的中间类型,既有正犯的属性也有共犯的属性。按照不同的标准,可以对共同正犯作不同的分类。其中相互的共同正犯与附加的共同正犯、累积的共同正犯与择一的共同正犯等共同正犯类型,我国学者研究较少,应予重视。     

结果加重犯的共同正犯浅论

结果加重犯是故意实施基本的犯罪构成要件的行为,发生基本犯罪构成结果以外的重结果,刑法对重结果规定加重法定刑的犯罪.我国的结果加重犯存在两种类型,即基本犯为故意,重结果为过失的结果加重犯(纯正结果加重犯)与基本犯为故意,重结果也为故意的结果加重犯(不纯正结果加重犯).前者不能成立结果加重犯的共同正犯,而后者可以成立结果加重犯的共同正犯.     

Predicting presence of offender's criminal record from antisocial lifestyle indicators of homicide victims

The aim of the present study is to explore the possibility of predicting the presence of a criminal record in the background of a homicide offender on the basis of victim characteristics. Eight victim characteristics, as well as the presence or absence of offender criminal record and offender violent criminal record, were coded for 502 Finnish homicides. A configural frequency analysis (CFA) showed that it was possible to predict the presence of a criminal record on the basis of the victim variables. The practical significance of the results for police investigations is discussed.     

身份犯之共犯:以比较法为视角的考察

共犯与身份是刑法理论上一个较为疑难的问题,德国、日本以及我国台湾地区刑法典对此都有明文规定,因此形成关于共犯之身份犯的教义学原理。我国刑法并没有关于共犯与身份问题的一般性规定,而只是在刑法分则中存在个别性规定以及在有关刑法解释中存在规定,并且这种规定也经历了一个演变过程。本文采用德日刑法学关于共犯之身份犯的教义学原理,结合我国刑法与司法解释的规定,对共犯之身份犯的定罪及量刑问题进行了较为细致的分析。本文对于从法理上正确理解共犯之身份犯,并为共犯与身份的立法与司法完善,具有一定的参考价值。     

Understanding offense specialization and versatility: A reapplication of the rational choice perspective

An understanding of offender specialization and versatility offers benefit to both criminal justice policy and theoretical foundations. The majority of research examining offending specialization/versatility, however, sought to inform crime policy. Accordingly, there was little theoretical insight as to why individuals might engage in more specialized offending, or instead, diversify in their criminal participation. An earlier application of rational choice theory to the offending specialization — versatility issue was premised on the idea that the theory inherently predicted specialization in offending. Other interpretations offered it as a heuristic tool for understanding both crime specialization and versatility. The findings from a series of logistic regression techniques on a national level probation sample supported rational choice predictions about successive tendencies in offending participation that fulfill likely offender needs.     

共谋共同正犯论

在实行行为与共犯理论实质化思潮影响之下,日本刑法对共谋共同正犯的争论早已由"是否当罚"转为"如何处罚"的问题。在我国研究共谋共同正犯,有助于构建精细化的正犯与共犯区别理论,实现对主犯核心共犯体系的反思,并推动我国犯罪论体系阶层化的前行。对共谋共同正犯的成立,应从客观上对其条件进行细化,以尽量限定其处罚范围。二人以上共谋事实的存在,是其责任要件;实行的必要性及共谋者对实行行为的实质分担性,是其客观违法要件。共谋共同正犯实行部分行为全部责任的法理;实行者既遂时,共谋共同正犯亦应负既遂罪责任;共谋共同正犯具有独立的被处罚性。承认共谋共同正犯概念,是对实行行为扩大解释的结果,并不违反罪刑法定原则。     

Effectiveness of the habitual offender act: An assessment of criminal histories

Habitual offender acts have been adopted by 43 states and are under consideration in the legislatures of others. These acts have been adopted with relatively little evaluation of the costs involved in the implementation of this legislation. This study seeks to evaluate the extent to which Alabama’s habitual offender statute captures serious career criminals. The results indicate that the differences between those in the prison population sentenced under habitual offender statutes and those sentenced under other statutes is not significant. There does appear to be support for the contention that the majority of prisoners have substantial criminal histories; however, it is noted that many have not committed a severe crime. The exaggerated claims for the number of crimes committed by “typical” offenders and resultant high costs of non-incarceration are examined and challenged. The authors suggest that the resources available to deal with offenders could be better invested in the development and testing of community-based programs designed to divert offenders from a life of crime rather than in programs which intervene after criminal histories are severe and which invoke life-long incarceration as a remedy. The authors wish to express their appreciation to the Alabama Department of Corrections for their assistance in this project.     

试论间接正犯承认的必要性及其理论依据

间接正犯并不是正犯概念诞生时就内含的部分,而是随着司法实践和刑法理论的发展,对正犯概念的一种补充和完善;作为间接正犯存在的理论依据,较为适当的应是从利用人和被利用人两方面出发,既坚持主客观相统一的原则,又能体现间接正犯本身特性的"工具理论"。     

The Best Interests of the Child and the Sentencing of Offenders with Parental Responsibilities

There is a growing body of empirical research demonstrating that sentencing and other criminal justice decisions often have a detrimental, even traumatic impact upon an offender’s dependent children. Judges must balance numerous factors when making sentencing decisions, generally encompassing the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offence, and the personal circumstances of the offender. Should the probable impact of a sentence on an offender’s dependents be a significant factor to be weighed with these other factors in the process of sentencing? More specifically, when a court is sentencing an offender with parental responsibilities, does it have a duty to inquire about the potential impact of the sanction on the offender’s dependent child or children? Must it consider the principle of the best interests of the child or a child’s right to family life as a separate legal consideration in constructing a sentence? International human rights standards suggest that it does. After reviewing existing evidence on the potential hardship of sentencing decisions for an offender’s dependent children, the authors examine the experience of six countries in interpreting and applying these standards in their domestic laws, policies, and practices. They discuss some options for sentencing reforms in the broader context of efforts to reduce high rates of imprisonment in many countries and the need to address the differential impacts of criminal sanctions for primary caregivers and their children.     

我国刑法共犯参与体系性质探讨——从统一正犯视野

在各国关于共同犯罪的刑事立法中,存在着区分正犯与狭义共犯的二元参与体系和不作上述区分的统一正犯体系两大类型,两种体系各有不同的特点。我国刑法并未提到正犯的概念,我国学者在共犯研究中鲜有涉及到我国犯罪参与体系性质的问题。我国刑法对共犯分类采用的是统一正犯体系,与传统的统一正犯体系相比又具有我国的特色。确定我国刑法所规定的犯罪参与体系性质对于我国共同犯罪理论与实务上一系列问题的解决有重要意义。     

From the Inside/Out: Greene County Jail Inmates on Restorative ReEntry

The application of criminal justice sanctions is often misguided by a failure to recognize the need for a comprehensive approach in the transformation of offenders into law-abiding citizens. Restorative justice is a growing movement within criminal justice that recognizes the disconnect between offender rehabilitative measures and the social dynamics within which offender reentry takes place. By using restorative approaches to justice, what one hopes of these alternative processes is that the offenders become reconnected to the community and its values, something rarely seen in retributive models in which punishment is imposed and offenders can often experience further alienation from society. In this study, the authors wish to examine factors that contribute to failed prisoner reentry and reintegration and explore how restorative reintegration processes can address these factors as well as the needs, attitudes, and perceptions that help construct and maintain many of the obstacles and barriers returning inmates face when attempting to reintegrate into society.     

我国刑法理论上的牵连犯问题研究

牵连犯应是指犯罪人以实施某一犯罪为目的 ,而其犯罪方法或结果行为触犯其他罪名的犯罪。如何认定牵连犯数个独立的犯罪行为之间的牵连关系 ,存在不同观点 ,其中折衷说较为科学 ,即应从主客观两方面去分析、认定。无刑法规定性和不实行并罚性 ,应是牵连犯的本质特征。对于牵连犯与吸收犯、想象竞合犯、结合犯之间的异同 ,必须在理论上深入研究 ,并在刑事法律上加以完善。     

“Prison doesn’t stop them” Orchestrating criminal acts from behind bars

This article is about crime entrepreneurs that manage to organize criminal acts in the outside world, while being imprisoned. An examination of police intelligence on 13 cases, the Dutch penitentiary law, visits to two prisons and interviews with prison and law enforcement staff leads to the conclusion that for criminal leaders, whose most important tool for committing crimes is communication, there are a lot of possibilities, and little thresholds, for managing their criminal organisation from prison. The paradigms of reintegration of criminals and internal security in prison dominate the design of Dutch prison regimes. As a result, there are many opportunities for prisoners to communicate with the world outside. The findings of the case study are set against the theoretical background of the routine activity approach (R.A.T.). This theory provides a suitable conceptual framework to explain the forms of criminal behaviour found in the case study and it invites giving recommendations for situational crime prevention. An important notion for understanding the problem of crime that is organized from behind bars, that applying R.A.T. led to, is the physical distance between the ??motivated offender?? and his ??target??. In other words, the offender is imprisoned and his target is somewhere outside. This means that the guardians that keep an eye on the intellectual offender are others than the guardians that observe the actual offender and the target. For detecting crime organized from prison, a good monitoring of communication of the prisoner and his potential helpers and sufficient exchange of information between the different guardians is essential. Possible preventive measurements can be found in the reduction of communication channels.