我国犯罪构成理论逻辑缺陷及其完善

我国犯罪构成理论存在致命缺陷,具备犯罪构成所有构成要件的行为可能并不构成犯罪。我国的犯罪构成理论源于大陆法系国家,但大陆法系国家的犯罪构成理论不存在这个问题。其根本原因在于我国的犯罪客体没有起到其本源实质违法性概念的出罪功能。我国刑法理论界应该对犯罪客体的概念和功能进行反思,恢复其所对应的实质违法性的含义,起到相应的功能,使我国犯罪构成的理论体系彻底完善起来。     

诈骗罪的事后行为和诈骗行为不成立牵连犯

对于行为人利用欺骗方式进行兼并,然后又利用职务上的便利,将兼并后的单位的财物占为己有的行为,不能成立诈骗行为和侵占行为的牵连犯。行为人实施诈骗行为之后,处分财物的行为,是不可罚的事后行为。在刑法意义上,行为人只有一个诈骗行为,没有侵占行为,不得以牵连犯惩处。     

论想象竞合犯的罪数本质

想象竞合犯作为最重要的罪教形态之一,承担了区分罪数的功能,但关于其罪数本质却不无争议。根据罪数判断标准,对罪数判断要素——行为进行解析。由并合行为构成的想象竞合犯是实质数罪．由合一行为构成的想象竞合犯是实质一罪。     

货物调包类财产犯罪案件的教义学分析

针对货车司机将运输中的货物非法占为己有,再用次品或废品补足重量,冒充原货物交付收货方的行为的定性,其前阶段调包行为根据运输中的货物的占有归属,可能构成盗窃罪、侵占罪或职务侵占罪,其后阶段交货行为构成针对财产性利益的诈骗罪,该两阶段行为按照吸收犯处理。在财产损失的认定上,宜采取整体财产说的立场,在满足一些特殊条件的情况下,犯罪数额可以扣减次品价值。如果收购原货物的人与司机有共谋,对调包行为的完成起到一定作用的,收购人与司机成立共同犯罪,即使数名司机彼此之间没有共谋,收购人的涉案数额也应累积计算。验货人员与司机勾结,明知是不合格的次品而予以签收的行为,不构成职务侵占罪的正犯。     

挪用公款罪的数额计算

挪用公款的数额对定罪与量刑具有重要作用。挪用公款存在不同用途的,根据举重以明轻的解释原理,可以将用于非法活动与营利活动的数额评价为用于其他活动的数额;对每一笔挪用行为及其数额的认定必须以刑法规定为标准,只有当挪用行为能够被我国《刑法》第384条规定的构成要件所涵摄时,才能将挪用数额计入挪用公款罪的数额;既不能仅挑选其中用途最多的数额作为定罪量刑的根据,也不能按用途分别计算数额,更不能一概以总数额作为挪用公款罪的数额。多次挪用公款,并以后次挪用的公款归还前次挪用的公款的,并不是刑法意义上的归还,不能一律以案发时未还的实际数额认定,也不能仅按其中一次最高数额计算;对于归还前已经构成挪用公款罪的数额,应当累计计算。对携带部分挪用的公款潜逃的案件,为了确保罪刑相适应,也可能将贪污的公款数额评价为挪用公款的数额;在使用人与挪用人构成共同犯罪的案件中,使用人应当对与其行为具有因果性的挪用数额负责,而不是仅对使用数额负责;对共同挪用公款数额的认定,必须采取共犯从属性说并贯彻责任主义。     

论利益归属对犯罪参与类型界分的影响 以财产性犯罪为中心

中外司法实务在区分核心和次要的犯罪参与类型时,惯常地考虑参与人的利益归属情况。特别是对于财产性犯罪,直接突破了以构成要件为中心的区分模式,格外侧重于参与人对经济利益的归属。对此,学界尚未进行充分的理论诠释。在肯定利益归属影响论的基础上,将利益归属作为综合区分标准的影响因子之一的做法,不具有体系理性;将利益归属作为认定参与行为发挥的客观作用的间接事实,未体现关联性;将利益归属作为认定参与人主观意思的情状证据,不具有明确性。犯罪参与类型的区分标准具有递进序列的主客观层次,在确认参与人具有实施构成要件的具体行为能力的基础上,利益归属是推定参与人是否具有实施构成要件的行为意志的间接事实。财产性犯罪具有强烈的追求利益的经济性格,以利益归属推定参与人实施构成要件的行为意志,在财产性犯罪中具有更可靠的推定效果。     

The association between the offender–victim relationship,severity of offence and attribution of blame in mentally disordered offenders

Abstract

The aim of this research was to investigate the association between the offender–victim relationship, severity of violence and attribution of blame for a violent act. Data were collected from 65 male psychiatric inpatients from two secure units. Participants were divided into three groups according to how well they knew their victim: victim well-known, victim acquaintance and victim stranger. Violent acts were further ranked according to offence severity. Participants were administered the Quick Test (QT) and the Gudjonsson Blame Attribution Inventory (GBAI). Although there was a trend towards higher guilt attributions when the victim was well-known to the perpetrator, this relationship was complicated by the severity of the violent act. The most severe ranking of offence (i.e. murder/manslaughter) was most common in the offender group who knew their victim well. Furthermore, guilt-feeling attributions were highest in the most severe ranking of offence. The implications of these findings for assessment and intervention programmes are considered.     

日本环境犯罪的刑法理论发展

日本从战后废墟中快速重建,但其工业经济的发展却是以人们的生活环境为代价的,在一连串的公害事故后人们才觉醒到环境的重要,并将环境作为刑法上的重要法益。但是由于环境本身的特殊性,以保护个人利益为基础的传统刑法理论在处理环境犯罪方面明显不足,因此不得不提出相应的修正理论。例如客观归责上的疫学因果关系说,乃至于主观归责上的危惧感说。然而,在面临举证困难的同时,为了有效预防环境犯罪,提早保护不特定多数人的生命、身体乃至于财产安全,日本最终在立法上采用了危险犯的立法模式。日本环境犯罪的刑法理论发展,对我国具有一定借鉴价值。     

Section 47 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013: A Flawed Reform of the UK Cartel Offence

On 1 April 2014, section 47 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA) entered into force, ensuring significant changes to the UK cartel offence. The criminal offence, contained in section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002, was enacted to secure the deterrence of cartel activity affecting the UK. Following almost ten years of enforcement, the cartel offence had failed to live up to expectations. Consequently, following a public consultation, it was reformed in substance. Section 47 ERRA, removed the (controversial) definitional element of ‘dishonesty’ from the offence, created a number of ‘carve outs’ from the offence, and created three additional defences. This article examines in detail the specific reforms of the cartel offence and argues that, although considerable improvement has been made, the UK offence is fundamentally flawed and unworkable in practice. Further reform is therefore advised.     

Clinical psychologists’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to engaging service users in index offence assessment and formulation within a medium secure unit

Index offence assessment and formulation (IOAF) helps service users (SU) in secure units to make sense of their index offence, provides detailed understanding of risk and contributes to treatment planning and discharge decisions. Clinical psychologists’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to engaging SUs in IOAF within the men’s and women’s services of one medium secure unit were explored through focus groups. Thematic analysis identified two relevant domains: person-specific factors and the organisational context. Person-specific barriers included challenges in working with fragmented narratives, conflicting motivations to engage, SU defences and distorted perceptions of clinical psychologists’ roles. Giving clarity and choice to SUs facilitated engagement with the work. Regarding the organisational context, clinical psychologists within both services identified the importance of having adequate resources and care-team support to complete this work. Findings highlight the importance of developing an evidence-based framework for IOAF to be embedded within clear ‘risk’ care pathways through secure services.