不作为犯中支配理论的法教义学批判

实际支配理论、排他性支配理论和领域支配是不作为犯教义学中欲使作为和不作为等置的保证人地位的法理基础。然而,这三种支配理论在概念和逻辑层面都存在疑问:在概念层面,这三种支配理论中的支配和作为犯中的支配在“支配程度”上有所不同,且实际支配理论中的支配与作为犯中的支配在“支配性质”上也并不一致;在逻辑层面,从支配中推导义务的思路错置了支配与义务的关系,两者至多只是伴随关系而不可能相互推导。因此,不作为犯中的支配理论无法成为保证人地位的法理基础。“领域支配”的确可以产生刑法上的作为义务,但须对它进行重新解释:“领域支配”所产生的是“交往安全义务”,此义务并不要求领域的支配者阻止领域内的犯罪行为、救助领域内的伤者,支配者只需确保自己所支配的领域不向外输出风险即可。

Legal Dogmatics Criticize of the Domination Theory in Omission Crime

Realistic domination theory,exclusive domination theory and field domination theory are the legal bases of the omission crime dogmatics.However,some doubts about them do exist conceptually and logically.Firstly,in concept,the dominations of them differ from the one in commission crime in the degree of domination.Moreover,the domination characters in the realistic domination theory disaccord with the domination characters in commission crime.Secondly,the idea that deducing the obligations from dominations fails to determine the relationship between dominations and obligations logically.The dominations and obligations are actually in following relationship and cannot be deduced from each other.Therefore,the domination theory of omission crime cannot be treated as the legal basis of the status of guarantor.Furthermore,although taking the initiative to undertake the protection obligations and field domination can infer the act obligations of criminal law,the obligations need to be reinterpreted.The obligations,which can be deduced from field domination,are the communication security obligations,which do not require the field dominator to prevent crimes and save the injured in the field.The only thing the dominators ought to do is preventing the risk to transfer outwards.