论社会危害性理论与实质刑法观的关联关系与风险防范

社会危害性理论与法益理论确实可以成为实质刑法观的理论基础,但是社会危害性理论与实质刑法观的关联性比较复杂,并非如部分学者所提示的那样一一对应。就持有传统社会危害性理论立场的学者而言,他们其实并非可以简单地归入实质刑法观立场;而主张改革完善传统社会危害性理论的部分学者,反而坚持实质刑法观立场。在中国语境下,实质刑法观面临的风险与批评,主要根源就在于作为实质刑法观理论基础的社会危害性理论具有太过强大的解释功能,且实质解释论的功能表现包括了保障人权的正面功能与严重侵犯人权的负面功能的两面,呈现出矛盾属性。为了防范风险,不但需要发展实质刑法观,而且需要完善社会危害性理论。单面的实质刑法观或者保守的实质刑法观,主张通过实质罪刑法定原则的限制、实质犯罪论的限制与实质司法解释权的限制,以有效防范开放的实质刑法观可能存在的侵蚀人权保障机能的风险,因而应当成为当下中国最理想的选择。

On the Relevance of Social Harm and Substantive Criminal Law and Risk Prevention

While the perspective of social harm and the doctrine of legal interests can be deemed the underlying theories of substantive criminal law,the relevance of the two is quite complicated rather than of correspondence asserted by some academics.According to pro-traditional social harm scholars,they cannot be casually classified as substantive criminal law doctrines,while those that advocate reform of the traditional social harm theory,surprisingly,insist that they fall within the ambit of substantive criminal law.In present China,the risks and criticism substantive criminal law confronts are attributed chiefly to excessive interpretive function of the social harm perspective that underlies substantive criminal law.Moreover,the substantive interpretative doctrine contains some contradictory functional elements which sometimes act positively favoring human rights protection and sometimes negatively causing serious infringement of human rights.To decrease the risk,apart from perfecting substantive criminal law,social harm should be further improved.Single-sided or conservative position of substantive criminal law maintains that by limiting the rules of substantive criminal law,substantive criminological doctrines and substantive judicial interpretation power the potential risk of human rights protective mechanism's erosion would be eliminated,which should be the best choice for China to cure the defects of the open view of substantive criminal law.