入罪与出罪:我国《刑法》第13条的功能解构

对我国《刑法》第13条"前段"和"但书"的定位,理论上历来存在争议。现有的研究或不具有普遍适用性,或不能妥当解释"前段"与"但书"之间的矛盾。事实上,应分别从立法和司法层面理解"前段"和"但书"的内容,即在将"前段"解释为立法层面要求的前提下,借助刑事责任理论将"但书"解读为刑事责任实现后的出罪权。如此理解,不仅能为刑法修改完善提供法律根据,也能在增强刑法积极一般预防作用的同时,限制刑法立法权。"但书"的核心在于将刑事责任已经实现的案件,及时从刑事司法程序中"解脱"出来,该权力的运用既不会破坏犯罪构成的定型性功能,也不会助推司法自由裁量权的滥用。

Criminalization and Decriminalization:The Functional Analysis of Article 13 of the Criminal Law

There have long been theoretic disputes over the understanding of the "forepart" of and the "proviso" in Article 13 of the Criminal Law. The existing viewpoints either aren’t applicable universally or fail to properly explain the contradiction between the "forepart" and the "proviso". In fact, the meanings of the "forepart" and the "proviso" should be understood respectively from the legislative perspective and the judicial perspective, in other words, under the premise of interpreting the "forepart" as requirements made at the legislative level, the "proviso" is interpreted by means of the criminal responsibility theory as a power of decriminalization after fulfilling the criminal responsibility. Such understanding can not only provide legal basis for the amendment to and improvement of the criminal law, but also limit the legislative power concerning the criminal law at the same time of enhancing the role of the criminal law in the proactive general prevention. The core of the "proviso" is to " extricate" cases in which criminal responsibility has been fulfilled from the criminal proceedings timely. The exercise of such power will not undermine the type-setting function of Tatbestand, nor promote the abuse of judicial discretion.