客观危险说:立场与方法的辨证

发布时间：2018-01-28 12:20

  本文关键词： 客观危险 判断资料 事后判断 科学的一般人 刑法客观主义　出处：《清华法学》2015年04期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：客观危险说是违法性领域内关于判断"实行行为时法益侵害危险性"具体方法的学说,它包含判断资料、判断时点、判断主体三个热点。判断资料与判断主体分属两个阶层,客观危险说只能以"客观事实"为评价对象,不允许以判断主体的认知取代客观资料,不能对客观事实进行抽象化,这是刑法客观主义的根本体现。一次判断只能站在一个时点,既然以"事后查明的客观事实"为判断资料,则只能连带为"事后判断","事前判断"与客观危险说的构造相悖。判断主体不涉及刑法主客观主义之争,它与判断资料是"客体评价"与"评价客体"的阶层关系。危险的判断不是纯物理性、科学性的因果关系判断,它不得不考虑法益保护目的的要求,离不开价值判断的成分,采用"科学的一般人"是较妥当的基准。
[Abstract]:Objective danger is the theory about the judgment of "action as the law against the risk of" the specific methods of illegality field, it includes judgment, judgment to determine the main point, three hot spots. Judge data and judge the subject belonging to two classes, the objective dangerousness can only be "objective facts" as the evaluation object, not allowed objective to determine the main data instead of cognition, not the abstraction of objective facts, which is the fundamental embodiment of objectivism. A judge can stand on a point in time, since the "objective facts" are found later to judge the data, only joint as "post judgment", "ex ante" contrary structure with the objective danger. The subjects of the judgment does not involve criminal subjective doctrine of the dispute, it is "the object of evaluation and judgment" and "evaluation object hierarchy. The dangerous judgment is not a pure physical, scientific judgment of causality It has to take into account the requirements of the purpose of protecting the legal interests, which can not be separated from the components of the value judgment, and the use of "scientific general people" is a more appropriate benchmark.

【作者单位】： 东南大学反腐败法治研究中心基地;东南大学法学院;
【基金】：江苏省普通高校研究生科研创新计划项目(KYLX_0221)的研究成果 江苏省第四期“333工程”培养资金资助项目阶段性成果 江苏高校哲学社会科学重点研究基地基金资助
【分类号】：D914
【正文快照】： 目次一、刑法客观主义的推演:客观危险说之滥觞、流变及问题二、辨证之一:在事后预测行为时结果发生的概率三、辨证之二:判断资料与判断基准分S擦礁鼋撞闼摹⒔嵊，

本文编号：1470746