刑法中避险限度的目的解释——基于对建构主义刑法学的反思

发布时间：2018-03-22 05:25

本文选题：紧急避险　切入点：避险限度　出处：《政治与法律》2015年10期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：刑法理论中以法益衡量为标准量化分析避险限度的方法存在适用的障碍。对避险限度的界定,需要引入目的解释的方法。避险行为必须受到比例性的目的限制,不仅法益的大小衡量,且避险行为的方法、避险措施的时间等均应在比例原则的考虑之内。抽象的造成不应有的损害需要通过目的解释进一步细化。基于被害人自身的艰难境地,不得已提前伤害他人的法益的,不能认定为造成不应有的损害。在双方都陷于危急孤立无助的情况下,原始的自然力量博弈即便造成了大于所要保护的利益的损害,也不能认定为超过必要限度。在受强制的避险时,如果强制内容并不明确,受强制者只能对第三人采取通常的损害,而不能采取重大损害,否则构成避险过当。避险行为本身构成抽象危险犯时,需要结合行为的具体危险情状区别对待。
[Abstract]:In the theory of criminal law, the method of quantitative analysis of the limit of risk taking the measure of legal interest as the standard has some applicable obstacles. The definition of the limit of risk aversion needs to introduce the method of purpose explanation, and the act of avoiding risk must be restricted by the purpose of proportionality. Not only the size of the legal benefits, but also the method of avoiding the risk, The time of risk avoidance measures should be taken into account in the principle of proportionality. Abstract causes of undue damage need to be explained further by the purpose. Based on the victim's own difficult situation, he has no choice but to harm the legal interests of others in advance. It cannot be regarded as causing undue damage. In situations where both sides are left in a state of crisis and helplessness, the primitive natural forces game can cause more damage than the interests to be protected, Nor can it be considered as exceeding the necessary limit. If the content of the compulsion is not clear, the coerced person can only take the usual harm to the third party, but not the significant harm, When the behavior itself constitutes an abstract dangerous crime, it needs to be treated differently in combination with the concrete dangerous situation of the behavior.
【作者单位】：南京师范大学法学院;
【基金】：江苏省哲学社会科学基金项目“社会变迁与刑事政策研究”(项目编号:12FXB005) 江苏省普通高校研究生科研创新计划项目“刑法规范与经验事实交互认定的理路研究”(项目编号:KYLX_0645) 南京师范大学优秀博士论文选题资助项目“刑法目的解释研究”的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D914

【参考文献】