危险犯的扩张逻辑与正当性思考

发布时间：2018-04-18 00:37

本文选题：危险犯 + 风险治理　；参考：《法学评论》2017年03期

【摘要】：风险社会理论不足以解释新近刑事立法体现出的危险犯大幅扩张现象,这决定于其背后的风险治理思维缺陷:风险治理思维在导致危险犯扩张的同时,也在逻辑上预设了风险与危险的混同,导致传统危险犯理论有被风险逻辑架空的危险。这就需要在明确社会风险与刑法危险区别的基础上,确定风险向危险转换的法益威胁、规范相当以及危险认识与控制可能性的三重进阶根据。新近刑事立法危险犯的扩张对上述危险根据的不同层次都形成理论挑战而需理论回应:法益威胁层面上,精神化法益危险犯无法为一般危险性论解释而需另行拟制危险;因此只能采抽象危险犯形式,不能以无具体危险状态出罪。规范相当层面上,规范升级的危险犯凸显了相当性危险论的形式化缺陷,规范升级的标准需要实质法益内涵填补和必要性论证。危险认识和控制可能性层面上,危险犯化的预备或帮助行为需要以危险主观认识和控制可能性划定边界,而认识和控制标准需进行双重风险判断和综合衡量。
[Abstract]:The theory of risk society is not enough to explain the phenomenon of substantial expansion of dangerous crime reflected in recent criminal legislation, which is determined by the defect of risk management thinking behind it: the risk management thinking leads to the expansion of dangerous crime at the same time.It also presupposes the mixture of risk and danger logically, which leads to the risk of being set up by risk logic in the traditional theory of dangerous crime.On the basis of defining the difference between social risk and criminal law risk, it is necessary to determine the legal interest threat, normative equivalence and the triple step basis of the possibility of risk cognition and control.The expansion of dangerous crime in recent criminal legislation forms a theoretical challenge to the different levels of the above risk basis and needs a theoretical response: at the level of legal interest threat, the mental legal interest dangerous crime cannot be explained by the general risk theory but needs to be separately drawn up;Therefore, we can only adopt abstract dangerous crime form, and can not commit crime without concrete danger state.On the equivalent level of norm, the risk offense of standard escalation highlights the formalized defect of the theory of equivalence hazard, and the standard of standard upgrading needs to fill in the connotation of substantial legal interest and demonstrate the necessity.In the aspect of the possibility of risk awareness and control, the preparation or help behavior of danger offense needs to delimit the boundary with the possibility of risk subjective understanding and control, while the standard of cognition and control needs to be judged by double risk and comprehensively measured.
【作者单位】：东南大学法学院;
【基金】：江苏省高校“青蓝工程”中青年学科带头人培养项目成果
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】