不作为参与行为的评价与犯罪论根基的改变

发布时间：2018-04-30 19:47

本文选题：不作为的参与 + 等置性　；参考：《当代法学》2015年02期

【摘要】：对不作为参与行为的评价可能震荡犯罪论的根基。存在论视野下的传统"等置性"理论供体之局限导致不作为的参与和作为的参与之间处罚失衡,而其供体之扩张又与罪刑法定原则相冲突。Roxin的义务犯理论包含了机能论的进路,但存在论思想的残存使其在评价不作为参与行为时,基本丧失了规范机能的优势。Jakobs的理论是纯粹的规范机能论,彻底摆脱了现象类型上作为犯与不作为犯的区分,以"管辖"为其共同的正犯性基础。不作为的参与者若属于基于组织管辖的支配犯,则要根据其对犯罪事实的支配程度,确定其是正犯还是帮助犯;若属于基于体制管辖的义务犯,则其只能是正犯。作为与不作为二分的格局被组织行为与体制行为的新二分所颠覆,刑法的评价标准也发生了由存在到规范机能的转向。
[Abstract]:The evaluation of inaction may shake the foundations of crime theory. The limitation of the traditional "equiposition" theoretical donor in the view of existentialism leads to the penalty imbalance between the participation of omission and the participation of the act, and the expansion of the donor is in conflict with the principle of legality. Roxin's theory of obligatory offense contains the approach of function theory. But the remnant of existentialism makes it lose the advantage of normative function in evaluating the behavior of participation of omission. Jakobs' theory is pure normative function theory, and completely gets rid of the distinction between the crime as a crime and the crime of omission in the type of phenomenon. "jurisdiction" as its common criminal basis. If the participant of omission belongs to the dominating crime based on the jurisdiction of the organization, he should determine whether he is the principal offender or the helper crime according to his dominating degree to the fact of the crime; if he belongs to the obligation crime based on the system jurisdiction, he can only be the principal offender. The pattern of dichotomy between organization and omission is subverted by the new division of organizational behavior and institutional behavior, and the evaluation standard of criminal law has also changed from existence to normative function.
【作者单位】：意大利罗马第一大学法学院;
【基金】：教育部国家留学基金资助(留金发[2013]3009号)的研究成果之一
【分类号】：D914

【参考文献】