机能的思考方法下的罪数论

发布时间：2018-05-06 05:14

本文选题：罪数论 + 竞合论　；参考：《法学研究》2017年03期

【摘要】：奉行"本来的思考方法"的传统罪数论,把罪数视为犯罪本来的数量属性。这种朴素的思考方法造成罪数论庞杂的问题域、双主线的矛盾体系和不合理的结论。移植竞合论也不能摆脱上述困境,因为二者在思考方法上是相似的。在罪数论中应提倡"机能的思考方法",以罪数论在刑法学体系中的机能为导向,限制其问题域,重新确立界分一罪和数罪的罪数标准。罪数论承担的是并罚前的过滤机能:在进入数罪并罚之前,把诸罪名之间存在重复不法评价的情形过滤出来,避免对其进行并罚。据此,只有触犯不同罪名的情形才需要判断罪数;罪数判断并非对犯罪个数进行计算,其标准应是诸罪名所评价的法益侵害之重合性;若诸罪名所评价的法益侵害存在重合,为一罪,反之则一律数罪并罚。
[Abstract]:The traditional crime number theory of "original thinking method" regards the crime number as the original quantity attribute of crime. This simple thinking method leads to the complex problem domain of the crime number theory, the contradictory system of the two main lines and the unreasonable conclusion. Transplantation theory can not get rid of the above dilemma, because the two thinking methods are similar. "functional thinking method" should be advocated in the theory of number of crimes, which should be guided by the function of the theory of number of crimes in the system of criminal law, limit its problem domain, and re-establish the standard of dividing one crime and the number of crimes. The theory of number of crimes undertakes the filter before concurrent punishment: filter out the situation of repeated illegal evaluation between the various crimes before entering into the combination of punishment for several crimes, and avoid concurrently punishing them. Accordingly, only the case of offending different charges needs to judge the number of crimes; the judgment of the number of crimes is not the calculation of the number of crimes, and its standard should be the coincidence of the legal interest infringement evaluated by the various charges; if there is a coincidence of the legal interest infringement evaluated by the various charges, For one crime, vice versa, the number of crimes and punishment.
【作者单位】：中山大学法学院;
【分类号】：D914

【相似文献】