浅论风险社会视野下危险犯的限缩

发布时间：2018-05-17 16:49

本文选题：风险刑法 + 危险犯　；参考：《华东政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：20世纪80年代,德国学者乌尔里希·贝克在其《风险社会》一书中首次提出著名的风险社会理论。风险社会理论传入我国之后,学术界对此展开了广泛的讨论,有的学者认为我国已处在风险社会之中,有的学者则认为我国与西方发达国家社会基础不同,不应简单套用风险社会理论。但就整体而言,我国社会的风险与西方社会的风险在表征上有着诸多相似之处。在我国当前风险社会背景之下,风险刑法理论逐渐兴起,并对传统刑法理论造成了较大的冲击。风险刑法理论即是通过将刑事防卫线的整体前移从而实现对法益的前置化保护,虽然契合了公众对社会安全的诉求,却是以牺牲行为自由等为代价的。在风险刑法中,法益的概念模糊化、扩大化,刑法由特殊预防为主转为一般预防为主,刑法非难由评价结果转向评价行为本身的违法性,而危险犯是其在立法上的主要表现形式。刑法理论界对我国当下的社会风险是否需要以风险刑法来应对大致存在肯定论与否定论两种态度。笔者认为既不必对风险刑法理论盲目排斥,也不必盲目崇拜,甚至奉为解决风险社会的灵丹妙药。在风险社会里,并不意味着风险刑法理论要对传统刑法理论进行革命性地颠覆,风险社会中仍要坚持传统刑法理论的主导地位,同时,审慎地运用风险刑法理论对传统刑法理论予以必要的补充。改革开放以来,社会变革速度极快,刑法也在不断修正以适应社会变化,通过历次刑法修正案中危险犯的立法动态可以觉察风险刑法理论的发展动向。主要表现为“故意危险犯向过失危险犯扩展”、“危险犯的涉罪范围扩展”、“危险犯的涉案主体扩展”、“危险犯侵犯的法益扩展”、“具体危险犯向抽象危险犯的扩展”。可以发现危险犯正以前所未有的速度在我国刑法中大肆扩张。面对整个社会过度依赖和夸大危险行为入罪化对风险行为的规制作用,笔者认为有必要对危险犯进行限制和缩小,从理论层面来说:一是我国风险社会的基础、发展程度等与西方并不完全相同,不能完全套用西方的风险刑法理论;二是风险的特性决定着它不同于其他一般危害行为;三是刑法发展的轻刑化趋势以及谦抑性的本质要求。从实证层面来说:通过对相关实证数据的对比分析,在实证层面力证部分危险犯扩展之不可行与不必要;从立法层面来说:现行危险犯的立法存在诸多缺陷,主要存在罪责不均衡、入罪标准混乱及司法实践认定困难等缺陷。在危险犯限缩的具体制度设计上,从宏观层面来区分什么样的风险需要刑法规制,什么样的风险无需刑法插足;从微观层面来厘清危险犯之“危险状态”的准确含义,有助于司法实践认定,避免刑法打击面的扩大。主要通过对“危险”含义的二元性阐述及判断危险的时间标准、主体标准来分析。危险犯的完成形态理论争议较大,准确厘清这一理论问题有助于司法实践对危险犯的犯罪预备、犯罪中止、犯罪未遂等问题的把握,真正做到罪责刑相均衡,不枉不纵。笔者赞同具体危险犯存在未遂形态,主要理由在于危险状态的形成是一个由量变到质变的过程,危险行为的着手与危险状态的形成存在着一定的时间间隙。当行为着手后,危险状态尚未形成之时,由于行为人意志以外的原因未得逞,即为未遂形态。对于过失危险行为应否入罪化,理论界尚存争议,笔者认为在肯定部分过失危险行为应当入罪的前提下,对过失危险犯严加限缩,主要从过失危险行为之危险限定、过失危险行为之范围限定及过失危险犯之刑罚限定三个方面论述。
[Abstract]:In 1980s, Ulrich Beck, a German scholar, first put forward a famous theory of risk society in his book of risk society. After the introduction of the theory of risk society to our country, the academic circle has launched a wide discussion. Some scholars believe that China is in a risk society, and some scholars believe that China and the western developed countries are concerned. As a whole, there are many similarities between the risk of our society and the risk of Western society on the whole. Under the background of our country's risk society, the theory of risk criminal law is rising gradually, and it has made a great impact on the traditional theory of criminal law. The theory of the risk criminal law is the same. Through the whole forward shift of the criminal defense line to realize the pre protection of the legal benefit, although it fits the public's demands for social security, it is at the expense of the freedom of the act of sacrifice. In the criminal law, the concept of legal interest is blurred, expanded, the criminal law is mainly transferred from special prevention to general prevention, and the criminal law is not difficult to be evaluated. To evaluate the illegality of the behavior itself, the dangerous crime is the main form of expression in the legislation. The criminal theory circle has two attitudes about whether the present social risk of our country needs to deal with the risk criminal law. In the risk society, it does not mean that the theory of the risk criminal law should revolutionize the traditional criminal theory. In the risk society, the dominant position of the traditional criminal theory should still be adhered to. At the same time, the theory of the criminal law is carefully used to supplement the traditional criminal theory. Since the release, the speed of social change is very fast, the criminal law is also constantly amended to adapt to the social changes. Through the legislative dynamic of the criminal law amendment, the development trend of the theory of risk criminal law can be detected. The main manifestation is "the expansion of the dangerous offense to the negligent dangerous offense", the expansion of the crime range of the dangerous criminals, and the related criminal involved. The expansion of the subject of the case, the expansion of the legal interests of the perilous offenders, the expansion of the specific dangerous offenders to the abstract dangerous criminals, can be found that the dangerous criminals are expanding at an unprecedented rate in the criminal law of our country. The dangerous criminals are limited and narrowed. From the theoretical level, the first is the foundation of our country's risk society, the degree of development is not exactly the same as that in the west, and the Western risk criminal law theory can not be completely applied. The two is that the characteristics of the risk determine that it is different from other general harm behavior, and the three is the trend of light punishment and humility in the development of criminal law. Essential requirements. From the empirical level: through the comparative analysis of relevant empirical data, it is infeasible and unnecessary to verify the expansion of some dangerous criminals on the empirical level; from the legislative level, there are many defects in the legislation of the current dangerous offenders, which mainly exist the defects of the disequilibrium of the crime, the confusing of the crime standards and the difficulty of the judicial practice. On the specific system design of the limit of the risk offender, it is necessary to distinguish what kind of risk from the macro level, and what kind of risk does not need to be put into the criminal law; to clarify the exact meaning of the "dangerous state" of the dangerous crime from the micro level, it is helpful to the judicial practice and avoid the expansion of the criminal law strike surface. The two yuan description and the judgment of the time standard of danger and the main standard are analyzed. The theory of completion form of the dangerous criminal is very controversial. It is helpful for the judicial practice to grasp the criminal preparation, the discontinuation of the crime, the attempted crime and so on in the judicial practice. The main reason for the attempted form of dangerous criminals is that the formation of the state of danger is a process from quantitative change to qualitative change, and there is a certain time gap between the start of dangerous behavior and the formation of the dangerous state. When the behavior is not formed, the cause of the perpetrator is not successful, that is, the unaccomplished form. If the negligent dangerous act should be incriminating, the theorists still have a dispute. The author holds that, on the premise of affirming some of the dangerous act of negligence, the limit of the perilous perilous offense is strictly limited, mainly from the limit of the danger of the negligent dangerous act, the limit of the scope of the dangerous act of negligence and the penalty of the negligent dangerous offense in three aspects.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.1

【参考文献】