构成要素行政性标准的过罪化风险与防范

发布时间：2018-05-29 17:55

  本文选题：过罪化 + 空白罪状　； 参考：《法学》2017年09期

【摘要】：在犯罪构成中,由行政机关通过各种形式补充的入罪标准,具有具体性和精确性的特点,形成了非常直观的硬性界限。然而,以行政性标准而入罪的案件常常与人们公平正义的价值目标追求形成冲突。立法权的让渡形成了行政机关对刑法的干预空间以及行政权扩张刑法干预范围的过罪化风险。这一风险较刑法自身的犯罪化更为隐蔽而尚未引起人们的警觉。标准的具体性不等于刑法认定犯罪界限的精确性,即使是高度精确的数据化标准,其界限仍然是人为的选择。刑法的边界不能完全任由行政机关划定。面对行政性的入罪标准,司法应秉持自身的独立性,对行政机关确定的标准承担起实质验证的责任。标准的采纳与超越并不矛盾,对于明显偏离刑法目的的行政性标准,通过个案的司法综合裁量予以矫正或者重新诠释,以激活行政性标准与刑法价值的勾连,凸显刑事司法追求的公平正义目标。
[Abstract]:In the constitution of crime, the standard of incrimination supplemented by various forms by administrative organs has the characteristics of concreteness and precision, and forms a very intuitive and rigid boundary. However, cases that are criminalized by administrative standards often conflict with people's pursuit of the value goal of fairness and justice. The transfer of legislative power forms the space for administrative organs to intervene in criminal law and the risk of over-criminalization of expanding the scope of criminal law intervention by administrative power. This risk is more concealed than the criminal law itself and has not aroused people's vigilance. The concreteness of the standard is not equal to the accuracy of the boundary of the criminal law, even if it is a highly accurate standard of data, the limit is still a man-made choice. The boundaries of the criminal law cannot be entirely left to the administrative authorities. In the face of administrative incrimination standards, the judiciary should uphold its own independence and bear the responsibility of substantive verification of the standards established by the administrative organs. There is no contradiction between the adoption and transcendence of the standard. For the administrative standard which deviates obviously from the purpose of criminal law, it can be corrected or reinterpreted by the judicial comprehensive discretion of the individual case in order to activate the connection between the administrative standard and the value of the criminal law. Highlight the goal of fairness and justice pursued by criminal justice.
【作者单位】： 南京大学法学院;
【基金】：国家社科基金后期资助项目“贪污贿赂犯罪研究”(项目编号:14FFX31)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D924.3
，

本文编号：1951850