“风险刑法”理论述评

发布时间：2018-05-31 10:54

本文选题：基本原则 + 法益　；参考：《山东大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：由德国学者乌尔里希·贝克的“风险社会”理论引申出的“风险刑法”理论从诞生之初就毁誉参半,争议不断。在德日等国家,刑法理论经历了一系列的转变,立法实践上进行了相应的修改。迨引入我国,在经过最初的盲目追捧,急于表白后,更多的学者意识到国内学者对风险刑法理论的认识不乏误解和臆断。在理论基础上,“风险刑法”不能实现与“风险社会”理论的对接；在实际运用上,复杂的国情与固有的刑法体系限制其作用的发挥。另外,“风险刑法”理论自身存在的风险使得其在控制风险的同时不免有违背刑法谦抑性、罪责范围过度扩张、处罚界限不明等侵犯人权之隐忧。理论的争议如果不能深入本质,充分了解“风险刑法”的本来面目,则不管结果如何,都可能导致负面的结果：支持者的胜利可能让一种错误的、激进的刑法理论主导刑事立法和司法,反对者的胜利则可能剥夺刑法在应对风险社会危机中原本存在的机会。处在社会转型期的中国,在不可避免卷入世界“风险社会”的浪潮中时,面对新型法益类型无法处理,“有组织的不负责任”的责任主体的缺位及处罚的滞后性等问题,是引入新的理论代替现有刑法还是发展现代刑法以独善其身,抑或两者互动共生是我国刑法学者亟需思考的问题及本课题的研究意义所在。故本文通过规范研究的方法,比较借鉴国外研究现状,同时结合立法例的实证分析,以批判的态度探究争议焦点背后的理论问题,明晰风险刑法的定位,为理论的创新与发展提供借鉴。我国学者对“风险刑法”的论争主要集中在：“风险刑法”是否违背传统刑法的基本原则与价值；“风险刑法”的理论依据为何及如何协调“风险刑法”与传统刑法的关系等。支持的学者认为“风险刑法”弥补了现代刑法无法调整的法益类型；改变了现代刑法对某些罪行处罚过于滞后的做法；解决了现代刑法的归责难题,契合了立法实践的客观趋势。反对的声音则将矛头对准了“风险刑法”对现代刑法的背离：风险刑法在价值观念、功能定位、刑事归责等方面与现代刑法存在显著不同,对现代刑法所主张的罪刑法定、责任主义、罪刑均衡等基本原则构成了重大挑战。“风险刑法”通过规制行为来预防风险,以处罚风险犯罪的方式实现刑罚的积极一般预防目的,更早期、更周延的保护法益。在犯罪理论上,“风险刑法”认为犯罪的本质在于规范的违反,为防范风险发生,不再预设法益的特定内容,将刑法从规制实害前移至规制风险。这极大冲击了“法益侵害”之犯罪本质的地位。法益概念的抽象化和模糊化会导致无法确定法益的边界,造成犯罪圈的扩张,减弱了其制约刑罚权发动的作用。在责任理论上,为了防范“有组织的不负责任”,“风险刑法”简化了因果认定,倡导归责的功能化与客观化,这既是对责任主义的偏离,也容易走向“负责主义”的极端,制约行动自由和社会发展进步。在刑罚理论上,“风险刑法”倡导积极的一般预防,旨在通过刑罚训练公众的规范意识和对法的认同。这种刑罚目的忽略了刑罚本质,将人作为工具,极易造成处罚范围的扩大,量刑过重。在法律制裁体系上,由于我国的行政处罚权权利较大,刑法应保持其谦抑性,不能与国外做法简单类比。批判的目的在于审视与进步。“风险刑法”关注社会发展的前沿阵地,提出了许多创新性的理论,映射出现代刑法在应对社会风险上的不足,为现代刑法的反思提供对照的镜子,但其现实根基的不符与理论根基的不稳使其在短时间内无法动摇现代刑法的地位,其理论的借鉴意义远大于其对刑法理论的建构意义。在价值观念上,“风险刑法”与我国现行刑法的价值理念在某些方面还有相当的距离。在实际操作上,“风险刑法”最多只能用来规制那些真正危及人类或者整体社会生存的具有全球性、整体性、毁灭性特征的现代风险领域,同时不能突破手段必要性或最小侵害原则。理论需要与时俱进的品格,现代刑法应以包容的态度对待“风险刑法”。在“风险刑法”的定位上,构建“原则与例外”的关系模型。现代刑法理论自身也应根据社会变化进行相应的自我调整：首先,正义、谦抑、文明等是刑法的精神实质必须坚定不移的坚守。刑法的基本原则,如罪刑法定、刑法的谦抑性、责任主义原则、保护法益在任何时代都不会过时；其次,现代刑法可以适当借鉴“风险刑法”理论的前沿思想,进行有益的尝试,如适当扩大法益的保护范围,扩展因果关系链条,积极的一般预防的犯罪目的倾向,完善刑罚制裁体系等。最后,在立法和司法等层面,可以通过借鉴国外立法经验,建立多元双轨的立法模式；发挥刑事政策的指导作用,适用宽严相济的刑事政策；坚持司法认定上的谦抑能动,保障个案公平来实现“风险”的进一步预防。
[Abstract]:The theory of "risk criminal law" derived from the theory of "risk society" by Ulrich Beck, a German scholar, has been disputed and disputed continuously from the beginning of its birth. In the countries of Germany and Japan, the theory of criminal law has undergone a series of changes and the legislative practice has been revised accordingly. After that, more scholars have realized that domestic scholars have no lack of misunderstanding and speculation about the theory of risk criminal law. On the basis of theory, "risk criminal law" can not be butted with the theory of "risk society"; in practical application, complex national conditions and inherent criminal law system restrict its role. In addition, "risk criminal law" theory. The risk of its own existence, while controlling the risk, is incompatible with the humility of the criminal law, the overexpansion of the scope of the crime and the unidentified limits of the penalty. The victory of the holder may make a mistake. The radical criminal law theory dominates the criminal legislation and the judiciary. The victories of the opponents may deprive the original opportunity of the criminal law in dealing with the risk social crisis. In the period of social transformation, China is confronted with the new type of legal benefit in the tide of inevitable involvement in the world "risk society". The problem of the absence of the subject of "organized irresponsibility" and the lag of the punishment is the problem that the introduction of the new theory or the development of the modern criminal law, or the mutual symbiosis between the two is the problem which our criminal law scholars need to think and the significance of the study. In this way, we compare the status of foreign research, and combine the empirical analysis of legislation, explore the theoretical problems behind the focus of the dispute with a critical attitude, clarify the location of the risk criminal law, and provide reference for the innovation and development of the theory. The basic principles and values of the traditional criminal law, the theoretical basis of the "risk criminal law" and how to coordinate the relationship between the "risk penal code" and the traditional criminal law. The scholars in support think that the "risk criminal law" makes up for the legal type of legal interest that the modern criminal law can not adjust; it has changed the practice of the modern criminal law too lags behind the punishment of some crimes; The problem of imputation in modern criminal law coincides with the objective trend of legislative practice. The voice of opposition aims at the departure of the "risk criminal law" to the modern criminal law: the risk criminal law has a distinct difference from the modern criminal law in the value concept, the function orientation, the criminal responsibility and so on, and the main responsibility for the crime and punishment advocated by the modern criminal law. The basic principles of justice, the balance of crime and punishment constitute a major challenge. "Risk criminal law" prevents risk by regulating behavior, and realizes the positive general prevention of the penalty by means of punishing the crime of risk. In the theory of crime, "the criminal law" thinks that the essence of the crime lies in the violation of the standard and is the precaution. The occurrence of the risk, no longer presupposes the specific content of the legal interest, and moves the criminal law from the regulation to the regulation risk. This greatly impacted the status of the criminal essence of "the infringement of legal interests". The abstraction and fuzzification of the concept of legal interest will lead to the inability to determine the boundary of the legal interest, the expansion of the criminal circle, and the effect of its restriction on the penalty power. In the theory of responsibility, in order to prevent the "organized irresponsibility", "the risk criminal law" simplifies the causal identification, advocates the functionalization and objectification of the imputation, which is not only a deviation from the responsibility doctrine, but also easy to go to the extreme of "responsible", and restrict the freedom of action and the progress of social development. In the penalty theory, the "risk criminal law" advocates the product. The purpose of extreme general prevention is to train the public's standard consciousness and the identification of the law through punishment. The purpose of this penalty is to ignore the essence of the penalty and to use the person as a tool, which will easily cause the expansion of the scope of punishment and the heavy sentencing. In the legal sanctions system, the criminal law should keep its modesty and cannot be with the country because of the greater right of the administrative punishment right in our country. The objective of the external practice is simple analogy. The purpose of criticism is to examine and progress. "Risk criminal law" pays attention to the frontier of social development, and puts forward many innovative theories, mapping the shortcomings of the generation of criminal law in dealing with social risks, providing a mirror for the reflection of modern criminal law, but the inconsistency of its real foundation and the instability of the theoretical foundation. In a short time, it can not shake the status of modern criminal law, and its theoretical significance is far greater than its meaning to the theory of criminal law. In the value concept, the "risk criminal law" and the value concept of the current criminal law of our country still have a considerable distance. In practice, the "risk criminal law" can only be used to regulate those in the actual operation. The modern risk field that truly endanger the human or the whole social existence with global, integral and destructive characteristics can not break through the necessity of means or the principle of minimum infraction. The theory needs the character of keeping pace with the times, and the modern criminal law should treat the "risk criminal law" with an inclusive attitude. The modern criminal law theory itself should also adjust itself according to the social changes: first, justice, modesty, civilization and so on are the spiritual essence of the criminal law must be firmly adhered to. The basic principles of criminal law, such as the legality of crime, the modesty of the criminal law, the principle of responsibility, the protection of legal interest in any era. Neither will be out of date; secondly, the modern criminal law can properly draw on the frontiers of the "risk criminal law" theory and make useful attempts, such as expanding the scope of the protection of the legal interest, extending the chain of causality, the positive tendency of the general prevention of the criminal purpose, and perfecting the penalty sanction system. Finally, it can be passed on the legislative and judicial levels. We should use the experience of foreign legislation to establish the legislative mode of multiple double track; give play to the guiding role of the criminal policy and apply the criminal policy of tempering justice with mercy; adhere to the modesty and activism of the judicial cognizance, and ensure the further prevention of the "risk".
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D914

【相似文献】