抽象危险犯研究

发布时间：2018-02-25 00:06

本文关键词： 抽象危险犯风险社会危险节制限缩　出处：《中南财经政法大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：抽象危险犯早在十九世纪的《德国刑法典》和《法国刑法典》以及二十世纪初的《日本刑法典》中就有不少的规定,数来也有一百多年历史了,现如今已经成为了各国刑法学理论研究的“宠儿”,不论是德、日还是我国,关于抽象危险犯的研究都是当前刑法学界一股气势如虹的浪潮。为何抽象危险犯深得立法者和刑法学者的青睐?一方面,人类历史上的三次工业革命在经济和科技领域创造了巨大的价值,同时作为文明进步的“副产品”,现代风险和新型犯罪也为现代社会带来了新的挑战;另一方面,上世纪八十年代德国社会学家贝克提出的“风险社会”命题,为人们研究“风险刑法”开辟了理论基础。在这样的背景下,抽象危险犯积极的一般预防机能、周延的法益保护机能、便利的因果证明机能,便天然地暗合了现代各国积极的社会防卫策略,那么关于抽象危险犯的研究在学界呈现出如火如荼的态势便不足为奇了。而且,在大陆法系国家的立法层面,抽象危险犯也获得了越来越多的“戏份”,甚至在近年里出现了许多“抢戏”的苗头。一直以来,抽象危险犯都是伴随着争议而发展的。尽管,在此起彼伏的争论中由于各方理论前提不一、论证焦点不明等原因,造成了一些各自为阵、自说自话的无谓之争,但不可否认的是,在各国前后几十年的纷争中,抽象危险犯理论体系逐渐丰满和成熟,刑法学与社会学、经济学、生态学等学科领域形成了交融并进的研究局面。令人担忧的是,关于抽象危险犯的立法实践和学术成果近年来出现了大范围、大幅度的扩张。这一方面反映了刑法学科日渐兴旺、刑法学者成果丰硕,而另一方面也值得警惕,抽象危险犯在刑法上的极端扩张也许是一个危险的信号,危险犯无孔不入地渗透不应该是刑事立法的常态,要知道刑法触角的长度总是与公民的自由反向变化的。因此不禁要问,“风险社会”是否是现代社会真实的场景?抽象危险犯设置的界限在哪里?基于这样的担忧和疑虑,我们在高谈抽象危险犯防控现代社会风险之优势的同时,还应该回顾刑法的谦抑性和自由保障的原则,学者们也应该多投入一些精力研究关于抽象危险犯的节制与限缩。如此一来,立法上的节制和司法上的限缩,必将是防止抽象危险犯过度扩张、把握其适用尺度的两大方向。
[Abstract]:Abstract dangerous crimes have many provisions in the German Penal Code and the French Criminal Code in 19th century and the Japanese Criminal Code in early 20th century, and have a history of more than 100 years. Nowadays, it has become the "darling" of the theoretical research of criminal law in various countries, whether it is Germany, Japan or China. The study of abstract dangerous crime is a powerful wave in the criminal law field. Why is abstract danger crime favored by legislators and criminal law scholars? On the one hand, the three industrial revolutions in the history of mankind have created tremendous value in the fields of economy and science and technology. On the other hand, as a "by-product" of civilization progress, modern risks and new crimes have also brought new challenges to modern society; on the other hand, In -20s, the German sociologist Beck put forward the proposition of "risk society", which opened up the theoretical foundation for people to study "risk criminal law". Zhou Yan's legal interest protection function and convenient causality proving function naturally conformed to the active social defense strategy of modern countries, so it is not surprising that the research on abstract dangerous crime is in full swing in academic circles. At the legislative level of civil law countries, abstract dangerous criminals have gained more and more "tricks", and even in recent years, there have been many signs of "robbing". All along, abstract dangerous criminals have developed with controversy. In the incessant debates, due to the different theoretical premises of various parties, the unclear focus of argument, and other reasons, they have caused some meaningless arguments about themselves, but it is undeniable that in the decades of disputes before and after each country, The theoretical system of abstract dangerous crime has gradually become full and mature, and the study of criminal law, sociology, economics, ecology and other disciplines has formed a situation of integration and development. What is worrying is that, In recent years, the legislative practice and academic achievements of abstract dangerous criminals have been expanded in a wide range and by a large margin. This reflects, on the one hand, the increasing prosperity of the criminal law discipline, the fruitful achievements of the criminal law scholars, and on the other hand, it is also worthy of vigilance. The extreme expansion of abstract dangerous crimes in criminal law may be a dangerous signal, and pervasive infiltration of dangerous criminals should not be the norm of criminal legislation. To know that the length of the criminal law tentacles is always opposite to the freedom of citizens, so we can not help but ask, "risk society" is the real scene of modern society? Where are the boundaries of the abstract hazard set? Based on such concerns and doubts, we should review the principles of modesty and freedom protection of criminal law, while talking highly about the advantages of abstract dangerous criminals in preventing and controlling modern social risks. Scholars should also devote more attention to studying the abstinence and limitation of abstract dangerous crime. Thus, legislative restraint and judicial restraint are the two main directions to prevent the excessive expansion of abstract dangerous crime and to grasp its applicable scale.
【学位授予单位】：中南财经政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】