行为不法与责任阻却:“于欢案”的刑法教义学解答
|
摘要
于欢案引发的争议为区分不法与有责提供了新契机:不法是依据法律的行为规范进行的评判,必须受罪刑法定原则之明确性的约束,违法阻却事由是法律激励的行为,不应当承认超法规的违法阻却事由;有责是根据法律的裁判规范进行的评价,必须受罪刑法定原则之价值性的约束,责任阻却事由是法律宽恕的行为,可以承认超法规的责任阻却事由。于欢的行为并非法律激励的行为,属于防卫过当,但于欢在遭受辱母等侵害时实施过当防卫,并不具有期待可能性,具有责任阻却事由,应当宣告无罪。
the disputes arising from Yu Huan case provide a new opportunity for the distinction between illegal and responsibility. The illegal is a judgment based on the conduct codes of the law,It must be bound by the definition of the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime,Illegal hindrance is an act motivated by law,the extra-statute reason to hinder the illegality is not allowed. The responsibility is an evaluation based on the adjudication norms of the law. It must be bound by the value of the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime,responsibility hindrance is an act of forgiveness by law,the extra-statute reason to hinder the responsibility is allowed. Yu Huan's behavior is not motivated by law,but excessive defense,but Yu Huan and his mother carry out excessive defense when they suffered against violent such as mother was insulted,which does not have excessive defense,it has responsibility hindrance,and should be declared innocent.
the disputes arising from Yu Huan case provide a new opportunity for the distinction between illegal and responsibility. The illegal is a judgment based on the conduct codes of the law,It must be bound by the definition of the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime,Illegal hindrance is an act motivated by law,the extra-statute reason to hinder the illegality is not allowed. The responsibility is an evaluation based on the adjudication norms of the law. It must be bound by the value of the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime,responsibility hindrance is an act of forgiveness by law,the extra-statute reason to hinder the responsibility is allowed. Yu Huan's behavior is not motivated by law,but excessive defense,but Yu Huan and his mother carry out excessive defense when they suffered against violent such as mother was insulted,which does not have excessive defense,it has responsibility hindrance,and should be declared innocent.
引文
[1][德]罗伯特·阿列克西.法律论证理论---作为法律证立理论的理性论辩理论[M].舒国滢,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
[2]储槐植.美国刑法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[3][英]J·C·史密斯,B·霍根.英国刑法[M].李贵方,等译.北京:法律出版社,2000.
[4]张明楷.以违法与责任为支柱构建犯罪论体系[J].现代法学,2009,(6):41-56.
[5]简永发.略论刑法中义务冲突法律性质的根据[J].法学评论,2008,(5):38-44.
[6]李兰英.义务冲突下的正确选择[J].法学评论,2002,(2):71-77.
[7]周光权.论持续侵害与正当防卫的关系[J].法学,2017,(4):3-11.
[8]赵秉志.于欢案防卫过当法理问题简析[N].人民法院报,2017-6-24(002).
[9]沈德咏.我们应当如何适用正当防卫制度[N].人民法院报,2017-6-26(002).
[10]赵秉志、田宏杰.特殊防卫权问题研究[J].法制与社会发展,1999,(6):36-44.
[11]刘艳红.刑法第20条第3款“行凶”一词的理论考察[J].法学评论,2000,(6):55-63.
[12]刘宪权.于欢行为属于防卫过当,应当予以减轻处罚[N].人民法院报,2017-6-25:002.
[13][德]拉德布鲁赫.法律智慧警句集[M].舒国滢,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
[14]德国刑法典[M].徐久生,庄敬华,译.北京:中国方正出版社,2004.
[15]瑞士联邦刑法典[M].徐久生,庄敬华,译.北京:中国方正出版社,2004.
[16][日]西田典之.日本刑法总论(第2版)[M].王昭武,刘明祥,译.北京:法律出版社,2013.
[17]日本刑法典(第2版)[M].张明楷,译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
[18]韩国刑法典及单行刑法[M].金永哲,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1996.
[19]苏俊雄.刑法总论II[M].台北:台湾大学法学院图书部,1997.
[20]张明楷.期待可能性理论的梳理[J].法学研究,2009,(1):60-77.
[21]刘远.期待可能性[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[22]范忠信.中西法律传统中的“亲亲相隐”[J].中国社会科学,1997,(3):87-104.
[23]盐铁论·刑德[M].
[24]钱叶六.期待可能性理论的引入及限定性适用[J].法学研究,2015,(6):116-135.
[25]刘艳红.调节性刑罚恕免事由:期待可能性理论的功能定位[J].中国法学,2009,(4):110-121.
[26]张文显.治国理政的法治理念与法治思维[J].中国社会科学,2017,(4):40-66.
[27]张明楷.实质解释论的再提倡[J].中国法学,2010,(5):49-69.
(1)参见山东省聊城市中级人民法院2016鲁刑初33号刑事附带民事判决书。
(2)见山东省高级人民法院2017鲁刑终151号刑事附带民事判决书。
(1)预防的必要性与需罚性等同,是洛克辛目的理性犯罪论体系超越以往犯罪论体系的标志,也是现代刑事一体化的法学立场,关于这一问题的详细论述,参见许玉秀:《当代刑法思潮》,中国民主法制出版社2005年版,第89-96页;[德]罗克辛:《刑事政策与刑法体系》,蔡桂生译,中国人民大学出版社2015年版。
(1)以“期待可能性”为篇名,共在中国知网检测到论文389篇,其中,《法学研究》《中国法学》上发表论文4篇。
[2]储槐植.美国刑法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[3][英]J·C·史密斯,B·霍根.英国刑法[M].李贵方,等译.北京:法律出版社,2000.
[4]张明楷.以违法与责任为支柱构建犯罪论体系[J].现代法学,2009,(6):41-56.
[5]简永发.略论刑法中义务冲突法律性质的根据[J].法学评论,2008,(5):38-44.
[6]李兰英.义务冲突下的正确选择[J].法学评论,2002,(2):71-77.
[7]周光权.论持续侵害与正当防卫的关系[J].法学,2017,(4):3-11.
[8]赵秉志.于欢案防卫过当法理问题简析[N].人民法院报,2017-6-24(002).
[9]沈德咏.我们应当如何适用正当防卫制度[N].人民法院报,2017-6-26(002).
[10]赵秉志、田宏杰.特殊防卫权问题研究[J].法制与社会发展,1999,(6):36-44.
[11]刘艳红.刑法第20条第3款“行凶”一词的理论考察[J].法学评论,2000,(6):55-63.
[12]刘宪权.于欢行为属于防卫过当,应当予以减轻处罚[N].人民法院报,2017-6-25:002.
[13][德]拉德布鲁赫.法律智慧警句集[M].舒国滢,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
[14]德国刑法典[M].徐久生,庄敬华,译.北京:中国方正出版社,2004.
[15]瑞士联邦刑法典[M].徐久生,庄敬华,译.北京:中国方正出版社,2004.
[16][日]西田典之.日本刑法总论(第2版)[M].王昭武,刘明祥,译.北京:法律出版社,2013.
[17]日本刑法典(第2版)[M].张明楷,译.北京:法律出版社,2006.
[18]韩国刑法典及单行刑法[M].金永哲,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1996.
[19]苏俊雄.刑法总论II[M].台北:台湾大学法学院图书部,1997.
[20]张明楷.期待可能性理论的梳理[J].法学研究,2009,(1):60-77.
[21]刘远.期待可能性[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[22]范忠信.中西法律传统中的“亲亲相隐”[J].中国社会科学,1997,(3):87-104.
[23]盐铁论·刑德[M].
[24]钱叶六.期待可能性理论的引入及限定性适用[J].法学研究,2015,(6):116-135.
[25]刘艳红.调节性刑罚恕免事由:期待可能性理论的功能定位[J].中国法学,2009,(4):110-121.
[26]张文显.治国理政的法治理念与法治思维[J].中国社会科学,2017,(4):40-66.
[27]张明楷.实质解释论的再提倡[J].中国法学,2010,(5):49-69.
(1)参见山东省聊城市中级人民法院2016鲁刑初33号刑事附带民事判决书。
(2)见山东省高级人民法院2017鲁刑终151号刑事附带民事判决书。
(1)预防的必要性与需罚性等同,是洛克辛目的理性犯罪论体系超越以往犯罪论体系的标志,也是现代刑事一体化的法学立场,关于这一问题的详细论述,参见许玉秀:《当代刑法思潮》,中国民主法制出版社2005年版,第89-96页;[德]罗克辛:《刑事政策与刑法体系》,蔡桂生译,中国人民大学出版社2015年版。
(1)以“期待可能性”为篇名,共在中国知网检测到论文389篇,其中,《法学研究》《中国法学》上发表论文4篇。