间接危害行为犯罪化一般限制原则研究
|
摘要
积极预防性立法以先发制人之策略,把与严重实害结果有距离的间接危害行为予以犯罪化。间接危害行为犯罪化虽突破了传统刑法理念,但其能严密实体刑法法网,对安全维护具有积极意义。其若不受限制和约束,会导致刑法无原则膨胀,继而诱发不公平归责和法治危机。立法机关将间接危害行为犯罪化,其实质是让该行为人分担部分实害结果犯罪之刑事责任。立意于此的责任分配,不能违背刑事责任公平分配原则。因此,间接危害行为分担的责任,应是其本身应当承担的。尽管三大类间接危害行为犯罪化必须直面的问题不同,但基于公平归责和法治精神,其犯罪化均应受到危害原则标准分析范式、行为本身具有不法性、预防的必须是重大危害和与拟阻止的严重犯罪具有规范性联系等一般原则的限制。
The positively preventive legislation, by taking the strategy of striking first to gain the initiative, criminalizes remote harmful acts that are distant from serious real harm. Although the criminalization of remote harmful acts breaks through the traditional idea of criminal law, it can enlarge the coverage of substantive criminal law, thus enjoying a positive significance in security maintenance. But if it is not limited and restrained, the criminal law will be expanded in an unprincipled manner, thus bringing out unfair imputation and a crisis of the rule of law. The essence of criminalizing remote harmful acts by the legislator is to let such actors undertake part of the criminal liability for the crime with real harm. The liability allocation based on this should not violate the principle of fair allocation of criminal liability. Therefore, the liability undertaken for remote harmful acts should be based on its own merits. Although there are different issues confronted in criminalization of three categories of remote harm acts, on basis of fair imputation and the spirit of rule of law, such criminalization shall be limited by general principles such as the standard analysis model of the principle of harm, the illegality of the act itself, the seriousness of harm prevented, and the normative connection with the serious crimes to be prevented.
The positively preventive legislation, by taking the strategy of striking first to gain the initiative, criminalizes remote harmful acts that are distant from serious real harm. Although the criminalization of remote harmful acts breaks through the traditional idea of criminal law, it can enlarge the coverage of substantive criminal law, thus enjoying a positive significance in security maintenance. But if it is not limited and restrained, the criminal law will be expanded in an unprincipled manner, thus bringing out unfair imputation and a crisis of the rule of law. The essence of criminalizing remote harmful acts by the legislator is to let such actors undertake part of the criminal liability for the crime with real harm. The liability allocation based on this should not violate the principle of fair allocation of criminal liability. Therefore, the liability undertaken for remote harmful acts should be based on its own merits. Although there are different issues confronted in criminalization of three categories of remote harm acts, on basis of fair imputation and the spirit of rule of law, such criminalization shall be limited by general principles such as the standard analysis model of the principle of harm, the illegality of the act itself, the seriousness of harm prevented, and the normative connection with the serious crimes to be prevented.
引文
(1)参见姜敏:《英美刑法中的“危害原则”研究——兼与“社会危害性”比较》,《比较法研究》2016年第4期。
(2)Andrew Ashworth,Principles of Criminal Law 49(5th ed. Oxford University Press 2006).
(3)Andrew Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:“Remote”Harms and Fair Imputation, in A. P. Simester&A. T. H. Smith(ed)Harm and Culpability,1996, P.263.
(4)Andrew Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:“Remote”Harms and Fair Imputation, in A. P. Simester&A. T. H. Smith(ed)Harm and Culpability,1996, P. 263.
(5)Dennis J.Baker.The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03),P.370.
(6)Dennis J. Baker. The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03), P. 372.
(7)参见姜敏:《危险驾驶行为犯罪化研究——从间接危害行为的视角》,《现代法学》2016年第6期。
(8)Bryan A.Garner(ed), Black’s Law Dictionary(9th edition), Thomason Business,1999, P. 784.
(9)《新华汉语词典》编委会:《新华汉语词典》(第1版),湖北长江出版集团崇文书局2006年版,第911页。
(10)同上注,第246页。
(11)Bryan A.Garner(ed), Black’s Law Dictionary(9th edition),Thomason Business,1999,P.144.
(12)胡彦涛:《风险刑法的理论错位》,《环球法律评论》2016年第5期。
(13)参见梁宾:《危险驾驶罪研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2016年版,第18页。
(14)同前注(12),胡彦涛文。
(15)甲斐克则:《刑法におけるリスクと危険性の区別》,法政理論,2013(第4号)。
(16)See Andrew Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:“Remote”Harms and Fair Imputation, in A. P. Simester&A.T.H.Smith(ed)Harm and Culpability,1996, PP. 263~265.
(17)Andrew Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:“Remote”Harms and Fair Imputation, in A. P. Simester&A. T. H.Smith(ed)Harm and Culpability,1996, P.265; A. P. Simester&Andrew Von Hirsch, crimes, harms, and wrongs—on the principles of criminalization, Hart Publishing, 2011, P. 59.
(18)参见张志钢:《论累积犯的法理——以污染环境罪为中心》,《环球法律评论》2017年第2期。
(19)Bernard E. Harcout,The Collapse of the Harm Principle, 90 J.Crim.L.&Criminology,1999,p.109.
(20)参见姜敏:《刑法反恐立法的边界研究》,《政法论坛》2017年第5期。
(21)Dennis J.Baker.The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer),2007(03),P.370.
(22)参见前注(1),姜敏文。
(23)参见周光权:《转型时期刑法立法的思路与方法》,《中国社会科学》2016年第3期。
(24)Dennis J. Baker, The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03), P. 370.
(25)Andrew Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:“Remote”Harms and Fair Imputation, in A. P. Simester&A. T. H. Smith(ed)Harm and Culpability, 1996, P.263~264.
(26)同前注(18),张志钢文。
(27)参见黎宏:《法益论的研究现状和展望》,《人民检察》2013年第7期。
(28)姚贝、王拓:《法益保护前置化问题研究》,《中国刑事法杂志》2012年第1期。
(29)参见王永茜:《论现代刑法扩张的新手段——法益保护的提前化和刑事处罚的前置化》,《法学杂志》2013年第6期。
(30)Dennis J. Baker. The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03), P. 370.
(31)Bernard E. Harcourt,The Collapse of the Harm Principle, 90 J. Crim.L.&Criminology,1999, p.105.
(32)A. P.Simester&Andrew Von Hirsch,crimes,harms,and wrongs—on the principles of criminalization, Hart Publishing,2011,P.54.
(33)乔尔·范伯格:《刑法的道德限制》,方泉译,商务印书馆2013年版,第210~211页。
(34)参见上注,乔尔·范伯格书,第210~239页。
(35)A.P.Simester&Andrew Von Hirsch,crimes, harms, and wrongs—on the principles of criminalization, Hart Publishing, 2011,P. 55.
(36)Michelle M.Dempsey, Rethinking Wolfenden:Prostitute Use, Criminal Law, and Remote Harm, 2005 Crim. L. R. 449.
(37)参见严明华、张少林、赵宁:《刑法分则条文罪状的理解与相应法定刑配置关系研究》,《政治与法律》2010年第12期。
(38)参见前注(33),乔尔·范伯格书,第217页。
(39)参见前注(33),乔尔·范伯格书,第221页。
(40)参见前注(33),乔尔·范伯格书,第221页。
(41)参见胡萨克:《过罪化及刑法的限制》,姜敏译,中国法制出版社2015年版,第189页。
(42)Andrew Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:“Remote”Harms and Fair Imputation, in A. P. Simester&A. T. H. Smith(ed)Harm and Culpability,1996, P.269.
(43)Dennis J.Baker.The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03), P.372~373.
(44)Dennis J. Baker. The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03), P. 370.
(45)Robert J.Sampson, Stephen W. Raudenbush,&Felton Earls, Neighborhood and Violent Crime:A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy, 277 Sci.918(1997); Robert J. Sampson&Stephen W. Raudenbush, Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces:A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods,105 Am. J. Soc. 603(1999).
(46)Robert J.Sampson, Stephen W. Raudenbush,&Felton Earls, Neighborhood and Violent Crime:A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy, 277 Sci.918(1997); Robert J.Sampson&Stephen W.Raudenbush, Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces:A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods,105 Am.J.Soc.638(1999).
(47)Dennis J. Baker.The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03), P.372.
(48)Dennis J. Baker.The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03), P. 373,note 6.
(49)Glanville L.Williams, Complicity, Purpose and the Draft Code—1,1990 Crim.L.R.4,10(1990).
(50)Glanville L.Williams, Complicity,Purpose and the Draft Code—1,1990 Crim. L. R.4,10(1990).
(2)Andrew Ashworth,Principles of Criminal Law 49(5th ed. Oxford University Press 2006).
(3)Andrew Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:“Remote”Harms and Fair Imputation, in A. P. Simester&A. T. H. Smith(ed)Harm and Culpability,1996, P.263.
(4)Andrew Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:“Remote”Harms and Fair Imputation, in A. P. Simester&A. T. H. Smith(ed)Harm and Culpability,1996, P. 263.
(5)Dennis J.Baker.The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03),P.370.
(6)Dennis J. Baker. The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03), P. 372.
(7)参见姜敏:《危险驾驶行为犯罪化研究——从间接危害行为的视角》,《现代法学》2016年第6期。
(8)Bryan A.Garner(ed), Black’s Law Dictionary(9th edition), Thomason Business,1999, P. 784.
(9)《新华汉语词典》编委会:《新华汉语词典》(第1版),湖北长江出版集团崇文书局2006年版,第911页。
(10)同上注,第246页。
(11)Bryan A.Garner(ed), Black’s Law Dictionary(9th edition),Thomason Business,1999,P.144.
(12)胡彦涛:《风险刑法的理论错位》,《环球法律评论》2016年第5期。
(13)参见梁宾:《危险驾驶罪研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2016年版,第18页。
(14)同前注(12),胡彦涛文。
(15)甲斐克则:《刑法におけるリスクと危険性の区別》,法政理論,2013(第4号)。
(16)See Andrew Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:“Remote”Harms and Fair Imputation, in A. P. Simester&A.T.H.Smith(ed)Harm and Culpability,1996, PP. 263~265.
(17)Andrew Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:“Remote”Harms and Fair Imputation, in A. P. Simester&A. T. H.Smith(ed)Harm and Culpability,1996, P.265; A. P. Simester&Andrew Von Hirsch, crimes, harms, and wrongs—on the principles of criminalization, Hart Publishing, 2011, P. 59.
(18)参见张志钢:《论累积犯的法理——以污染环境罪为中心》,《环球法律评论》2017年第2期。
(19)Bernard E. Harcout,The Collapse of the Harm Principle, 90 J.Crim.L.&Criminology,1999,p.109.
(20)参见姜敏:《刑法反恐立法的边界研究》,《政法论坛》2017年第5期。
(21)Dennis J.Baker.The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer),2007(03),P.370.
(22)参见前注(1),姜敏文。
(23)参见周光权:《转型时期刑法立法的思路与方法》,《中国社会科学》2016年第3期。
(24)Dennis J. Baker, The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03), P. 370.
(25)Andrew Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:“Remote”Harms and Fair Imputation, in A. P. Simester&A. T. H. Smith(ed)Harm and Culpability, 1996, P.263~264.
(26)同前注(18),张志钢文。
(27)参见黎宏:《法益论的研究现状和展望》,《人民检察》2013年第7期。
(28)姚贝、王拓:《法益保护前置化问题研究》,《中国刑事法杂志》2012年第1期。
(29)参见王永茜:《论现代刑法扩张的新手段——法益保护的提前化和刑事处罚的前置化》,《法学杂志》2013年第6期。
(30)Dennis J. Baker. The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03), P. 370.
(31)Bernard E. Harcourt,The Collapse of the Harm Principle, 90 J. Crim.L.&Criminology,1999, p.105.
(32)A. P.Simester&Andrew Von Hirsch,crimes,harms,and wrongs—on the principles of criminalization, Hart Publishing,2011,P.54.
(33)乔尔·范伯格:《刑法的道德限制》,方泉译,商务印书馆2013年版,第210~211页。
(34)参见上注,乔尔·范伯格书,第210~239页。
(35)A.P.Simester&Andrew Von Hirsch,crimes, harms, and wrongs—on the principles of criminalization, Hart Publishing, 2011,P. 55.
(36)Michelle M.Dempsey, Rethinking Wolfenden:Prostitute Use, Criminal Law, and Remote Harm, 2005 Crim. L. R. 449.
(37)参见严明华、张少林、赵宁:《刑法分则条文罪状的理解与相应法定刑配置关系研究》,《政治与法律》2010年第12期。
(38)参见前注(33),乔尔·范伯格书,第217页。
(39)参见前注(33),乔尔·范伯格书,第221页。
(40)参见前注(33),乔尔·范伯格书,第221页。
(41)参见胡萨克:《过罪化及刑法的限制》,姜敏译,中国法制出版社2015年版,第189页。
(42)Andrew Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:“Remote”Harms and Fair Imputation, in A. P. Simester&A. T. H. Smith(ed)Harm and Culpability,1996, P.269.
(43)Dennis J.Baker.The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03), P.372~373.
(44)Dennis J. Baker. The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03), P. 370.
(45)Robert J.Sampson, Stephen W. Raudenbush,&Felton Earls, Neighborhood and Violent Crime:A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy, 277 Sci.918(1997); Robert J. Sampson&Stephen W. Raudenbush, Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces:A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods,105 Am. J. Soc. 603(1999).
(46)Robert J.Sampson, Stephen W. Raudenbush,&Felton Earls, Neighborhood and Violent Crime:A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy, 277 Sci.918(1997); Robert J.Sampson&Stephen W.Raudenbush, Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces:A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods,105 Am.J.Soc.638(1999).
(47)Dennis J. Baker.The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03), P.372.
(48)Dennis J. Baker.The moral limits of criminalizing remote harms, New Criminal Law Review(Summer), 2007(03), P. 373,note 6.
(49)Glanville L.Williams, Complicity, Purpose and the Draft Code—1,1990 Crim.L.R.4,10(1990).
(50)Glanville L.Williams, Complicity,Purpose and the Draft Code—1,1990 Crim. L. R.4,10(1990).