刑法的边界研究
|
摘要
从犯罪与刑罚的关系看，作为规范结果的刑罚会受到犯罪圈的制约，而其同时又对犯罪圈的大小存在着相应的指导作用，或者反作用，故刑法边界的划分须得从两个角度进行：其一，行为的社会负价值，比如，社会危害；其二，刑罚的适用范围，亦即需要刑罚处罚不当行为时，则须将该行为犯罪化，即将行为纳入刑法的边界之内。行为社会负价值，反映是行为的实体评价，所以，这是从本体论（即证立刑法禁止的根据）的角度审视刑法的边界。由于划分刑法边界的标准实际上还担负着证立刑法禁止的任务，如果家长主义可以证立刑法禁止的话，那么，其首先应当将草率性的自杀行为列入刑法禁止之中，因为没有比这更对行为人不利了，然而，现在很多已经将自杀视为是犯罪的国家，均存在着将自杀罪排斥在刑法之外的趋势。帮助自杀行为被犯罪化并非源自于其加功于自杀行为，而是源自于其他方面的考虑，比如,很难证明自杀是否真的源自于自杀人的意愿，且帮助人触犯了法律禁忌。此外，家长主义是基于行为人未来的利益而干涉其今天的自我决定权，利益具有主观性，从而造成家长主义立法有可能背离行为人的追求。再加上刑法干涉行为人的自我决定权会给行为人带来污名，如果在刑法范畴里坚持家长主义，甚至会按照宗教上的逻辑寻找犯罪化的根据。同样，伦理主义也不宜作为证立刑法边界的根据，一则因为伦理主义的内涵和外延极不固定，二则伦理主义会基于一部分人的信仰而剥夺另外一些人的信仰，从而使刑法变成部分人推行自己观念的工具。即伦理主义与家长主义作为证立刑法禁止的根据，刑法的边界不仅无法确定，而且还会与现实的立法趋势和价值选择发生背离。所以，在本体论的层面上，划分刑法边界的标准只剩下法益的概念和伤害原则。前者系民法法系划分刑法边界的主要理论，后者系普通法系划分刑法边界的原则。就法益保护原则和伤害原则而言，首先其内涵和外延也存在着模糊性的缺陷，其次，法益保护原则和伤害原则虽然可以排斥道德犯，但是，由于其也适用于侵权法，所以，其很难划分刑法与侵权法的边界。在划分刑法边界的过程中，法益保护原则和伤害原则就像一只无齿之犬。要想使得这两个原则具有规范效力，必须寻求一定的道德理论，进一步挑选需要犯罪化的行为。具言之，一方面，两个原则都从证立刑法禁止的根据的角度回答了犯罪的本质，另一方面其在划分刑法与侵权法的边界时又显得力不从心，都需要从“最后的手段”中汲取能量。这样，在法益保护原则和伤害原则的基础上，还需要一定的道德理论帮助立法者决定何种行为应当受到刑法的制裁，何种行为应当受到民法（主要是侵权法）的调整。通过对功利主义、道义论和相对道义论（主要水坝理论）比较，功利主义更具有优越性，即除了一些法律禁忌不得进行功利主义的权衡之外，一般行为是否需要犯罪化，可以在符合伤害原则或者法益保护原则的基础，进行功利主义分析。当然，这种分析须建立在刑法与侵权法规范缝隙之上。学界一般认为，刑法追求的是报应正义，而侵权法追求的是矫正正义，所以，在规范层面上，两者在救济发动的主体、前提条件、责任的严厉程度、责任与行为的可责性程度关系、过错的种类、免责事由等等方面，存在明显的不同。基于这种规范区别，按照功利主义，划分广义的刑法（包含着行政法）与侵权法的边界的因素有：其一，行为人实施不当行为的心理状态。因为故意的心理态度往往能反映行为人实施不法的隐蔽性，或者不法行为被发现并被处罚的可能性很小，所以，侵权法无法控制其发生，只能借助刑法预防这种加害行为。其二，发现率、受害人主张权利的可能性以及行为人的破产风险。这三个因素都会制约侵权法或者民法的威慑力。如果民法的威慑力很低，则构成了刑法干预人们自由的根据。同理，风险信息持有情况、制度成本等也会有时在一定的程度上反映刑法的必要性。然而，广义的刑法与侵权法边界的划分有一个潜在的前提，即虽然两者都是保护法益的，但是，其侧重点有所不同，亦即前者通过惩罚行为人、后者通过赔偿受害人达到保护法益的目的，而惩罚性赔偿制度正好处于两者之间，或者说其处于广义的刑法与民法之间的交集区域。固然，对于惩罚性赔偿的性质，存在着形式程序说、赔偿说、威慑说、惩罚说等不同的观点。为了避免误解，学界又将惩罚说称之为报应说。不过，从惩罚性赔偿的目的看，加重性赔偿与威慑性赔偿要么是对人格尊严的替代性的救济措施，要么是为了促使行为人将行为的社会成本内化。但是，在惩罚性赔偿制度运行过程中，有时并不具有以上两种目的，对于此种超额赔偿，惩罚说或者报应说更具有说服力。这样，一旦超额赔偿的目的被定性为惩罚或者报应，那么，常规的民事程序就无法再对其具有适用性。此时，应当在原有的民事程序的基础上，对行为人提供必要的程序保护，这主要反映在证明标准、不得强迫自证其罪、禁止双重危险等方面上。惩罚性赔偿制度扩张，一方面来自于现实的需要，即在规制有权势的富人方面，惩罚性赔偿具有独到的优势，另一方面，法理学的变革，即功利主义的复兴，为其提供了强有力的支持，特别是行政权的扩张，直接导致其变成一个重要的法律制度。而与惩罚性赔偿制度相对应的规范，由于具有一些自身的特点，因而应当独立化，这就是行政法存在的原因。所以，应当明确刑法与行政法的边界，亦即广义的刑法需要剔除出行政法的内容，使其变成狭义的刑法。但是，行政法与狭义刑法的边界，本体论无法提供有效的分界标准，仍然只能借助功利主义进行划分。考虑到错误成本问题，行政法是无法容忍人身罚的存在的，罚款，即惩罚性的民事责任，应当构成其主要的处罚方法或者监管手段。将人身罚排除后，于是，处罚措施、污名、执法合作的可能性和危害性等，则成了狭义的刑法与行政法的分界标准。该理论源自于生活常识，故需要与实证法进行相互检讨，从而达到理论与实践的尽可能的统一。从规则的角度看，恶意欠薪是应当被犯罪化的，但是，通奸行为、乱伦行为、成人间的传播淫秽物品的行为、赌博行为、容留妇女卖淫等等行为是不应当入罪的。从原则的角度看，预防性酷刑不应当合法化，其应当受到法律的谴责。据此，可以看出，刑法在保护法益时，还须受到很多规则的制约，在立法时应注意避免以愿望取代法律。不过，刑法的边界最终的确定，由司法完成，立法者划定的刑法边界仅具有前提作用，其对最后刑法边界的确定有重大意义但并不是决定性因素。
From the view of the relationship between the crime and penalty, the later, as the normal result of the former, may be limited by the boundary of the criminal law, vice versa. Therefore, the limit of criminal law must draw on two stands:first, the negative value of the undesirable act, for example the harm to society; second, the contour of the penalty, namely the undesirable act need to be punished with the penalty, is based on the limits of criminal law. The negative value of the act, form the ontological review, is its substantial assessing. However, as the principles which draw the limits of criminal law, are reasons justifying the criminal prohibition, if the Paternalism could justify the prohibition, the hotheaded suicide would be criminalized at first, because it is more disadvantage to actors self than others. But most countries that have criminalized the suicide have a trend to decriminalize it, and the assisting suicide that criminalized is based on the two reasons:first, it is difficult to confirm the suicide is due to the voluntary of the suicide man or woman; second, the actors who assist the others to suicide violate the legal taboo. Furthermore, Paternalism deprives the actors of today's freedom because it maximizes their own tomorrow's interest, but it is may not be the real interest of the party due to the interest to be subjective. In addition to that, that the criminal law deprives of the freedom of actors for their own interest can bring the stigma to them, and the foundation to the paternalism must be found in the maxims of God. If the legal moralism can justify the prohibition, then, the problems arise like the paternalism. The reasons may be such:at first, the meaning and extension of legal moralism is not definite; secondly, it may make some people's belief to deprive of other's and lets the criminal law to lack the spirit of "utima ratio". In other words, if the legal moralism and the paternalism can justify the criminal prohibition, then, the limits of criminal law is not ascertained, but also it may deviate from the trend and valuation of current legislation of the world. Therefore, there leave two standards to justify the prohibitions:one is the concept of rechtsgut; other is the harm principle on the ontology. The former is theory of criminalizing of Civil law; the latter is the theory of criminalizing of Common law. For the principle of protecting of rechtsgut and the harm principle, they have two problems:their meaning and extension are very faint, and the tort law protects the rechtsgut as the criminal law as ever. So the principles can not perform the task of drawing the boundary of criminal law. The two theories to draw the limits of criminal law like the dog without the teeth. If you want give the dogs teeth, you should need some moral theory to help you to select the undesirable act that can be criminalized. On one hand, the two principles pose the essence or substance of a crime, on the other hand, it is insufficient to draw the limits of criminal law, which need the principle of "last resort" to complement or restrict. Therefore, there need some moral theories to assist the legislators to select the undesirable act to punish with criminal law or sanctioned with civil law. Among the moral theories, which are deontology, utilitarianism and relative deontology, the utilitarianism is superiority over others except in the analysis of the legal taboo. If legal moralism and paternalism can justify the prohibition, the criminal law limits not only cannot be drawn, but also may be deviation from the trend of the law development and the current value. Therefore, the standards that draw the limits of criminal law leave the concept of rechtsgut and harm principle. On one hand, they imply the substance of the crime on the ontology, on the other hand, they cannot suffice to draw the limits between the criminal law and civil law, or the tort law, and they need the "utima ratio", namely the last resort principle, to make up. However, as the last resort principle can be counted further, in other words, on the harm principle and the protecting rechtsgut principle, the moral theory to select the act that would be criminalized may help the harm principle and the protecting rechtsgut principle to accomplish the task. On comparing the utilitarianism with the deontology and relative deontology (mostly the dam theory), it is obvious that utilitarianism has more advantages than the deontology. So, the moral theory, which implies the last resort principle, is as such principle:the theory that is based on the harm principle and protecting rechtsgut principle is the utilitarianism except the legal taboo, which can not be analyzed with the utilitarianism. In other words, whether one undesirable act can be criminalized or not depends on two facts:one is whether it is accord with the harm principle or the principle of protecting rechtsgut or not; another is whether it is conformed to the analysis of utilitarianism. Of course, the conclusion must be based on the gap between the norms of criminal law and tort law. It is thought, according to the legal scholarship, that the purpose of the criminal law is to achieve the retributive justice; the tort law is to achieve the corrective justice. Therefore, there many distinctions, such as prosecutors, prerequisites to a remedy, severity of sanctions, punishment proportional to the culpability of the actor, broad spectrum of fault or culpability etc, among them from the normal perspective. Based on the distinctions and utilitarianism, the standards to draw the line between the criminal law in broad sense (including the administrative law) and civil law are following as:first, intent or mens rea of actors to cause harm. It means that the victim was intentionally harmed, which not only increase the probability of actually causing harm, and implies that the benefits the wrongdoer receives from committing an offence are often large, but also decreases the probability of detection and decreases the probability of detection; secondly, Imperfect detection by private parties, Imperfect incentives and judgment proof or insolvency problem, which inflect the deterrence of liability. If civil law is insufficient to deter the undesirable act, this is a justification to interference the freedom of citizens. In the same way, the Informational Advantage and cost of enforcement are important for criminal law. However, the distinctions between the criminal law and tort law have one premise:both are to protect the rechtsgut, but main dimensions are different in order to protect rechtsgut,one is to punish the actor, the other is to compensate the victims. Punitive civil sanctions are in the middleground between criminal law in broad sense and civil law. The characteristic of punitive civil sanctions have different viewpoints, such as formal procedural approach, compensatory approach, deterrence approach, the punitive approach, which is called retributive approach in order to prevent to misunderstand with the punitive civil sanction. However, from the purpose of punitive civil sanction, the aggravated damages are a substitutive redress measure to human dignity, and the deterrence damages are to internalize the cost of act. But in the course of applying the punitive civil sanction, if it has not both the purposes for more-than-compensatory money sanctions, the claim of the nature of which is punitive or retributive is persuasive. Therefore, once the purpose of the more-than-compensatory money sanctions is characterized as the punition or retribution, the general civil procedure can not be applied to the sanction. Here, it is necessary to provide the some procedure safeguards for the defendant. They include the standards of evidence, privilege against self-incrimination, and the duplicative punishment problem. Legislative adoption of punitive civil sanctions grew rapidly during the middle of the century and has continued to expand in recent years, the reasons are as follow:one is the actual demand, namely, the system is dominate to control the retributive damages against the wealthy or powerful men or women, the other is the changing philosophy of sanctioning, namely, utilitarian theory substitute with Kantian ideas of metaphysical imperatives. The most important reason is the growth of the administrative state. The rules of punitive civil sanctions due to its distinctive meanings should be independent status from others. This causes administrative law independently. Therefore, it is necessary to draw the line between the criminal law and administrative law, put differently; the criminal law should remove the content of administrative law and become the one in narrow sense. As the boundary between the administrative and criminal law can not be definite on the ontology, the work is still done on the utilitarianism as ever. Considering the cost of errors, the administrative law can not contain the freedom penalty. So, the more-than-compensatory money sanctions, namely the punitive civil sanction, which constitutes measures of punishment and means of regulation, stands for the liability to defy the administrative law in fact. Therefore, measures of punishment, stigma, possibility of cooperation of administrating law and features of harm, etc, are the criteria to divide criminal law from the administrative law after the removing the freedom penalty. But as the theory of dividing criminal law comes from the common sense, it is needed to test the positive law reciprocally and realizes the unification of the statue with the theory. From the perspective of rules, vice-back pay should be criminalized, the adultery, incest and diffusing the absence products among the adults, gambling and providing some conditions to woman prostitution should be decriminalized. From the perspective of principle, preventive tortures can not be justified and should be condemned with the law. Upon thus, it is obvious that when the criminal law is protecting the rechtsgut there are many rules to limit it and is not allowed to the wish to be substituted with the law. However, the boundary of criminal law is decided in justice in the end, and the legislation is the presupposition to accomplish the task, in other words, the latter plays an important role in drawing the boundary,but is not a determinant.
From the view of the relationship between the crime and penalty, the later, as the normal result of the former, may be limited by the boundary of the criminal law, vice versa. Therefore, the limit of criminal law must draw on two stands:first, the negative value of the undesirable act, for example the harm to society; second, the contour of the penalty, namely the undesirable act need to be punished with the penalty, is based on the limits of criminal law. The negative value of the act, form the ontological review, is its substantial assessing. However, as the principles which draw the limits of criminal law, are reasons justifying the criminal prohibition, if the Paternalism could justify the prohibition, the hotheaded suicide would be criminalized at first, because it is more disadvantage to actors self than others. But most countries that have criminalized the suicide have a trend to decriminalize it, and the assisting suicide that criminalized is based on the two reasons:first, it is difficult to confirm the suicide is due to the voluntary of the suicide man or woman; second, the actors who assist the others to suicide violate the legal taboo. Furthermore, Paternalism deprives the actors of today's freedom because it maximizes their own tomorrow's interest, but it is may not be the real interest of the party due to the interest to be subjective. In addition to that, that the criminal law deprives of the freedom of actors for their own interest can bring the stigma to them, and the foundation to the paternalism must be found in the maxims of God. If the legal moralism can justify the prohibition, then, the problems arise like the paternalism. The reasons may be such:at first, the meaning and extension of legal moralism is not definite; secondly, it may make some people's belief to deprive of other's and lets the criminal law to lack the spirit of "utima ratio". In other words, if the legal moralism and the paternalism can justify the criminal prohibition, then, the limits of criminal law is not ascertained, but also it may deviate from the trend and valuation of current legislation of the world. Therefore, there leave two standards to justify the prohibitions:one is the concept of rechtsgut; other is the harm principle on the ontology. The former is theory of criminalizing of Civil law; the latter is the theory of criminalizing of Common law. For the principle of protecting of rechtsgut and the harm principle, they have two problems:their meaning and extension are very faint, and the tort law protects the rechtsgut as the criminal law as ever. So the principles can not perform the task of drawing the boundary of criminal law. The two theories to draw the limits of criminal law like the dog without the teeth. If you want give the dogs teeth, you should need some moral theory to help you to select the undesirable act that can be criminalized. On one hand, the two principles pose the essence or substance of a crime, on the other hand, it is insufficient to draw the limits of criminal law, which need the principle of "last resort" to complement or restrict. Therefore, there need some moral theories to assist the legislators to select the undesirable act to punish with criminal law or sanctioned with civil law. Among the moral theories, which are deontology, utilitarianism and relative deontology, the utilitarianism is superiority over others except in the analysis of the legal taboo. If legal moralism and paternalism can justify the prohibition, the criminal law limits not only cannot be drawn, but also may be deviation from the trend of the law development and the current value. Therefore, the standards that draw the limits of criminal law leave the concept of rechtsgut and harm principle. On one hand, they imply the substance of the crime on the ontology, on the other hand, they cannot suffice to draw the limits between the criminal law and civil law, or the tort law, and they need the "utima ratio", namely the last resort principle, to make up. However, as the last resort principle can be counted further, in other words, on the harm principle and the protecting rechtsgut principle, the moral theory to select the act that would be criminalized may help the harm principle and the protecting rechtsgut principle to accomplish the task. On comparing the utilitarianism with the deontology and relative deontology (mostly the dam theory), it is obvious that utilitarianism has more advantages than the deontology. So, the moral theory, which implies the last resort principle, is as such principle:the theory that is based on the harm principle and protecting rechtsgut principle is the utilitarianism except the legal taboo, which can not be analyzed with the utilitarianism. In other words, whether one undesirable act can be criminalized or not depends on two facts:one is whether it is accord with the harm principle or the principle of protecting rechtsgut or not; another is whether it is conformed to the analysis of utilitarianism. Of course, the conclusion must be based on the gap between the norms of criminal law and tort law. It is thought, according to the legal scholarship, that the purpose of the criminal law is to achieve the retributive justice; the tort law is to achieve the corrective justice. Therefore, there many distinctions, such as prosecutors, prerequisites to a remedy, severity of sanctions, punishment proportional to the culpability of the actor, broad spectrum of fault or culpability etc, among them from the normal perspective. Based on the distinctions and utilitarianism, the standards to draw the line between the criminal law in broad sense (including the administrative law) and civil law are following as:first, intent or mens rea of actors to cause harm. It means that the victim was intentionally harmed, which not only increase the probability of actually causing harm, and implies that the benefits the wrongdoer receives from committing an offence are often large, but also decreases the probability of detection and decreases the probability of detection; secondly, Imperfect detection by private parties, Imperfect incentives and judgment proof or insolvency problem, which inflect the deterrence of liability. If civil law is insufficient to deter the undesirable act, this is a justification to interference the freedom of citizens. In the same way, the Informational Advantage and cost of enforcement are important for criminal law. However, the distinctions between the criminal law and tort law have one premise:both are to protect the rechtsgut, but main dimensions are different in order to protect rechtsgut,one is to punish the actor, the other is to compensate the victims. Punitive civil sanctions are in the middleground between criminal law in broad sense and civil law. The characteristic of punitive civil sanctions have different viewpoints, such as formal procedural approach, compensatory approach, deterrence approach, the punitive approach, which is called retributive approach in order to prevent to misunderstand with the punitive civil sanction. However, from the purpose of punitive civil sanction, the aggravated damages are a substitutive redress measure to human dignity, and the deterrence damages are to internalize the cost of act. But in the course of applying the punitive civil sanction, if it has not both the purposes for more-than-compensatory money sanctions, the claim of the nature of which is punitive or retributive is persuasive. Therefore, once the purpose of the more-than-compensatory money sanctions is characterized as the punition or retribution, the general civil procedure can not be applied to the sanction. Here, it is necessary to provide the some procedure safeguards for the defendant. They include the standards of evidence, privilege against self-incrimination, and the duplicative punishment problem. Legislative adoption of punitive civil sanctions grew rapidly during the middle of the century and has continued to expand in recent years, the reasons are as follow:one is the actual demand, namely, the system is dominate to control the retributive damages against the wealthy or powerful men or women, the other is the changing philosophy of sanctioning, namely, utilitarian theory substitute with Kantian ideas of metaphysical imperatives. The most important reason is the growth of the administrative state. The rules of punitive civil sanctions due to its distinctive meanings should be independent status from others. This causes administrative law independently. Therefore, it is necessary to draw the line between the criminal law and administrative law, put differently; the criminal law should remove the content of administrative law and become the one in narrow sense. As the boundary between the administrative and criminal law can not be definite on the ontology, the work is still done on the utilitarianism as ever. Considering the cost of errors, the administrative law can not contain the freedom penalty. So, the more-than-compensatory money sanctions, namely the punitive civil sanction, which constitutes measures of punishment and means of regulation, stands for the liability to defy the administrative law in fact. Therefore, measures of punishment, stigma, possibility of cooperation of administrating law and features of harm, etc, are the criteria to divide criminal law from the administrative law after the removing the freedom penalty. But as the theory of dividing criminal law comes from the common sense, it is needed to test the positive law reciprocally and realizes the unification of the statue with the theory. From the perspective of rules, vice-back pay should be criminalized, the adultery, incest and diffusing the absence products among the adults, gambling and providing some conditions to woman prostitution should be decriminalized. From the perspective of principle, preventive tortures can not be justified and should be condemned with the law. Upon thus, it is obvious that when the criminal law is protecting the rechtsgut there are many rules to limit it and is not allowed to the wish to be substituted with the law. However, the boundary of criminal law is decided in justice in the end, and the legislation is the presupposition to accomplish the task, in other words, the latter plays an important role in drawing the boundary,but is not a determinant.
引文
1胡建淼：《行政法学》，北京：法律出版社，2003年版，第461-463页；沈开举：《行政责任研究》，郑州：郑州大学出版社，2004年版，第28-29页；罗豪才：《行政法论》，北京：光明日报出版社，1988年版，第301-303页。
2林克静，台湾敬宜大学法律系主任，教授，留德博士。
3张维迎：《经济学如何划分刑、民边界》，中国社会科学报，2009-9-15。
5Paul H. Robinson, The Criminal-Civil Distinction And The Utility Of Desert, Boston University Law Review, vol.76, April,1996, pp.201-214.
7C. Clarkson, Introducing CriminalLaw;London:Sweet&Maxwell,2006, p.263.
8Claus Roxin, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil Band I,3. Auf1., C. H. Beck1997§2/12.
9see Markus Dirk Dubber, The Promise of German Criminal Law:A Science of Crime and Punishment, Ge Rman Law Journal, Vol.06No.07,2005,pp1049-1071.
10Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001,p106.
11Jules L. Coleman, The Practice of Principle:In Defense of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory, Harvard Law Review,vol.115,no.6.Apri12002,pp1655-1987.
12Jean Hampton, The Moral Education Theory of Punishment, Philosophy&Public Affairs Vol.13, No.3Summer,1984, p.213.
13H.L.A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, p.72(1978).in Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.5,2001,ppl45-172.
14Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, Colum. L. Rev.vol.85,No.6, Oct,1985,p.1195.
15Id.
16Peter Sina, Die Dogmengeschichte des strafrechtlichen Begriffs "Rechtsgut", Basel:Helbing&Lichtenhahn,1962s.39-69; Hans-Heinrich Jescheck&Thomas Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts: Allgemeiner Teil,Berlin:Duncker&Hamblot,1996,s.7; see Santiago mirpuig: Legal Goods Protected By The Law And Legal Goods Protected By The Criminal Law As Limits To The State'sPower To Criminalize Conduct, New Criminal Law Review, vol,ll,no,3,2008,pp.409-418; John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, New York:Norton Critical Editions,1975,pp.10-11; see, e.g., Claire Finkelstein, Positivism and the Notion of an Offense, Calif. L. Rev. vol.88,2000,p.335; Feinberg, Harmless Wrongdoing, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1988, p.4.
17Claus Roxin, Strafrecht: Allgemeiner TeilL, s.15-21.
18Joel Feinberg, Harm To Others, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1988,ppll-12
19Christopher Kutz, Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics, California Law Review,vol.95,2001, pp.235-276.
20Nagel, T.. War and massacre, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol.1, No.2, Winter,1972, pp.53-74; Michael S. Moore, Torture and Balance of Evils, IsraelLaw Review,Vol23,1989, pp.280-323.
21John M.Taurek. Should The Numbers Count? Philosophy GPublic Affairs, vol6,no4Summer.1977,pp.293-316.
22William Blackstone, Commentaries On The Laws Of England:In Four Books. Boston:Beacon.(Original,1769).P.158
23Stockwell v. United States,80U.S.13Wall.531531(1871).
24Kennedy v.Mendoza-Martine,372U.S.144(1963).
25United States v. Chouteau,102U.S.603(1880).
26于改之：《刑民分界论》,北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2007年版。
28国务院法制办：《政府立法中的法律责任设定研究论文集》，中国法制出版社(2010)。
29戴玉忠、刘明祥主编：《犯罪与行政违法行为的界限及惩罚机制的协调》，北京：北京大学出版社（2008）。
30梁根林：“犯罪化及其限制”，《中外法学》，1998年第3期。
31钊作俊、刘蓓蕾：“犯罪化与非犯罪化论纲”，《中国刑事法杂志》，2005年第5期。
32黄京平、陈鹏展：“无被害人犯罪非犯罪化研究”，《江海学刊》，2006年第4期;
33张明楷：“司法上的犯罪化与非犯罪化”，《法学家》，2008年第4期。
34陈正云：“刑法调控范围研究”，《中国法学》1996年第06期。
35刘艳红：“新刑法调控范围之理性思考与启示”，《法律科学》，1999年第3期。
36see Becker, Gary S. Crime and Punishment:An Economic Approach-Journal of Political Economy,vol76,1968, pp.169-217.
37see Steven Snavell, Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent Columbia Law Review1985,Vol85,pp.1232-1262.
38See, e.g., H.L.A. Hart, Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment, in Punishment and Responsibility,1968,pp.6-8; Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, Colum. L. Rev. vol.85,1985,p.1195; Robert D. Cooter&Thomas S. Ullen, Law and Economics, Boston:Addison Wesley,1997(2d ed). pp.387-407; Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001,p.106; Joel Feinberg, Harmless Wrongdoing, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1988,pp.164-165.
39see George P. Fletcher, The Grammar Of Criminal Law:American, Comparative, International,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007,pp.288-289.
40Markus Dirk Dubber, The Promise of German Criminal Law:A Science of Crime and Punishment, Ge Rman Law Journal, Vol.06No.07,2005,pp.1049-1071.
41Robert W. Drane, David.Neal, On Moral Justifications For The Tort/Crime Distinction, California Law Review, Vol.68, No.2, Mar.,1980,pp.398-421.
42这里美国刑罚法规指的是美国模范刑法典的规定。上述观点参见H-H Jeschk, Lehrbuch Drs Strafrechts,Allgemeiner, Teil4ed,1988,s.220-245.
43C R Snyman, The Definition Of The Proscription And The Structure Of Criminal Liability, The South African Law Journal,vol.111,1994,pp65-79(1994);杨春然：”“论故意在三阶层犯罪论体系中的位置”,《中外法学》,2011年第4期,第729-741页。
44在研究刑法边界的文献中,主要关注的是X的范围。Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.5, No.1, April2001,,pp.145-172.
45Jean Hampton, The Moral Education Theory of Punishment, Philosophy&Public Affairs Vol.13, No.3, Summer,1984, p.213.
46ibid
47ibid. P.219.
48H.L.A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility:Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1978, p.72.
49Bendor, J. and Swistak, P.he evolution of norms. American Journal of SociologyAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol.106, No.6, May2001, pp.1493-1545
50ibid, p231.
51ibid. P.11.
52James Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Lraternity,Londom Smith and Elder,1873, p.162.
53Id. Hart, supra note, pp.6-8.
54H.L.A. Hart, Law, Liberty, and Morality,Stanford:Stanford University Press,1963,p,36.
55ibid. Pp.37-38.
56Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, Columbia Law Review,Vol.85, No.6, Oct.,1985,p.1195.
57ibid.
58ibid.
59ibid.
60ibid.
61Posner, An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, p1205
62id, p1195.
63Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001
64Georg Rusche,Otto Kirchheimer,Dario Melossi, Punishment and Social Structure, New Jersey:Columbia university press(1939)(fifth printing2009).
65Georg Rusche&Otto Kirchheimer, Punishment and Social Structure, New York:Russell and Russell,1939,p5.
66Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001.
67Personal Correspondence from Jules Coleman, Professor of Law and Philosophy, Yale University (Nov.27,2000)(on file with author),in Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001
68Jules L. Coleman, The Practice of Principle:In Defense of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2001.
69ibid, p57.
70ibid.p.54
71ibid,p.58
72ibid.
73ibid.
74ibid.
75Elizabeth S. Anderson&Richard H. Pildes, Expressive Theories of Law:A General Restatement,148U. Pa. L. Rev.vol.148,2000,p.1503; Richard H. McAdams, A Focal Point Theory of Expressive Law,86Va. L. Rev. vol.86,2000,p.1649(2000)。
76这一因素最早是由Dan Kahan发现的,Dan M. Kahan, What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean?63U. Chi. L. Rev. vol.63,1996,p.595; Dan M. Kahan, The Secret Ambition of Deterrence, Harv. L. Rev.vol.113,1999,pp.419-20.
77Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.5,2001,pp.145-172.
78Joel feinberg, The Expressive Function Of Punishment,in Doing And Deserving, Princeton:Princeton University Press1970,pp.95-118.
79ibid.
80Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.5,2001,pp.145-172.
81Joel.Femberg,Harmless Wrongdoing,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1988,p.301.
82Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001,p.105.
84Joel feinberg, the expressive function of punishment,in Doing And Deserving, Princeton:Princeton University Press1970,p.98.
85Carol Steiker, Foreword:Punishment and Procedure:Punishment Theory and the Criminal-Civil Procedural Divide, Geo. L.J. vol.85,1997,p.803
87Joel Feinberg, The Expressive Function Of Punishment,in Doing And Deserving, Princeton:Princeton University Press1970,p.114.
88ibid.
89需要注意的是,有学者认为,刑罚法规应当是制裁规范,而不应当是禁止规范,在这里其实存在着逻辑上的缝隙(弱缝隙)。参见：颜厥安：”有规范缝隙到规范存有——初探法律论证中的实践描述”,《法律方法与法律思维》2008年第5辑,第3-21页。
90G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1967at69.
91Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics ofMorals, Yale:Yale University Press,1991,p.141(Mary Gregor trans.,).
92Alejandro Alagia, Alejandro Slokar,&Eugenio RaulZaffaroni, Derecho Penal:Parte General,s.57(2nd ed.2002).
93George p. Fletcher, Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1998,pp.37-38.
94George p. Fletcher,ibid.
95Joel feinberg, the expressive function of punishment,in Doing And Deserving, Princeton:Princeton University Press1970,p.118.
96ibid.
97事实上,行为造成了这种伤害。费因伯格并不认为,道德非难只是由特定的犯罪造成伤害来决定的,而是由这种犯罪造成的一般性的伤害来决定的。比如,恐怖行为碰巧没有造成任何的伤亡,这种非难仍然是巨大的,因为这种犯罪一般会产生巨大的伤害。
98杨春然：“冒犯型犯罪：伤害原则对法益保护原则的一次超越——兼论犯罪的本质”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2010年第2期。
99Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.5,2001.pp145-172.
100张明楷：“犯罪的概念探讨”,《法学研究》,1989年第3期。
101马克昌：《犯罪通论》,武汉：武汉大学出版社,1999年版,第14页。
102何秉松主编：《刑法教科书》上卷,北京：中国法制出版社,2000年版,第146页以下。
103Joel feinberg, the expressive function of punishment,in Doing And Deserving, Princeton:Princeton University Press1970,p.101
104John Gardner, Punishment, Morality, and the State:Prohibiting Immoralities, Cardozo L. Rev, vol.28,2007,pp2613-2628; Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, legal theory, vol.11,2005,pp.259-284.
105(日)山口厚：《刑法总论》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2011年版,第17页。
106Markus Dirk Dubber, The Promise of German Criminal Law:A Science of Crime and Punishment, Ge Rman Law Journal, Vol.06No.07,2005,pp.1049-1071.
107Johann Michael Franz Bimbaum, Ueber das ErforderniB einer Rechtsverletzung zum Begriffe des Verbrechens,15Archiv des Criminalrechts (NeueFolge),1834,s.149.
108Markus Dirk Dubber, Theories of Crime and Punishment in German Criminal Law, The American Journal of Comparative Law, vol,53,2005,p.688.
109Johann Michael Franz Bimbaum, Ueber das ErforderniB einer Rechtsverletzung zum Begriffe des Verbrechens,15Archiv des Criminalrechts (Neue Folge),1834,s.149.
110刘芝详：“法益概念辨识”,《政法论坛》,2008年第4期,第95-105页。
111Peter Sina, Die Dogmengeschichte des strafrechtlichen Begriffs "Rechtsgut", Basel, Helbing&Lichtenhahn,1962, s.39-69.
112Karl Binding, Die Normen und ihre Ubertretung,(1872; Leipzig:Felix Meiner,1922), vol.1, s.299,308.
113ibid,p.169
114Peter Sina, Die Dogmengeschichte des strafrechtlichen Begriffs "Rechtsgut", s.74.
115Hans-Heinrich Jescheck&Thomas Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts:Allgemeiner Teil6(5th ed.1996).
116ibid
117ibid.
118Bernd Schunemann, The System of Criminal Wrongs:The Concept of Legal Goods and Victim-based Jurisprudence as a Bridge between the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code,Buffalo Criminal Law Review Vol.7,2004,pp.551-553.
119Claus Roxm, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil Ⅰ, s.12-23
120Claus Roxm, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil Ⅰ, s.15.
121ibid.
122Claus Roxm, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil Ⅰ, s.15(3d ed.1997).
123ibid.
124ibid.
125ibid.
126ibid.
127ibid, p.16.
128ibid, p.18.
129Cornelius Nestler, Betaubungsmittelstrafrecht, Grundlagen und Kritik, in Handbuch des Betaubungsmittelstrafrechts (Arthur Kreuzered.,1997)("Volksgesundheit").
130Claus Roxin, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil I, Munchen:Beck,1997s.18-19.
131Markus Dirk Dubber,Theories of Crime and Punishment in German Criminal Law, Am. J. Comp. L. Vol.53,2005,pp.679-707.
132Bernd Schunemann, The System of Criminal Wrongs:The Concept of Legal Goods and Victim-based Jurisprudence as a Bridge between the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code,Buffalo Criminal Law Review Vol.7,2004,pp.551-553.
133see Santiago Mirpuig:Legal Goods Protected By The Law And Legal Goods Protected By The Criminal Law As Limits To The State's Power To Criminalize Conduct, New Criminal Law Review, Vol,11,Number,3, Pp409-418(2008).
134Alejandro Alagia, Alejandro Slokar,&Eugenio Raul Zaffaroni, Derecho Penal:Parte General.pp.126-128(2nd ed.2002).
135Lawrence v. Texas,539U.S.558(2003).
136Planned Parenthood v. Casey,505U.S.833(1992).
137City of Shreveport v. Curry,357So. zd1078(La.1978).
138Luis E. Chiesa, Normative Gaps in the Criminal Law:A Reasons Theory of Wrongdoing, New Criminal Law Review Vol.101,2007,pp.102-139.
139Roxm, s.19-21
140罗克辛认为,将这种行为犯罪是没有任何问题的,因为这已经清晰地规定了禁止的行为的范围,且这种行为与法益(生命、身体或者财产)之间有一种明确的关系。Roxin. s.20.
141德国刑法点第316条。
142Claus Roxin, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil I, Muncheri:Beck,1997, s.26-27.
143ibid. s.27.
144ibid, s.621.
145Markus D. Dubber, Criminal Law:Model Penal Code,New York:Foundation Press2002, pp.194-201.
146Claus Roxin, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil Ⅰ, s.621,622.
147Claus Roxin, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil Ⅰ, s.621.
148Ivo Appel, Verfassung und Strafe:Zu den verfassungsrechtlichen Grenzen staatlichen Strafen, Berlin:Verlag. Duncker&Humblot,1998,s.372-379(1998).
149. Claus Roxin, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil Ⅰ, s.243.
150在我国学界,这一点存在着争议：张明楷教授认为其并没有出罪价值,但笔者不这样认为,比如,以人身威胁为手段强制他人交出5元钱,按照刑法的规定,构成抢劫罪,因为抢劫罪并没有情节上的限制。如果不按照但书出罪,很容易得出行为人需要判处3年以上有期徒刑、且不能缓刑的下结论。这一点显然与罪刑相适应原则存在冲突。
151Markus D. Dubber, Criminal Law:Model Penal Code,pp.180-182
152Claus Roxm, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil Ⅰ, s.550.
153ibid,613.
160Bernd Schunemann, The System of Criminal Wrongs:The Concept of Legal Goods and Victim-based Jurisprudence as a Bridge between the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code, Buffalo Criminal Law Review,vol.7,2004,pp.551-583.
161Winfried Hassemer, Theorie und Soziologie des Verbrechens19(1973).
162Johann Michael Franz Birnbaum, Ueber das ErforderniB einer Rechtsverletzung zum Begriffe des Verbrechens,15Archiv des Criminalrechts (Neue Folge) s.149(1834)
163P.J.A. Feuerbach, Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland geltenden peinlichen Rechts§27(1st ed.1801); Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment, Buffalo Criminal Law Review Vol.5,2002,pp.145-172.
164Hans-Heinrich Jescheck&Thomas Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts:Allgemeiner Teil S.15(5th ed.1996).
165see Santiago mirpuig:Legal Goods Protected By The Law And Legal Goods Protected By The Criminal Law As Limits To The State's Power To Criminalize Conduct, New Criminal Law Review, Vol,ll,number,3,pp.409-418(2008).
166see Hart, The Aims Of The Criminal Law,Law and Contemporary Problems Vol.23, No.3, Summer,1958,p.404.
167see Roscoe pound, jurisprudence,St. Paul, Minn:West Publishing Co.,1959, pp.23-24,328-330.
168John Stuart Mill, On Liberty,Norton Critical Edition,1975,pp.10-11; see, e.g., Claire Finkelstein, Positivism and the Notion of an Offense, Calif. L. Rev,vol.88,2000,p.335.
169John Gray and G.W.Smith, J.S.Mill's On liberty in focus, New York:Routledge,2003,p.147.
170J. Feinerg, Harm to Others; Harm to Self,Oxford University Press,1986,p.4.
171P. Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals,Oxford University Press,1965, p.2.
172Jonathan Herring, Great Debates:Criminal Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009, p.2.
173ibid,p.4
174J. Feinerg, Harm to Others; Harm to Self, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1986,p.10.
175ibid.
176张子礼、杨春然：“论犯罪化的原则”,《河北法学》,2011年第4期。
177A. Simester and G. Sullivan, Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, Hart Publishing,2008Orded),p.590.
178杨春然：“冒犯型犯罪的根据：伤害原则对法益保护原则的一次超越——兼论犯罪的本质”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2010年第2期。
179Jonathan Herring, Great Debates: Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p.5.
180因为很多国家将污染行为所造成的累积性的伤害(accumulative harms),视为是一种间接伤害,属于法律评估的范围之内。参见A. VonHirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:"Remote" Harms and Fair Lmputation', inA. Simester and A. Smith (eds), Harm and Culpability, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996, p.265.
181ibid.
182Rasmusen, Eric, An Economic Approach to Adultery Law, Marriage and Divorce: An Economic Perspective, edited by Antony Dnes and Robert Rowthorn,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2002. Chapter5, pp.70-91
183杨春然：“冒犯型犯罪的根据：伤害原则对法益保护原则的一次超越——兼论犯罪的本质”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2010年第2期。
184Jonathan Herring, Great Debates: Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p.6.
185张子礼、杨春然：“论犯罪化的原则”,《河北法学》,2011年第4期。
186M. Madden Dempsey,Rethinking Wolfenden:Prostitute Use, Criminal Law and Remote Harm, Criminal Law Review,2005,pp444-455.
187A. Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:"Remote" Harms and Fair Imputation, in A. Simester and A. Smith (eds), Harm and Culpability,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996,pp.259,261.
188J. Feinerg, Harm to Others; Harm to Self, Oxford University Press,1986,p.105.
189D. Dripps, The liberal critique of harm principle,Criminal Justice Ethics,vol.17,1998,p.3.
190A. von Hirsch,The Offence Principle in Criminal Law:Affront to Sensibility or Wrongdoing? Kings College Law Journal,vol.11,2000,p.79.
191Jonathan Herring, Great Debates:Criminal Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009, p.10.
192Albin Eser, The Principle Of "Harm"In The Concept Of Crime: A Comparative Analysis Of The Criminally Protected Legal Interests, Duquesne University Law Review,vol.14,1965,pp345-417.
193Jonathan Herring, Great Debates: Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p.10.
194J. Feinberg, Harm to Others, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1984,p.26.
195C. Clarkson, Introducing Criminal Law, Sweet&Maxwe, vol.11,2006,p.263.
196R. Duff, Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, New Criminal Law Lieview,vol,12,2009,p.122.
197ibid.
198R. Duff and S. Marshall, Criminalization and sharing wrongs, Canadian Journal of Law ana Jurisprudence,vol.11,1988,p.7.
199A. Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2006, p.22.
200而死刑则是体现则是国家的绝对无能。J. Schonsheck, On Criminalisation, New York:Springer,1994,p.1.
201P. Cane说,“死亡使得时间变得各位珍贵,而永生则会使时间没有任何的意义,刑罚与自由的关系与其相同”。P. Cane, Taking law seriously:starting points of the Hart/Devlin Debate,The Journal of Ethics, vol.10,2006,p.21.
202see R. Duff and S. Marshall, Criminalization and sharing wrongs, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence vol.111998,p.7-22
203see Richard A.Epstein, The Harm Principle And How It Grew, University Of Toronto Law Journal, vol45,1995,pp.369-417.
204see D. Husak, the Criminal Law as Last Resort, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol24,2004,pp.207-235.
205转引自Mark Findlay, Stephen Odgers and Stanley Yeo, Australian Criminal Justice, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005(3rded).p.3.
206Hamish Stewart, Legality and Morality in HLA Hart's Theory of Criminal Law, SMULawReview,vol.52,1999,p.201.
207Patrick Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1965,pp.8-14.
208ibid.
209ibid.
210Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006(5th ed).p.41.
211Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law,p.44; Nicola Lacey, Celia Wells and Oliver Quick, Reconstructing Criminal Law Text and Materials, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003(3rd ed),(Law in Context), p.5.
212AP Simesterand GR Sullivan, Criminal Law Theory and DoctrineOxford:Hart Publishing,2003.P.17.
213ibid
214转引自Bernadette McSherry and Bronwyn Naylor, Australian Criminal Laws: Critical Perspectives,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2004,p.20.
215ibid.
216ibid.
217Mark Findlay, Stephen Odgers and Stanley Yeo, Australian Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2005(3rd ed),p.3.
218AP Simester and GR Sullivan, Criminal Law Theory and Doctrine,(2003),p,16.
219Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law London: Stevens&Sons,1983(2nd ed), p.18.
220Joel Feinberg, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Offense to Others,1985, p.1.
221ibid,p.163
222AP Simesterand GR Sullivan, Criminal Law Theory and Doctrine, Oxford: Hart,2003,p.16.
223Simon Bronitt and Bernadette McSherry, Principles of Criminal Law, Sydney: lawbook Co,2005(2nd ed),p.58.
224Nicola Lacey, Celia Wells and Oliver Quick, Reconstructing Criminal Law Text and Materials, Law in Context (3rd ed,2003) p.5.
225Ib,p.4; Nicola Lacey,'Abstraction in Contcxt,Ox/brdJournal of Legal S'tudies,vol14,1994,pp.255,266.
226Mirko Bagaric, The "Civilisation" of the Criminal Law, Criminal Law Journal,vol.25,2001,p.187.
227Simon Bronitt and Bernadette McSherry, Principles of Criminal Law, Sydney: lawbook Co,2005(2nd ed),p.5.
228Mirko Bagaric, The "Civilisation" of the Criminal Law, Criminal Law Journal,vol.25,2001,p.189.
229ibid.
230Simon Bronitt and Bernadette McSherry, Principles of Criminal Law, Sydney: lawbook Co,2005(2nd ed),p.58.
231ibid.
232Mirko Bagaric, The "Civilisation" of the Criminal Law, Criminal Law Journal,vol.25,2001,p.187;Paul H Robinson, A Theory of Justification: Societal Harm as a Prerequisite for Criminal Liability,UCLA Law Review,vol.23,1975,pp.266,272.
233Simon Bronitt and Bernadette McSherry, Principles of Criminal Law, Sydney:Lawbook Co,2005(2nd ed),p.4.
234ibid, at4-5.
235Mirko Bagaric, The Civilisation of the Criminal Law, Criminal Law Journal,vol.25,2001,pp.184,193.
236康德有三个著名的命题：道德需要自治,法律需要强制,强制有损自治。John Gardner, Prohibiting Immoralities, Cardozo Law Review,Vol.28,no.6,2007,pp.2613-2629.
237Plato, laws, Translated by Benjamin Jowett, book IX, http://classics.mit.edu//Plato/laws.html(2011-7-19)
238Durkheim, Emile (1897). Suicide. New York:The Free Press,1997,p.327.
239SM Canick, Constitutional Aspects of Physician-Assisted Suicide After Lee v. Oregon, Am. JL&Med., http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-c gi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/amlmed23§ion=9(1997)
240Litman,RobertE,Medical-Legal Aspects of Suicide,Washburn L.J., vol.6,1966,pp.395, http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/wasbur6§ion=41.
241ES Shneidman."Approaches and commonalities of suicide". Suicide and its prevention.
242Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_Commentaries
243Wackwitz v. Roy in1992
244Robert I. Simon, MD, James L. Levenson, MD and Daniel W. Shuman, JD On Sound and Unsound Mind:The Role of Suicide in Tort and Insurance Litigation, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,2005
245Interview with Nadine Strossen, David Shankbone, Wikinews, October30,2007.
246Jacob Goldstein, Washington's Physician-Assisted Suicide Law Takes Effect, http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/03/05/washingtons-physician-assisted-suicide-law-takes-effect/tab/article/
247P. Rathinamv. Union of India (AIR1994SC1844).
248印度宪法第21条规定：“保护生命和人身自由——除依照法律规定的程序外,不得剥夺任何人的生命和个人自由”。Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (AIR1996SC946).
249Christopher B. Gray, Philosophy of Law:An Encyclopedia, New York and London:Garland Pub. Co,1999, pp.632-635.
250黄文艺：“作为一种法律干预模式的家长主义”,《法学研究》,2010年第1期,第3-17页。
251Christopher B. Gray, Philosophy of Law:An Encyclopedia, New York and London:Garland Pub. Co,1999, pp.632-635.
252Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, legal theory,vol.11,2005, pp.259-284.
253Nina Nikku, Informative Paternalism, Studies In The Ethics Of Promoting And Predicting Health, Linkoping:Lmkopings Universitet,1997,p.344.:
254John Stuart Mill, Principles Of Political Economy, With Some Of Their Applications To Social Philosophy, London; Longmans, Green and Co.1965, p.938.
255Feinberg, Harmless Wrongdoing, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1988,p.4.
256Nicholas Capaldi, Liberal Value Versus Liberal Social Philosophy,Phil,&7heology,vol.4,1990,pp.283;286.
257Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts Of Liberty, In Four Essays On Liberty, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1969,p.124.
258Feinberg,Harm To Others,P.9;Harm To Self, p.Ix; Harmless Wrongdoing, p.Ix.
259Feinberg,Harm To Others,p.10.
260Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, legal theory,vol.11,2005, pp.259-284.
261J. S. Mill, On Liberty, Longmans, Green, and co.,1913, chapter5, para.10.
262Feinbetg,Harm to Self, p.12
263Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, legal theory, vol.11,2005,p.259-284.
264ibid.
267密尔：《论自由》,许宝译,商务图书馆,1998年版,第68页。
268Feinberg, Harm To Self, p.112.
269Gerald Dworkin, Paternalism, and Paternalism:Some Second Thoughts, both reprinted in Dworkin, The Theory And Practise Of Autonomy,Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1983, p.121-129.. See also Dan Brock, Paternalism and Promoting the Good, In Rolf Sartorius, Ed., Paternalism,Minneapolis:Puniversity Minnesota Press,1983,p.237-260.
270Christopher B. Gray (ed.), Philosophy of Law:An Encyclopedia, Garland Pub. Co,1999, pp.632-635.
271Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, Legal Theory,vol.11,2005, pp.259-284.
272杨春然：“冒犯型犯罪：伤害原则对法益保护原则的一次超越——兼论犯罪的本质”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2011年第3期。
273Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, legal theory,vol.11,2005, pp259-284.
274Richard Dean, The Value OfHumanity In Kants Moral Theory, Oxford:Clarendon Press,2006, pp.110-111.;96-97.
275Feinber, Harm To Self, p.27.
276Fcinberg,Harm To Self, pp.96-97
277Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, legal theory.,2005, vol11, pp.259-284.
278J. David Velleman, A Right of Self-Termination? Ethics,vol,109,1999,p.612.
279P. Rathinamv. Union of India (AIR1994SC1844); Larry A. Alexander, Deontology at the Threshold, SanDiegoLaw Review, vol.37,2000,pp.893-912.
280prances Kamm, A Right To Choose Death? Boston review, vol22,1997,pp.20-23.
281J. David Velleman, A Right of Self-Temination?,Ethics,vol.109,1999,pp.612-613.
282ibid,p.613..
283Feinberg, Harm to Others, p.24.
284Feinberg, Harm to Self, p.59
285Colin Camerer, Samuel Issacharoff, etc, Regulation For Conservatives:Behavioral Economics And The Case For "Asymmetric Paternalism" University Of'Pennsylvania Law Review,Vol.151,2003,pp.1211-1254.
286Dixon, N., Boxing, Paternalism, and Legal Moralism, Social Theory and Practice, vol.27,2001,pp.323-344; Gerald Dworkin,"Moral Paternalism," Law and Philosophy, vol.24,2005,pp.305-319.
287规则结果主义(rule-consequentialists)是结果主义的一种,其从规则(或者原则)的成本(包括错误成本)和收益的关系,判断某项规则本身的价值。参见Oren Gross, Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience, Minnesota Law Review. Vol88,2004,pp.101-175这与康德从尊重人的理性能力的角度反对善良家父主义是不同的。
288Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment, Buffalo Criminal LawReview,Vol.5,2002,pp.145-172.
289Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, Legal Theoryyvol.11,2005,pp.259-284.
290林山田：《刑法通论(上)》,北京：北京大学出版,2012年版,第21页。
291Albin Eser, The Principle Of "Harn"In The Concept Of Crime:A Comparative Analysis Of The Criminally Protected Legal Interests, Duquesne University Law Review, vol.14,1965,pp.345-417.
292see Albin Eser, The Principle Of "Harm"In The Concept Of Crime:A Comparative Analysis Of The Criminally Protected Legal Interests, Duquesne University Law Review, vol4,1965,pp.345-417;参见(英)安德鲁·冯·赫尔希,文樊文译：“法益的概念与‘损害原则’”,《刑事法评论》第24卷,187-201页。另外需要指出的是,该文将harm principle翻译成“损害原则”是不准确的,因为,这里的‘'harm"包含有行为人主观的侵害性,参见see Robert W. Drane, David.Neal, On Moral Justifications For The Tort/Crime Distinction, California Law Review,vol68,1980,pp.398-421; Richard A.Epstein, supra note。损害(damage)的含义更侧重于客观损害,所以,本文不采纳这种翻译方式,而将其直译伤害原则。
293Tatjana Hornle, Offensive Behavior and German Penal Law, Buffalo Criminal Law Review Vol.5,2004,, pp.255-278.
294Albin Eser, The Principle Of "Harn" In The Concept Of Crime:A Comparative Analysis Of The Criminally Protected Legal Interests, Duquesne University Law Review, vol4,1965,pp.345-417.
295Jonathan Herring, Great Debates:Criminal Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009, pp.9-12.
296Albin Eser, ibid.
297see Becker, Gary S. Crime and Punishment:An Economic Approach.Journal of Political Economy, vol.76,1968,pp.169-217.
298see Bowles, Roger, Michael G. Faure, and Nuno Garoupa. The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions:An Economic View and Policy Implications. Journal of Law and Society, vol.35,2008,pp.389-441.
299Christopher Kutz, Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics, California Law Review,vol.95,2001,-pp-235-276.
300see R. Nozick, Anarchy, State And Utopia, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1974,p.10.
301ibid,p.28.
302ibid, pp.65-66.
303see Robert W. Drane, David.Neal, On Moral Justifications For The Tort/Crime Distinction, California Law Reviewvol68,1980,pp.398-421.
304see R. Nozick, Anarchy, State And Utopia,1974, p.72.
305ibid.
306ibid, pp.72-73
309参见孙宪忠：“再谈物权行为理论”,《中国社会科学》,2001年第5期,第125-135页。
310杨春然：“论违法性与正当化事由缺失之间的规范缝隙及跨越”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2011年第3期。
311W.Hechker, Relativierung des Folterverbots in der BRD?,Kritische Justiz,2003,S.210-218;F. Jessberger. Wenn Du Nicht Redest,Fuge Ich Dir Groβe Schmerzen Zu, Juristische Ausbildung,2003,S.711-715; C. Roxin,'Kann staatliche Folter in Ausnahmefallen zulassig oder wenigstens straflos sein?', in J. Arnold et al.(eds), Menschengerechtes Strafrecht, Festschrift fur Albin Eser,Munchen:C.H. Beck,2005,S.461-471.
312C. Fahl, Angewandte Rechtsphilosophie-Darf Der Staat Foltern?, Juristiche Rundschau,2004,S.182-191; V. Erb, Nothilfe Durch Folter, Juristische Ausbildung,2005,S.24-30.
313有人认为超法规的责任阻却事由(罗克辛)、也有人认为是免除责任的防卫过当、或者警察法上超法规的阻却违法紧急避险等,王钢：”出于营救目的的酷刑与正当防卫”,《清华法学》,2010年第2期,第26-44页。
314Florian Jessberger,'Bad Torture-Good Torture?Journal of International Criminal Justice Vol.3,2005,pp.1059-1073.
315F.M. Kamm, Non-consequentialism, the Person as an End-in-Itself, and the Significance of Status, Phil.&Pub. Aff Vol21,1992,pp.354-389.
316Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York:Basic Books,1975, p.41; Nagel, T.. War And Massacre, Philosophy&Public Affairs, Vol.6, No.4, Summer,1977pp.53-74.
317Christopher Kutz, Trture, Necessity and Existential Volitics,California law Review,vol.95,2007,pp236-276.
318Michael S. Moore, Torture and Balance of Evils, Israel law Review,vol.23,1989,pp.280-323.
319John T. Sanders, why the numbers should sometimes count, Philosophy GPublicAffairs,vol.17nol,winter,1988,pp3-14.
320Derek parfit, innumerate ethics, Philosophy GPublic Affairs, vol.7,no4,1978, pp.285-301.
321John M.Taurek. Should The Numbers Count? Philosophy&Public Affairs,vol.6,no.4, Summer,1977,pp.293-316.
322ibid.
323John M. Taurek, Should the Numbers Count? Philosophy&Public Affairs,vol.6.no.4,summer,1977,pp.293-316; Derek Parfit, Innumerate Ethics, Philosophy&Public Affairs, Vol.7, No.4, Summer,1978,PP.285-301.
324See Geoffrey Best, War And Law Since1945, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1994,p.323.
325See Henry Shue, Torture,PfHIL.&PUB. OFF. Vol7,1977,p.124.
326Luis E. Chiesa, Normative Gaps in the Criminal Law:A Reasons Theory of Wrongdoing, New Criminal Law Review, Vol.101,2007,pp.102-139.
327Michael S. Moore, Torture and Balance of Evils, Israel Law Review,Vol23,1989,pp.280-323.
328Christopher Kutz, Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics, California LawReview,vol95,2007,pp.236-276.
329Larry A. Alexander, Deontology at the Threshold, San Diego Law Review, vol.37,2000,pp.893-912.
330如果功利主义与道义论对一个行为的评价是矛盾的,在力量相当的情况下,是不能入罪的,否则,这无异于国家推行一种道德伦理而否定另一种道德理论。See Luis E. Chiesa, Normative Gaps in the Criminal Law:A Reasons Theory of Wrongdoing, New Criminal Law Review Vol.10No.11,2007,pp.102-141.
331Christopher Kutz, Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics, California Law Review,vol.95,2007,pp.235-276.
332A. Ashworth, Principles ojCriminal Law,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003,pp.33-37.
333Kenneth W. Simons, The Relevance Of Community Values To Just Deserts:Criminal Law, Punishmentrationales, And Democracy, HofstraLawReview; vol.28,1999,pp.635-666.
334哈伯特L.帕克著：《刑事制裁的界限》,梁根林等译,北京：法律出版社,2008年版,第10-11页。
335Bowles, Roger, Michael G. Faure, and Nuno Garoupa. The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions:An Economic View and Policy Implications. Journal of Law and Society;vol.35,2008, pp.389-435.
336Larry A. Alexander, Deontology at the Threshold, San Diego LawReview; vol.37,2000,pp.893-912.
337ibid.
[41] See Hassemer&Kerner, Unrechtsbewubtsein Und Soziale Norm, Im3Sozialwissenschaften Im Studium Des Rechts: Strafrecht W.Hassemer&K. LUDerssen1978,1st ed, S.67-70; Hassemer&Hart-Honig, Generalpravention Im Strabenverkehr, Im Sozialwissenschaften Im Strafrecht,1984(hassemer ed,),S.230-251.
338Claus Roxin, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil I,1997(3d ed), s.18..
339杨春然：“论违法性与正当化事由缺失之间的规范缝隙及跨越——以英国连体婴儿案为例”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2011年第3期；C. Roxin, Kann staatliche Folter in Ausnahmefallen zulassig oder wenigstens straflos sein?', in J. Arnold et al.(eds), Menschengerechtes Strafrecht, Festschrift fur Albin Eser,Munchen:C.H. Beck,2005, S.461-471.
341Luis E. Chiesa, Normative Gaps in the Criminal Law:A Reasons Theory of Wrongdoing, New Criminal Law Review,vol.10,2007,pp.102-141.
342Jeremy Waldron, Torture and Positive Law:Jurisprudence for the White House, Columbia Law Review, vol.105,2005,pp.1721-1722.
344参见陈兴良：“犯罪范围的合理定义”,《法学研究》2008年第3期,第141-143页。
345Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment,Buffalo Criminal Law Review,vol.5,220,pp145-172.
346梅仲协,《民法要义》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1998年版,第15-16页；杨鸿烈,《中国法律思想史·下》,上海：商务印书馆,1936年版,第250-51页；,《中国民法总论》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997年版,第16页。
347David J. Seipp, The Distinction Between Crime and Tort in the Early Common Law, B. U. L. REV. vol.76,1996,p59.
348John C.P. Goldberg&Benjamin C. Zipursky, Accidents of the Great Society, MD. L.REV.vol.64,2005,pp.402-403; Benjamin C. Zipursky, Civil Recourse, Not Corrective Justice, GEO. Z.J vol.91,2003,p.695.
349Note,Victim Restitution in the Criminal Process:A Procedural Analysis, HARV. L. REV, vol.97,1984, pp.934-935.
350这种处罚措施我国还没有,需注意的是,其与过我国民法中的停止侵害是不同的。
351William J. Stuntz, Substance, Process, and the Civil-Criminal Line, J. CONTEMP. LEGAL, vol.7,ISSUES1,1996,pp.19-24.
352John C.P. Goldberg&Benjamin C. Zipursky, Tort Law and Moral Luck, CORNELLL. REV. vol.92,2007,1142-43.
355陈清浦郭亚：“刑法中的严格责任若干问题研究”,《北京化工大学学报》(社会科学版)2004年第1期,总第44期,第11页-17页。
356Douglas Husak, Overcriminalization:The Limits Of The Criminal Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008, pp.9-10
357张新宝：《侵权责任法原理》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年版,第30-31页。
358在侵权法领域内,发生了很多违反逻辑的观点,比如说侵权责任分成过错责任、无过错责任和严格责任,这种分类本身就很荒谬：其一,过错责任与无过错责任,他们之间显然是A与非A的关系,即两者相加即等于其上位概念,又如何能在分出过错责任来?其二,过错成为规则原则,无过错就无法成为无过错原则,因为所谓的原则系绝大多数的规则所应遵循的标准,既然承认过错是原则,则意味着至少有百分之五十以上的侵权规则执行该原则,此时,作为其对立概念的无过错,又怎能控制百分之五十之上的侵权法规则呢?其三,过错不能成为侵权法的原则,最明显的理由有两个：首先,无行为能力人致他人伤害的,行为人要为此承担赔偿责任,没有责任能力的,则其监护人(一定范围内)要代为赔偿,即其要对其行为承担无过错责任(比如,没有认识能力的小孩子或者精神病人,其谈不上责任的),而成年人则要承担比无过错责任更为严格的过错责任,亦即法律对小孩子或者精神病人提出了更为严格的要求,这岂不是荒唐!其二,这违背行为人自担行为成本原则,即行为人是行为收益的享有者,故也应当是成本的承担者,其主管过错与否与这一点是没有联系的,国际社会在环境领域内主张的“谁污染,谁赔偿”就是这个意思。参见Kenneth W. Simons, The Crime/Tort Distinction:Legal Doctrine And Normative Perspectives, Widener Law Journal,vol.17,2008,pp719-732;杨春然：“注册会计师职务侵权责任的经济分析与重构”,《东海大学法学研究(台)》,2008年,总第29期刊；杨春然：“环境污染的侵权责任及其可保性的经济分析”,《新疆社会科学》,2010年第1期。
359杨春然,“注册会计师职务侵权责任的经济分析与重构”,《东海大学法学研究(台)》,2008年,总第29期刊。
360William J. Stuntz, Substance, Process, and the Civil-Criminal Line, J. CONTEMP. LEGAL,vol.7,1996, ISSUES1, p.20.
361Robert Cooter, Prices and Sanctions, COLUM.L. REV.vol.84,1984,p.l523.
362Guido Calabresi&A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, HARV.L. REV.vol.85,1972, pp.1089-1092.
363Vera Bergelson, Victims and Perpetrators: An Argument for Comparative Liability in Criminal Law, BUFF. CRLM. L. REV.vol.8,2005,pp.405-18; Kenneth W. Simons, The Relevance of Victim Conduct in Tort and Criminal Law, BUFF. CRLM. L. REV.vol.8,2005,p.541.
364Wayne R. Lafave, Criminal Law, St. Paul, MN:Thomson/West,2003(4th ed.),p.l6; Paul H. Robinson, Criminal Law, Aspen Law&Business,1997,pp.6-7.
365Stephen D. Sugarman, Doing Away with Tort Law, CAL. L. REV.vol.73,1985,pp.613-16.
366Margaret Jane Radin, Compensation and Commensurability, DUKEL.J. vol.43,1993,pp.57-61.
367Catherine M. Sharkey, Punitive Damages as Societal Damages, YALE, L.J. vol.113,2003,pp.349-52.
368See A. Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages:An Economic Analysis,V. L.890-891.
369Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co.,124N.W. pp.221-222(1910).
370Kenneth W. Simons, Tort Negligence, Cost-Benefit Analysis, And Tradeoffs:A Closer Look At The Controversy, LOY. L. REV. Loy. L.A. L. Rev.vol.41, Summer,2008pp.171-1208; Richard W. Wright, The Standards of Care In Negligence Law, In Philosophical Foundations Of Tort Law, edited by David G. Owen, ed. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1995,p.249.
371Gary T. Schwartz, Mixed Theories Of Tort Law:Affirming Both Deterrence And Corrective Justice, TEX. L. REV. vol.75,1997,pp.1824-1828.
372Ernest J. Weinrib, The Idea Of Private Law45-46(1995).对这种观点的批评,可以参见Kenneth W. Simons, Justification in Private Law, CORNELLL. REV,vol.81,1996,p.698.
373See A. Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages:An Economic Analysis, HARV. L. REV.vol.111,1998,p.891.
375Fletcher, George P.,'Remembering Gary-and Tort Theory", UCLA Law Review, vol.50,2002,pp.279-292.
376Goldberg, John C. P., Twentieth Century Tort Theory, Georgetown Law Journal,vol.91,2003,pp.513-583.
378徐昕：”通过私力救济实现正义——兼论报应正义”,《法学评论》,2003年第5期。
379Ronen Perry, The Role of Retributive Justice in the Common Law of Torts:A Descriptive Theory, Tenn. L. Rev. vol.73,2006,p.177.
380Cavadino, M&Dignan, J. The Penal System:An Introduction London:Sage.1997(2nd ed.), p.39.
381Martin, Jacqueline. The English LegalSystem London:Hodder Arnold,2005(4th ed.), p.174.
382ibid.
383Michael Davis, Criminal desert and unfair advantage:What's the connection?, Law and Philosophy, vol.12, no.2,1993, pp.133-156.
384Kenneth W. Simons, The Crime/Tort Distinction:Legal Doctrine And Normative Perspectives,WIDENER LAW JOURNAI,vol.17,2008,pp.719-732.
385参见第五章第三节。
386Ronen Avraham&Issa Kohler-Hausmann, Accident Law for Egalitarians,LEGAL THEORY,vol.12,2006,p.181; John C.P. Goldberg&Benjamin C. Zipursky, Accidents of the Great Society, MD. L. REV.,vol.64,2005,pp.402-403; Gregory C. Keating, Strict Liability and the Mitigation of Moral Luck, J. ETHICS&SOC. PHIL. Vol.2,2006,p.1;see Michael Moore, Placing Blame:A General Theory Of The Criminal law, Oxford University Press,1997,p.5.
387see Anthony Kennedy, Justifying the Civil Recovery of Criminal Proceeds, Journal of Financial Crime, vol.12,no.1,2004,pp.8-23.
388see Robert Cooter, Prices and Sanctions, Columbia Law Review,vol.84,1984, pp.1523-1561.
389有学者考证,在欧洲,原先个人的权利主要通过复仇、民事诉讼来解决,只有侵扰“国王”的安宁的行为才会被犯罪化,后来,个人的重大权利逐渐融入“国王”安宁之中,刑法的体系越来越庞大。参见Emilio S. Binavince, The Ethical Foundation Of Criminal Liability,Fordham law Review,vol.33,1964,pp.1-39.
390即所谓的成本内化说是然。参见,A. Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages:An Economic Analysis,HARV.L. REV. vol.111.1998,pp.873-875.
391Emilio S. Binavince, The Ethical Foundation Of Criminal Liability,Fordham Law Review,vol.33,1964,pp1-39.
392see Bowles, Roger, Michael G. Faure, and Nuno Garoupa. The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions:An Economic View and Policy Implications. Journal of Law and Society, vol.35,2008,pp.389-441.
396William L. Prosser, Handbook Of The Law Of Torts§4, West Publishing1984(5th ed),p.22.
397see Steven Shavell, Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent, Columbia Law Review Vol85,1985,pp.1232-1262.
398ibid.
399see William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of Intentional Torts, Lnternational Review of Law and Economics,Vol1,1981,pp.127-154.
400see Steven Shavell, Liability For Harm Versus Regulation Of Safety, The Journal Of Legal Studies, Vol,13,No2,1984,pp.357-374.
401see Bowles, Roger, Michael G. Faure, and Nuno Garoupa. The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions:An Economic View and Policy Implications. Journal of Law and Society, vol.35,2008,pp.389-441.
402see Robert W. Drane, David.Neal, On Moral Justifications For The Tort/Crime Distinction California Law Review vol68,1980,pp.398-421.
404see Guido Calabresi and A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability:One View of the Cathedral,Harvard Law Review, vol.85, no.6,1972,pp.1089-1128.
405Becker, Gary S. Crime and Punishment:An Economic Approach,Jornal of Political Economy,vol.16,1968,pp.169-217.
406see Guido Calabresi and A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability:One View of the Cathedral,HarvardLaw Review, vol.85, no.6,1972,pp.1089-1128.
407see A. Mitchell Polinsky and Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages:An Economic Analysis, Harvard Law Review, vol.111, no.4,1998,pp.764-780.
408参见和育东：“专利侵权损害赔偿计算制度：变迁、比较与借鉴”,《知识产权》2009年第5期,第7-18页.
409see Steven Shavell, Liability For Harm Versus Regulation Of Safety, The Journal Of Legal Studies, Vol,13,No2,1984, pp.357-374.
410see Steven Shavell, The Fundamental Divergence between the Private and the Social Motive to Use the Legal Syste,. Journal of Legal Studies,vol26,1997,pp.575-612.
414Michael Faure,The White Paper On Environmental Liability: Efficiency And Insurability Analysis, Environmental Liability No.4, Witney (OXON): Sweet&Maxwell,2001,pp.188-201.
415H. Kunreuther, R. Hogarth And J. Meszaros, Insurer Ambiguity And Market Failure, Journal Of Risk And Uncertainty, vol.7,no.1,1993,pp.71-87.
418Rich, Bradford W. Environmental Litigation and the Insurance Dilemma.Risk Management,vol.32,Decembet1985,pp.34-43.
419Martin T. Katzman, Environmental Risk Management Through Insurance, The Cato Journal, vol.,6, No.3,1987, pp775-799.
420ibid.
424Steven Shavell, Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent, Columbia Law Review,vol.85,1985,pp.1232-1262.
425see Steven Shavell, Liability For Harm Versus Regulation Of Safety, The Journal Of Legal Studies, Vol,13,No2,1984,pp357-374.
426Mireille Hildebrandt, Regulatory Offences:Criminal Or Administrative Law? In Foundational Issues In The Philosophy Of Criminal Law, Special Workshop At The23rd IVR Congress, Krakow Poland,2007, pp.55-69.需要说明的是,‘'police"有时不能直接翻译成为“警察”,根据上下文应当理解成为“监管”,比较符合其本来的含义,违警罪,也可以翻译成为违反监管之罪。
427R. Nozick, Anarchy, State And Utopia, p.67..
428see Steven Shavell, Liability For Harm Versus Regulation Of Safety, The Journal Of Legal Studies, Vol,13,No2,1984,pp.357-374.
429ibid.
430see Wittman, Donald. Prior Regulation Versus Post Liability:The Choice between Input and Output Monitoring Journal of Legal Studies vol6,1977,pp.193-211.
431林德瑞：“论惩罚性赔偿”，《中正大学集刊》（创刊号），1998年7月第25-66页；高利红，余耀军：“环境民事侵权适用惩罚性赔偿原则之探究”，《法学》2003年第3期，第106-112页。
433Robert Cooter, price and sanctions, Colum. L.Rev, vol.84,1984,pp.1523-1560.
434Hicks V. Feiock,485U.S.624,636-37(1988); Hilton V. Braunskill,481U.S.770,776(1987); Harris V. Nelson,394U.S.286,293-94(1969). Phillip E. Johnson, Criminal Law (4th Ed.1990); Sanford H. Kadish&Stephen J. Schulhofer, Criminal Law And Its Processes (5th Ed.1989); Wayne R. Lafave, Modern Criminal Law (2d Ed.1988).
435Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J. vol.101,1992,pp.1795-1873.
436金福海：“惩罚性赔偿不宜纳入我国民法典”,《烟台大学学报：哲学社会科学版》,2003年第2期,第157-161。页
437Thomas B. Colby, Beyond The Multiple Punishment Problem:Punitive Damages As Punishment For Individual, Private Wrons, Minnesota Law Review, vol.87,2003, pp.583-678.
438United States v. Halper,490U.S.435(1989).
439United States v.40Moon Hill Road,884F.2d41,43(1st Cir.1989); see also United States v.141st St. Corp.,911F.2d870,880-81(2d Cir.1990), cert, denied,111S. Ct.1017(1991).
441William Holdsworth, A History Of English Law, London:Methuen,1956, p.276(reprint1977).
442杨春然：“注册会计师职务侵权的经济分析和重构”,《台湾东海大学法学研究》,2008年总第29期。
443William L. Prosser, Handbook Of The Law Of Torts, Minnesota:West Pub. Co,1984(5th ed),§4, p.22.
444See, e.g., Jules L. Coleman, Crime, Kickers, and Transaction Structures, in J. Roland Pennock&John W. Chapman Eds: Criminal Justice, New York:New York University Press,1985p.323; Guido Calabresi&A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability:One View of the Cathedral, HARV. L.REV vol.85,1972, pp.1124-1127; Alvin K. Klevorick, Legal Theory and the Economic Analysis of Torts and Crimes, COLUM. L.REV,vol.85,1985,. P.908.批评的观点可以参见George P. Fletcher, A Transaction Theory of Crime?, COLUM. L. REV.vol.85,1985,p.925.
445William Holdsworth, A History Of English Law, London: Methuen,1956,p453(reprint1977).
446Blackstone认为,不法可以分成私的不法和公的不法两种。前者剥夺了个人的财产或者民事权利；后者违反了法律或者职责,从而对整个社会产生消极的影响；所以,这才存在着犯罪与轻罪的区分。William Blackstone, Commentaries (of Prive Wrong): Ln Four Books, p.2
447Jerome Hall, Interrelations of Criminal Law and Torts, COLUM. L. REV.vol.42,1943,p.969.
448See,Gompers v. Bucks Stove&Range Co.,221U.S.418,441-42(1911)。
449这里的报应,其实就是惩罚之意。Browning-Ferris Indus. V. Kelco Disposal,492U.S.257,272(1989); Hicks V. Feiock,485U.S.624,636-37(1988). Hilton V. Braunskill,481U.S.770,776(1987); Harris V. Nelson,394U.S.286,293-94(1969); Fisher V. Baker,203U.S.174,181(1906); Phillip E. Johnson, Criminal Law (4th Ed.1990); Sanford H. Kadish&Stephen J. Schulhofer, Criminal Law And Lts Processes, New York: Wolters Kluwer Law&Business,1989(5th Ed); See Joseph Goldstein Et Al., Criminal Law: Theory And Process, New York: Free Press,1974,pp253-317(1974).
450Robert Cooter, Prices and Sanctions, COLUM. L. REV,vol.84,1984,pp.l523-1560.
452See HENRY M. HART, JR., The Aims of the Criminal Law, LAW&CONTEMP. PROBS. vol.23,1958,pp.401;405.
453Jerome Hall, Interrelations of Criminal Law and Torts, COLUM. L. REV. vol.43,1943,p.756.
4543William Blackstone, Commentaries,pp.*6-7
455在公司法中,法律救济的制度与传统的法律制度是不同的,其包括罚款、资格剥夺、没收财产、制定标准、行政监管、禁令、剥夺交易权利等。
4563William Blackstone, Commentaries,p.*16.
457程序表达了社会的价值,比如,判断的准确性程度、个人隐私和个人自我决定权意义等,参见Herbert L. Packer, The Limits Of The Criminal Sanction, Stanford:Stanford University Press,1968,pp.149-173.
458John H. Wigmore, Evidence In Trials At Common law James H. Chadbourn,1981.pp.2497,2498
459See Douglas Hay&Francis Snyder, Using the Criminal Law,1750-1850:Policing, Private Prosecution, and the State, in Douglas Hay&Francis Snyder eds:Policing And Prosecution In Britain, Oxford:Clarendon Press,1989pp.3,24.
460John C. Coffee, Jr, Paradigms Lost:The Blurring of the Criminal and Civil Law Models-And What Can Be Done About It, Yale L.J. vol.101,1992,p.1875.
461Dan Markel, Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell Law Review, vol.94,2009,p.239; Kenneth Mann,Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J. vol.101,1992,p.1795.
462see Bowles, Roger, Michael G. Faure, and Nuno Garoupa. The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions:An Economic View and Policy Implications. Journal of Law and Society, vol.35,2008,pp.389-441.
463See, e.g., Coffey v. United States,116U.S.436(1886); United States v. One Assortment of89Firearms,465U.S.354,361(1984).
464William Blackstone, Commentaries On The Laws Of England:In Four Books. Boston:Beacon.(Original work published1769).P.2.
465ibid.P.158.
466ibid.
467Atcheson v. Everitt,98Eng. Rep.1142(K.B.1775).
468Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J. vol.101,1992,pp.1795-1873.
469See Restatement (Second) Of Contracts§356(1981); See also Sandra Chutorian, Note, Tort Remedies for Breach of Contract:The Expansion of Tortious Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing into the Commercial Realm, COLUM. L. REV,vol.86,1986,p.377;对此,有人持绝对反对的态度,参见cf. Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co.,769F.2d1284,1286-89(7th Cir.1985).
470Stockwell v. United States,80U.S.13Wall.531531(1871).
471ibid, at547.
472HeLveringv.Mitchell,303U.S.391(1938).
473ibid.Y.395
474Helveringv.Mitchell,303U.S. p.398.
475Mitchell v. Commissioner,89F.2d873,878(2d Cir.1937); Helvering v. Mitchell,303U.S. p.402(1938).
476United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess,317U.S.537(1943).
477United States v. Shapleigh,54F. at130(8th Cir.1893).
478Mitchell,303U.S. at404-405; OTUnited States v. Ward,448U.S.242,254(1980).
479Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale Law Journal, vol.101,1992,p.1831.
480Kennedy v.Mendoza-Martine,372U.S.144(1963).
481518F.2d990,1011(5th Cir.1975). The appeal of this case was joined for hearing with Frank Irey, Jr., Inc. v. Occupational Safety&Health Review Comm'n,519F.2d1200(3d Cir.1974), affdon reh'g,519F.2d1215(3d Cir.1975), affd sub. nom. Atlas Roofing,430U.S.442
482Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission,372U.S. at168-169(1963)
483518F.2d at992.-994.
484United States v. Ward,448U.S.242(1980).
485See Richard A. Posner, Optimal Sentences for White-Collar Criminals, AM.CRIM. L. REV. vol.17,1980,pp409,417.不过,对于监禁刑而言,其威慑效果却不能由罚款数额的增加来取代。参见,John C. Coffee, Jr., Corporate Crime and Punishment:A Non-Chicago View of the Economics of Criminal Sanctions, AM. CRIM. L. REV. vol.17,1980,p.423.
486Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488.
487United States v. Chouteau,102U.S.603(1880).
488Revised Statutes,第3303条和3296条。
489United States v. Chouteau,102U.S.603(1880).
490Boyd v. United States,116U.S.616(1886), and One1958Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania,380U.S.693(1965). Fisher v. United States,425U.S.391(1976); United States v. Leon,468U.S.987(1984),
491Tull v. United States,481U.S.412(1987); Clean Water Act,33U.S.C.§§1251-1297(1988); Erica Clements, Comment, The Seventh Amendment Right to Jury Trial in Civil Penalties Actions:A Post-Tull Examination of the Insider Trading Sactions Act of1984, U. MIAMI L. REV. vol.43,1988, p.361.
492Boyd v. United States,116U.S.616(1886), and One1958Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania,380U.S.693(1965). Fisher v. United States,425U.S.391(1976); United States v. Leon,468U.S.987(1984).
493United States v. Harper,490U.S.448(1989).
494United States v. Halper,490U.S.448(1989).
495United States v. Halper,490U.S.445; United States v.38Whalers Cove Drive,954F.2d29(2d Cir.1991); Lynn C. Hall, Note, Crossing the Line Between Rough Remedial Justice and Prohibited Punishment:Civil Penalty Violates the Double Jeopardy Clause, WASH. L. REV,vol.65,1990,p.437.
496490U.S.435(1989)
497Susan Shapiro, The Road Not Taken:The Elusive Path to Criminal Prosecution for White-Collar Offenders, LAW&SVC. REV.vol.19,1985,p.205.
498See Lawrence G. Baxter, Judicial Responses to the Recent Enforcement Activities of the Federal Banking Regulators, FORDHAML. REV,vol,59,1991,p.198.
499Thomas B. Colby, Beyond The Multiple Punishment Problem:Punitive Damages As Punishment For Individual, Private Wrons, Minnesota Law Review, vol.87,2003, pp.583-678.
500Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488.
501ibid.
502Ciraolo v. City of New York,216F.3d236,244-46(2d Cir.2000). See, e.g., A. Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages:An Economic Analysis,HARV. L. REV.vol.111,1998,p.906.
503A. Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, ibid,pp.873-875.
504也就是说,其并不主张要全面的杜绝行为的发生,而是根据边际效率来决定是否实施某种行为。这一点与完全预防是不同的。参见杨春然：“环境侵权责任的经济分析和可保性研究”,《新疆社会科学》,2010年第2期。
505A. Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages:An Economic Analysis, Harvard Law Review,Vol.111, No.4, Feb.,1998,pp.873-875.
506QTBMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore,517U.S.559,592-594(1996).
507Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008, pp.1386-1488.
508TXO procj Corp. v. Alliance Res. Corp.,509U.S. at460-462(1993). see Posting of Dan Markel to PrawfsBlawg, Philip Morris:Up in Smoke?, http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2007/02/philip_morris_u.html (Feb.20,2007); see also BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore,517U.S.559,582n.35(1996); Kirkland v. Midland Mortgage Co.,243F.3d1277,1280(11th Cir.2001).
509Philip Morris USA v. Williams,549U.S.346,353-54(2007)陪审团判决,死者妻子获得经济赔偿是2.1万美元,非经济赔偿金是80万美元,惩罚性赔偿金是7950万美元.ibid. At350.; See Williams v. Philip Morris Inc.,176P.3d1255,1260-61(Or.2008). S. Philip Morris USA Inc. v.Williams,128S. Ct.2904(2008); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams, No.07-1216, slip op.(U.S. Mar.31,2009).
510Thomas B. Colby, Clearing the Smoke from Philip Morris v. Williams.The Past, Present, and Future of Punitive Damages, YALE L.J. vol.118,2008, pp.467-479.
511Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488.
512See Dan Markel, Retributive Damages:A Theory of Punitive Damages as Intermediate Sanction, CORNELL L. REV. vol.94,2009,pp.257-266.
513See Anthony J. Sebok, What Did Punitive Damages Do? Why Misunderstanding the History of Punitive Damages Matters Today, CHI.-KENT L.REV.vol.78,2003,pp.204-205.
514see Anthony J. Sebok&Vanessa Wilcox, Aggravated Damages, in Helmut Koziol&Vanessa Wilcox eds, Punitive Damages:Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives, Vienna:Springer-Verlag Vienna,2009.
515See Michael B. Kelly, Do Punitive Damages Compensate Society?, SAN DIEGO L. REV,vol.41.2004,p.1441.
516Dan Markel, Wrong Turns on the Road to Alternative Sanctions:Reflections on the Future of Shaming Punishments and Restorative Justice, TEX. L. REV,vol.85,2007,p.1385.
517Sachin Bansal, Philip Morris Usa V. Williams:A Confusing Distinction, Duke Journal Of Constitutional Law&Public Policy Sidebar, Vol.3,,2007'. pp.49-61.
518Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University ofPennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488.
519ibid.
520Michael S. Moore, The Moral Worth Of Retribution, In Responsibility, Character And The Emotions:New Essays In Moral Psychology179, p.179(Ferdinand Schoeman ed.,1987). Moore认为,道德可责性等同于报应。Id. at181-82; cf. also H.L.A. HART, Postscript:Responsibility and Retribution, in Punishment And Responsibility:Essays In The Philosophy Of Law,2008(2d ed.).pp.210-231.
521Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008, pp.1386-1488.
522John Rawls, Two Concepts of Rules, PHIL. REV.vol.64,1955,pp.3-5.
523Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488.
524Anthony J. Sebok, Punitive Damages:From Myth to Theory, LOWA L. REV,vol.92,2007,pp.1032-1036.
525See Guido Calabresi&A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability:One View of the Cathedral, HARKL. REV,vol.85,1972,pp.1126-27.
526See Jeffrie G. Murphy&Jules L. Coleman, Philosophy Of Law, Totowa:Rowman and Allenheld,1990,p.116.
527See Gerard V. Bradley, Retribution:The Central Aim of Punishment, HARV. J.L.&PUB. POL, vol.27,2003,pp.25-26; John Finnis, Retribution:Punishment's Formative Aim, Am. J. Jurisprudence,vol.44,1999, pp.99-101.
528Dan Markel, Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell Law Review, vol.94,2009,p.264.
529See Hugo Adam Bedau, An Abolitionist's Survey of the Death Penalty in America Today, in Hugo Adam Bedau&Paul G. Cassell eds.,2004:Debating The Death Penalty15,34-35.
531Thomas B. Colby, Beyond The Multiple Punishment Problem:Punitive Damages As Punishment For Individual, Private Wrons, Minnesota Law Review, vol.87,2003, pp.583-678.
532David G. Owen, The Moral Foundations of Punitive Damages, ALA. L. REV. vol.40,1989, p.730.
533See Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.,563N.W.2d154, pp.158-162(Wis.1997)
534比如,允许第三人就加害行为所造成的精神伤害提出赔偿。参见Of Restatement (Second) Of Torts§§313(2),436(3)(1965).
535Cf., e.g., MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN.§767.41(West2008); NEB. REV. STAT. ANN.§29-1606(LexisNexis2003).
536从技术的角度看,律师检索起诉权制度通过非当事人提起诉讼的方式,强行执法,似乎违反了Philip Morris的判决。不过,因为其并不是要求损害赔偿,而是对不法行为进行中间性的处罚,其代表的是国家,所获得收益是源自于国家利益,所以,这种做法并非不妥。参见Philip Morris USA v. Williams,127S. Ct.1057,1063(2007).; Jordan Rau, Key Ballot Measures Go Governor's Way, L.A. TIMES, Nov.3, at Al (2004).
537See Larry Laudan, The Social Contract and the Rules of Trial Procedure (Feb.25,2008), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1075403.
538E.g., Dan Markel, Against Mercy, MINN. L. REV,vol.88,2004,pp.1453-1464; Dan Markel, Luck or Law? The Constitutional Case Against Indeterminate Sentencing, FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No.376,June,2009; see also Paul H. Robinson, Distributive Principles Of Criminal Law:Who Should Be Punished How Much?, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2008,pp.62-66; Cf. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip,499U.S.1,46-48(1991).
539Dan Markel, Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell Law Review, Vol.94,2009,pp.287-288; SeeMsrk A. Geistfeld, Punitive Damages, Retribution, and Due Process,81S. CAL. L. REV. vol.81,2008, p.263.
540ibid..263.
541Dan Markel, Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction,Cornell Law Review,vol.94,2009,pp.287-288.
542Thomas B. Colby, Beyond The Multiple Punishment Problem:Punitive Damages As Punishment For Individual, Private Wrons, Minnesota Law Review, vol.87,2003, pp.583-678.
543See Cass R. Sunstein et al., Predictably Incoherent Judgments, STAN. L.REV,vol.54, June,2002,pp.1172-1173.
544ibid, at1171-1179..
545See Cass R. Sunstein et al., Assessing Punitive Damages (with Notes on Cognition and Valuation in Law), The Yale Law Journal,Vol.107, No.7, May,1998,at2074-2075.See, e.g., Neil Vidmar, Experimental Simulations and Tort Reform: Avoidance, Error, and Overreaching in Sunstein et al.'s Punitive Damages, Emory Law Journal, Vol.53,2004,p.1366.
547See Bureau Of Justice Assistance, How To Use Structured Fines (Day Fines) As An Intermediate Sanction1(1996), available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/156242. pdf; Nora V. Demleitner Et Al., Sentencing Law And Policy:Cases, Statutes, AND GUIDELINES598-99(2d ed.2007).
548See BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore,517U.S.559,615(1996).
549这种观点只考虑被告的不法行为仅仅威胁到他人的财产这种情况。报应性赔偿金绑定在赔偿金之上的结构,不会鼓励被告人挑选穷人作为受害人,除非这些穷人不大可能通过侵权制度寻求救济或者获得赔偿。
549当然,对于赔偿金是否也会传递价值不平等这种错误信息,也会产生很多的问题。不过,Geistfeld认为,应当使用政府监管数据和监管方法去量化社会成本。
550参见See Mark A. Geistfeld, Punitive Damages, Retribution, and Due Process,81S. CAL. L. REV. at284-295(2008).
551罚金额既不能也不应当被法律所固定。从很多的原因看,金钱的价值自身是有可变性的,不管在何时,损毁一个人财产的后果,另一个人可能根本不予关心；Ronen Perry, The Role of Retributive Justice in the Common Law of Torts:A Descriptive Theory, Tennessee Law Review, Vol.73,2006,p.188;给无产者或者意外的伤害者处以一千元的罚金,就足够了,但对于富人而言,损失一千元,可能不会有任何的感觉。See4William Blackstone, Commentaries*378.
552See Mathias v. Accor Econ. Lodging, Inc.,347F.3d672,677(7th Cir.2003).
553在诉讼中,有时富人有可能通过经济能力,迫使诉讼拖延,使得原告人无法承受相关的诉讼成本。See CGBOccupational Therapy, Inc. v. RHA Health Servs., Inc.,499F.3d184,192(3d Cir.2007); Cont'1Trend Res., Inc. v. OXY USA Inc.,101F.3d634,642(10th Cir.1996).
554cf.Kenneth S. Abraham&John C. Jeffries, Jr., Punitive Damages and the Rule of Law:The Role of Defendant's Wealth, The Journal of Legal Studies,Vol.18, No.2, Jua,1989, pp.421-424.
555See, e.g., Brief Amicus Curiae of the Business Roundtable in Support of Appellant Urging Reversal, White v. Ford Motor Co.,500F.3d963(9th Cir.2005)(No.05-15655).at7n.1(citing Bell v. Clackamas County,341F.3d858,868(9th Cir.2003)); see also Bell,341F.3d at868.
556See Vac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip,499U.S.1,21-22(1991).
557See Robert Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981,pp.366-368.
558Eric Kades, Windfalls, The Yale Law Journal,Vol.108, No.7, May,1999,p.1564.
559当然,这种规定是不合理的,参见杨春然：“论罪犯的权利”,《山东理工大学学报(社科版)》,2006年第2期。
560这种观点实质上没有将罚款考虑在内。Cf.Marc Galanter&David Luban, Poetic Justice:Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism,AM. U. L. REV,vol.42,1993,pp.1457-1458.
561Dan Markel,Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell Law Review, Vol.94,2009,pp.239-340.
562比如Mark A. Geistfeld认为宪法正当程序对惩罚性赔偿的限制,不应当适用于痛苦和疼痛性的损害赔偿,Due Process and the Determination of Pain and Suffering Tort Damages, DEPAUL L. REV,vol.55,winter,2006,p.331.
563宪法正当程序对惩罚性赔偿的限制,不应当适用于痛苦和疼痛性的损害赔偿,参见Mark A. Geistfeld, Due Process and the Determination of Pain and Suffering Tort Damages, DEPAUL L. REV,vol.55,winter,2006,p.331(2006);比如,对于疼痛之类的伤害,相似的痛苦而赔偿金存在着巨大的差别。Id,p.342.
564以经济收入为基础的做法,会破坏平等原则,参见Dan Markel,Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell Law Review, Vol.94,2009,pp.290-291.
565see Thomas B. Colby, Clearing the Smoke from Philip Morris v. Williams:The Past, Present, and Future of Punitive Damages, Yale Law Journal, Vol.118,2009,p.469.
566Colby,ibid. P.476;Michael P. Allen, The Supreme Court, Punitive Damages and State Sovereignty, GEO. MASONL. REV.vol.13,2004,pp.21-25.
567See generally1WAYNE R. LAFAVE ET AL. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE§1.8(e)(3d ed.2008)(discussing special constitutional rules in the capital punishment context); Stuart P. Green, Rationing Criminal Procedure:A Comment on Ashworth and Zedner, CRLM. L.&PHII. Vol.2,2008,pp.53,-54.
568Stuart P. Green, Rationing Criminal Procedure:A Comment on Ashworth and Zedner, CRLM. L.&PHIL. Vol.2,2008,pp.53,-54; Scott,440U.S.367; Callan v. Wilson,127U.S.540(1888); Mackinv. United States,117U.S.348,351(1885).
569See generally Gabriel J. Chin, Race, the War on Drugs, and the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction, J. GENDER RACE&JUST.vol.6,2002,p.253.
570See Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice:Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, AM. U. L. REV. vol.42,1993,pp.1457-1458.
571Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J,vol.101,1992.
572See Benjamin C. Zipursky, A Theory of Punitive Damages, TEX L.REV,vol.84,2005,-p.146.
573Dan Markel,Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell Law Review, Vol.94,2009,pp.239-340.
574ibid.pp.287-289.
575Linda L. Schlueter&Kenneth R. Redden, Punitive Damages, LEXIS Publishing,2005(5th ed),§5.3(H)(2); COLO. REV. STAT.§13-25-127(2)(2008).
576Hoffman v. United States,341U.S.479,486(1951); see also Carlson v. United States,209F.2d209,214(1st Cir.1954)
577See Ronald J. Allen, Theorizing About Self-Incrimination, CARDOZOL. I..REV,vol.30,no.25,2008,pp.730-739; William J. Stuntz, Self-Incrimination and Excuse, COLUM. L. REV. vol.88,1988,pp.1227-1228.
578美国宪法第五修正案规定,当行为人拒绝拿出证据反驳对其不利的证据时,在民事案件中,可以对其进行不利的推论,这也是一个主要的规则,See Baxter v. Palmigiano,425U.S.308,318(1976); See, e.g., Hale v. Henkel,201U.S.43,67(1906); see also18U.S.C.§6003(2006).
579See Lefkowitz v. Turley,414U.S.70,77(1973); Spevack v. Klein,385U.S.511,515-16(1967).
581Jeremy Bentham, Rationale Of Judicial Evidence, Littleton:Colo., Fred B. Rothman&Co.1995(1827).p.1.
582Markel, Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?,University of Pennsylvania Law Review vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488
583See Ronald J. Allen, Theorizing About Self-Incrimination, CARDOZOL. REV,vol.30. December,2008,pp.734-736.
584即使承认不得强迫自证其罪权,无辜的被告人仍可以告诉事实真相,而有罪的被告人则可以合理地使用这种权力。这样,有罪的被告人就不能通过撒谎而与无辜的人混在一起,最后导致法官不会错误地给无辜的被告人定罪。See Daniel J. Seidmann&Alex Stein, The Right to Silence Helps the Innocent:A Game-Theoretic Analysis of the Fifth Amendment Privilege, Harvard Law Review, Vol.114,2000.p.430-510.
585See Stephanos Bibas, The Right to Remain Silent Helps Only the Guilty, IOWA L.REV,vol.88,2003,p.421.
586See ibid, at432不过,Alex Stein对此又进行解释。参见Alex Stein, The Right to Silence Helps the Innocent:A Response to Critics, CARDOZOL. REV,vol.30,2008,p.1115.
587被告人有回答依法进行的审问的义务,正义并不会因此而受到影响。See Palko v. Connecticut,302U.S.319,326(1937)(Cardozo, J.).
588United States v. Halper,490U.S.435,440(1989), overruled on other grounds by Hudson v. United States,522U.S.93,95-96(1997).. See Dep't of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch,511U.S.767,769n.1(1994).
589See, e.g., Helvering v. Mitchell,303U.S.391,399(1938); United States v. Ely,142F.3d1113,1121(9th Cir.1997); Hansen v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp.,734F.2d1036,1042(5th Cir.1984); cf. Hudson,522U.S. at99.
590See, e.g., Shore v. Gurnett,18Cal. Rptr.3d583,586-87(Ct. App.2004).
591See State v. McDowell,699A.2d987,989(Conn.1997).
592See See Thomas B. Colby, Clearing the Smoke from Philip Morris v. Williams:The Past, Present, and Future of Punitive Damages, Yale L.J.vol.118,December,2008,pp.452-453; Malcolm E. Wheeler, The Constitutional Case for Reforming Punitive Damages Procedures, Virginia Law Review, Vol.69, No.2, Mar.,1983,p.272.; See, e.g., Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,378F.2d832,841(2d Cir.1967)(Friendly, J.)
593See Blockburger v. United States,284U.S.299,304(1932)
594See Marc L. Miller&Ronald F. Wright, Criminal Procedures, New York:Aspen,2007(3d ed),pp.1002-1005.
595See Heath v. Alabama,474U.S.82,88(1985).
596Dan Markel, Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell L. Rev,vol.94,2009,pp.280-286.
597就此而言,我国行政处罚的有关禁止双重处罚的规定,是有一定的问题的。
598Dan Markel, Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell L. Rev,vol.94,2009,pp.280-286.
599Tullidge. v. Wade,95Eng, Rep, p.909(C.P.1769).
600ibid.
601BMW of North America, Inc. v.Gore,517U.S. P.563(1996).
602Thomas B. Colby, Beyond The Multiple Punishment Problem:Punitive Damages As Punishment For Individual, Private Wtons,Minesota Law Review, vol.87,2003, pp.594-595.
603Ibid,p.595.
605The Insider Trading Sanctions Act of1984,15U.S.C.§78u-1(a)(2)(1988);. Cf. One1958Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania,380U.S.693(1965).
606See generally Jeffrey Reiman, The Rich Get Richer And The Poor Get Prison:Ideology,Crime, And Criminal Justice (8th ed.2007)(探讨对富人进行处罚的障碍).
607See Stuart P. Green, Lying, Cheating,And Stealing:A Moral Theory Of White-Collar Crime, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006,pp.14-20; See Darryl K. Brown, The Problematic and Faintly Promising Dynamics of Corporate Crime Enforcement, Ohio St. J. Crim. Z.vol.l, Spring,2004, pp.526-28.
609Darryl K. Brown, The Problematic and Faintly Promising Dynamics of Corporate Crime Enforcement, OHIO ST. J. CRIM. Z.vol.1,2004,p.528; Kurt Eichenwald, White-Collar Defense Stance: The Criminal-less Crime, N.Y. TIMES, Mar.3,2002,§4,p.3.
610See Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice: Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, AM. U. I. REV. vol.42,1993,pp.1440-1445.
611David G. Owen, Civil Punishment and the Public Good,56S. CAL. L. REV.vo.56, no.4,1982, p.103; See, e.g., Thomas H. Koenig&Michael L. Rustad, In Defense Of Tort Law,New York: New York University,2001,pp.82-101; See David. G. Owen, Punitive Damages in Products Liability Litigation, Michigan law Review, Vol.74, No.7, Jua,1976,pp.l325-1361.
612Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice: Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism,AM U. I. REVvolA2,1993,p.1441.
613See Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.,174Cal. Rptr.348,382-83(Cal. Ct. App.1981); David Luban, Lawyers And Justice: An Ethical Study, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1988,pp.206-213.反对的观点可以参见,Gary T. Schwartz, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, RUTGERS I. REV,vol.43,1991,pp.l020-1026; Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice: Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, AM. U. I. REV. vol.42,1993,p.1441. see Gary T. Schwartz, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, RUTGERS I. REV,vol.43,1991,pp.1020-1035.
615Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice:Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, AM. U. L. REV. vol.42,1993,p.1441.616本文将罚款视为是报应性赔偿,其实,就是惩罚性的赔偿,但是惩罚性赔偿通常还包含着加重性的赔偿和威慑性赔偿,后两者有时很难解释成为具有“惩罚性”,再加上,人们习惯上将后两者也称之为惩罚性赔偿,所以,本文借鉴有些学者的观点,将罚款成为报应性赔偿,参见Markel, Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488; See THOMAS H. KOENIG&MICHAEL L. RUSTAD, IN DEFENSE OF TORT LAW,2001, p.176.
617Cf. Tom Baker, Blood Money, New Money and the Moral Economy of Tort Law in Action, LAW&SOC' Y REV. vol.35,2001,p.314.
618See Darryl K. Brown, The Problematic and Faintly Promising Dynamics of Corporate Crime Enforcement,1OHIO ST. J. CRIM. L. vol.1,2004,p.524.
619Set See Tom Baker, Transforming Punishment into Compensation: In the Shadow of Punitive Damages, WIS.L. REV.1998, pp.219-220,222; Tom Baker, Liability Insurance as Tort Regulation: Six Ways that Liability Insurance Shapes Tort Law in Action, CONN. INS. L.J.,vol.12,2005,pp.1,4-6.
620Cf,Mathias v. Accor Econ. Lodging, Inc.,347F.3d672,677(7th Cir.2003).
621Kenneth Mann, Defending White-Collar Crime: a Portrait Of Attorneys At Work, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,1985,pp.4,8-13,22-23,200,204,218,231.
622Stuart P. Green, Lying, Cheating, And Stealing: A Moral Theory Of White-Collar Crime, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006, pp.28-29.
623Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice: Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, AM. U.L. REV. vol.42,1993,p.1443; see also John Braithwaite&Gilbert Geis, On Theory and Action for Corporate Crime Control, in ON WHITE-COLLAR CRIME189,189-94(Gilbert Geis ed.,1982).
624See Kathleen F. Brickey, In Enron's Wake: Corporate Executives on Trial, J. CRIM. L.&CRIMINOLOGY,,vol.96,2006, pp.397,419; See Christine Hurt, The Undercivilization of Corporate Law, J. CORP. L.vol.33,2008,pp.361,373-375,378-379.
625See Christine Hurt, The Undercivilization of Corporate Law, J. CORP. I. Vol.33,2008, p.404.
626Samuel W. Buell, Criminal Procedure Within the Firm, STAN. L. REV,vol.59,2007,pp.1613,1616. Press Release, Dep't of Justice, Justice Department Revises Charging Guidelines for Prosecuting Corporate Fraud (Aug.28,2008), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/August/08-odag-757.html.
627See ibid. at37173；错误1是指行为人没有违法而受到追究,或者违法较轻而受到较重的处罚；错误2是指违法行为没有受到追究,或者较重的违法行为受到了较重的处罚。参见后文。
628See Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice:Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, AM. U. I. REV. vol.42,1993,p.1443.
629See Cary Segall, Bill Would Ease Punitive Damages, WIS. ST.J., Nov.29,1987, p.12.
630H. Koenig&Michael L. Rustad, In Defense OfTort Law,New York:New York University,2001,pp.69-101.
631See Timothy A. Johnson, Note, Sentencing Organizations After Booker,YALE L.J.vol.116,n.47,2006.p.632,641.
632See Assaf Hamdani&Alon Klement, Corporate Crime and Deterrence, STAN.L. REV,vol.61,2009.pp.271-310.
633See Joseph A. Grundfest, Over Before It Started, N.Y. TIMES, June14,2005, p.A23; see Assaf Hamdani&Alon Klement, ibid; Elizabeth K. Ainslie,Indicting Corporations Revisited:Lessons of the Arthur Andersen Prosecution, AM. CRIM.L. RFF.,vol.43,2006,p.107. See Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States,544U.S.696,708(2005).
634See Hamdani&Klement, supra note,p.273.273Kathleen F. Brickey, Andersen's Fall from Grace, WASH. U. L.Q. Vol.81,2003,pp.917-929.
635Kathleen F. Brickey, Andersen's Fall from Grace, WASH. U. L.Q. Vol.81,2003, pp.917-929.
636See, e.g., Larry E. Ribstein, Perils of Criminalizing Agency Costs,J. Bus.&Tech. Z.vol.2.,n.1,2007,pp.59-69;Cf. Miriam Hechler Baer, Insuring Corporate Crime, IND. L.J. vol.83,2008,p.1035.
637See Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice:Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, AM. U. L. REV. vol.42,1993,p.1444; see also Darryl K. Brown, Street Crime, Corporate Crime, and the Contingency of Criminal Liability,U. PA. L. REV,vol.149.2001,pp.1295,1331.
638参见《中国人民共和国刑法》第1条。
639Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J. vol.101,1992, pp.1845-1848.
640See Cesare B. Beccaria, An Essay On Crimes And Punishment, London, E. Hodson,1801(5th Ed); Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction To The Principles Of Morals And Legislation, Laurence J. Lafleur Ed., Hafner Publishing,1948; A. V. Dicey, Lectures On The Relation Between Law And Public Opinion Ln England During The Nineteenth Century,1905, p.125.
641William M. Landes&Richard A. Posner, The Economic Structure Of Tort Law,1987,p.6,该书探讨了功利主义的发展史,明确指出这种观点源自于边沁。
642Cesare B. Beccaria, An Essay On Crimes And Punishment, London, E. Hodson,1801(5th Ed),pp.94-98.
643Jerome Hall, Interrelations of Criminal Law and Torts (pts.1&2), COLUM. L. REV,vol.43,1943,p.758.
644ibid,p,753.
645Charles A. Reich, Beyond the New Property:An Ecological View of Due Process, BROOK. L. REV,vol.56,1990,pp.731,743.
646Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis Of Law (3d Ed.1986).在该文中,波斯纳指出,维持人们对侵权法的信赖,有一个前提,即一旦确定其对损害负有责任,其必须要对此进行赔偿。损害赔偿金之所以由受害人享有,而不是国家享有,有两个方面的原因,其一,鼓励受害人积极起诉,这对侵权法有效地控制过失行为是非常关键的；其二,避免受害人采取过分的预防,即防止过剩预防。
647ibid,p.205.
648Lawrence M. Friedman, Total Justice (1985)该书提到了很多原本在法律之外后来被法律处罚的一些行为,其甚至用“法律爆炸”来描述这种变化。
649S. REP. NO.345,99th Cong.,2d Sess.2(1986), reprinted in1986U.S.C.C.A.N.5266,5267
650修正案将罚金的上限从1万美元提高到100万美元,有期徒刑从5年增加到10年。18U.S.C.§287(1988).
651See H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co.,492U.S.229(1989); Report of the Ad Hoc Civil RICO Task Force,1985A.B.A. SEC. CORP., BANKING&BUS. L.55-56.
652See Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip,111S. Ct.1032,1066(1991).
653ibid, at1032。
654ibid, at1035; See also Browning-Ferris Indus, v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.,492U.S.257(1989).
655BMW of North America,Inc. v. Gore701So.2d507(Ala,1997)。
656See Robert L. Robin, Federal Regulation in Historical Perspective,38STAN. L. REV.1189,1191-96(1986).
657Stephen G. Breyer&Richard B. Stewart, Administrative Law And'Regulatory Policy,1992(3dEd.),pp.20-31.
658Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law,Fale L.J,vol.101,1992.
659Glen O. Robinson Et Al., The Administrative Process, at456-57(3d ed.1986).
660See ROBINSON ET AL,ibid, at552-555.
661See ROBINSON ET AL,ibid, at8-9.
662See United States v. Ward,448U.S.242(1980); Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety&Health Review Comm'n,430U.S.442(1977)
663Civil Monetary Penalties Act of1981,42U.S.C.§1320a-7a (1988).
664See RONALD A. CASS&COLIN S. DIVER, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW503(1987);cf Jonathan D. Libber, Penalty Assessment at the Environmental Protection Agency: A View From Inside,35S.D. L. REV.189(1990).
665See ibid, CASS&DIVER, supra, at536-38.
666Colin S. Diver, The Assessment and Mitigation of Civil Money Penalties by Federal Administrative Agencies,79COLUM. L. REV. at1440(1979).
667The evolution from judicial to administrative assessment of civil penalties is found in the False Claims Act,31U.S.C.§3729(1988).
668See Ronald M. Levin, Understanding Unreviewability in Administrative Law,74MINN. L. REV.689(1990); cf. Colin S. Diver, The Optimal Precision of Administrative Rules,93YALE L.J.65,77-78(1983).
669Kenneth W. Simons, The Hand Formula in the Draft Restatement (Third) of Torts:Encompassing Fairness as well as Efficiency Values, VAND. L. REV. Vol.54,2001,pp.905. Markel, Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work??, University of Pennsylvanta Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488.
670Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?,University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488.
671ibid.
672ibid.
673See Susan Shapiro, Wayward Capitalists, Yale Univ Press,1987,p.159.
674See John C. Jeffries, Jr.&Paul B. Stephan Ⅲ, Defenses, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law, YALEL.J. vol.88, no.7,june,1979,p.l367. See Ann Hopkins, Mens Rea and the Right to Trial by Jury, California Law Review,Vol.76, No.2,Mar.,1988,p.391.
675ibid, at273.. Herbert L. Packer, The Limits Of The Criminal Sanction, Stanford:Stanford University Press,1968,p.251.
676See United States v. Sanchez-Escareno,950F.2d193,200(5th Cir.1991); United States v. Mayers,897F.2d1126,1127(11th Cir.1990), cert, denied,111S. Ct.178(1990); see also United States v. Bizzell,921F.2d263,266-67(10th Cir.1990).
677See Elizabeth S. Jahncke, United States v. Harper, Punitive Civil Fines, and the Double Jeopardy and Excessive Fines Clauses,66N.Y.U. L. REV. at139-142(1991)。这一点与我国行政处罚法第28条第二款的规定不同。
678U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual§lbl.l (1992).
679See Joseph T. Small, Jr.&Robert A. Burgoyne, Criminal Prosecutions Initiated by Administrative Agencies:The FDA, The Accardi Doctrine and the Requirement of Consistent Agency Treatment,. The Journal of Criminal Law and CriminolVol78, No.1, Spring,1987,pp.116-117
680Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip,111S. Ct.1032(1991).
68118U.S.C.§1964(c)(1991); See generally William M. Landes&Richard A. Posner, The Private Enforcement of Law, J. LEGAL STUD,vol.4, no.62,November,1974,1-46.
682See, e.g., Browning-Ferris Indus, v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.,492U.S.257(1989).
683United States v. Halper,490U.S.435,451(1989).
684Gary S. Becker&George J. Stigler, Law Enforcement, Malfeasance, and Compensation of Enforcers,3J. LEGAL STUD.1(1974).
685See Susan Shapiro, The Road Not Taken:The Elusive Path to Criminal Prosecution for White-Collar Offenders, LAW&SOC. REV.vol.19,1995. pp.187-190.
686See Stephen G. Breyer&Richard B. Stewart, Administrative Law And Regulatory Policy,New York:Aspen,1992(3d ed),pp.3-6.
687Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J,vol.101,1992.
688490U.S.435(1989)
689Susan Shapiro, The Road Not Taken:The Elusive Path to Criminal Prosecution for White-Collar Offenders, LAW&SOC. REV,vol.19,1985,p.205.
690See Anthony J. Sebok, What Did Punitive Damages Do? Why Misunderstanding the History of Punitive Damages Matters Today, CHI.-KENTL. REV,vol.78,2003,pp.204-205.
691Cf. BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore,517U.S.559,592-594(1996).
692Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488; A. Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, pp.873-875.
693William r. Landes&Richard a. Posner, The Economic Structure Of Tort Law,1987, pp.153-160.
694即complete deterrence" or "total deterrence",Alan H. Scheiner, Note, Judicial Assessment of Punitive Damages, The Seventh Amendment and The Politics of Jury Power, COLUM. L. REV. Vol.91,1991,p.175..
695Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J. vol.101,1992, pp.1845-1848.
696John C. Coffee, Jr, Paradigms Lost:The Blurring of the Criminal and Civil Law Models-And What Can Be Done About It. YaleLJ, vol,101, June,1992, p.1879.
697See Jules L. Coleman, Crime, Kickers, and Transaction Structure, in Nomos Xxvii:Criminal Justice, J. Ronald Pennock&John W. Chapman eds.,1985,pp.289;313; Alvin K. Klevorick, Legal Theory and the Economic Analysis of Torts and Crimes,85COLUM. L. REV. Vol.85,1985,pp.907-908(1985).
700SeeJohn C. Coffee, Jr., Does "Unlawful" Mean "Criminal"?:Reflections on the Disappearing Tort/Crime Distinction in American Law,71B.U. L. REV.193(1991).
701See Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, An Economic Analysis of the Criminal Law as a Preference-Shaping Policy,1990DUKE L.J.1.; Professor Dau-Schmidt or Professor Johnston.; Jason S. Johnston, Punitive Liability:A New Paradigm of Efficiency in Tort Law,87COLUM. L. REV.1385(1987),,
702John C. Coffee, Jr, Paradigms Lost:The Blurring of the Criminal and Civil Law Models--And What Can Be Done About It. Yale.J, vol,101, June,1992, pp.1875-1893.
703ibid.
704See Jeffrey Reiman, The Rich Get Richer And The Poor Get Prison:Ideology, Crime, And Criminal Justice (8th ed.2007)(探讨对富人进行处罚的障碍).
706周小燕：“墨西哥湾漏油污染罚款引争议”，《亮报》，第LB08版，2011年4月9日。
708George P. Fletcher, A Transaction Theory of Crime?, COLUM.L. REV,vol.85,1985,p.924.
709需要注意的,这里的行政犯并不受法院的管辖,属于行政的范畴。seeMireille Hildebrandt, Regulatory Offences: Criminal Or Administrative Law? In Foundational Issues In The Philosophy Of Criminal Law, Special Workshop At The23rd IVR Congress, Krakow Poland,2007, pp.55-69..
710ibid..
711ibid.
713Winfried Hassemer, Justification And Excuse In Criminal Law:Theses And Comments, Brigham Young University Law Review,1983,pp.573-609.
714不管是行政拘留、劳动教养,还是行政罚款,在一定程度上违反了《公民权利和政治权利公约》第9条第1款的规定。尽管中国大陆已经签署还未获人大批准,但是中国政府以及多次表示要实施该公约。
715see Miceli, T., Optimal prosecution of defendants whose guilt is uncertain, Journal of Law, Economics and Organisation, vol.6,1990,pp.189-201.
716see Ogus, Anthony, and Carolyn Abbot. Sanctions for Pollution:Do We Have the Right Regime? Journal of EnvironmentalLaw,vol14,2002,pp.283-298.
717see Becker, Gary S. Crime and Punishment:An Economic Approach-Journal of Political Economy,vol76,1968,pp.169-217.
718参见林山田：《刑罚学》,台湾商务印书馆,1985年版,第128页。
719see Steven Shavell, Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent Columbia Law Review1985,Vol85,pp.1232-1262.
720see Ogus, Anthony, and Carolyn Abbot. Sanctions for Pollution:Do We Have the Right Regime? Journal of Environmental Law,vol.14,2002,pp.283-298.
721Joel feinberg, The Expressive Function Of Punishment,in Doing And Deserving, Princeton:Princeton University Press1970,pp.95-118.
722Elizabeth S.Anderson&Richard H. Pildes, Expressive Theories of Law:A General Restatement, U. Pa. L. Rev. vol.148,200,p.1503; Richard H. McAdams, A Focal Point Theory of Expressive Law, Va. L. Rev vol.86,2000,p.l649: Richard H. Pildes, Why Rights Are Not Trumps:Social Meanings, Expressive Harms, and Constitutionalism, J. Legal Stud.vol.28,1998,p,725; Dan M. Kahan, What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean? U. Chi. L. Rev. vol.63,1996,p.591; Cass R. Sunstein, On the Expressive Function of Law, U. Pa. L. Rev.vol.144,1996,p.2021; Elizabeth Anderson, Value in Ethics and Economics,1993,pp.17-43; Lawrence Lessig, The Regulation of Social Meaning, U. Chi. L. Rev.vol.62,1995,p.943; Richard H. Pildes&Richard G. Niemi, Expressive Harms,"Bizarre Districts," and Voting Rights:Evaluating Election-District Appearances After Shaw v. Reno, Mich. L. Rev.vol.92,p.483.
723Carol Steiker, Foreword:Punishment and Procedure:Punishment Theory and the Criminal-Civil Procedural Divide, Geo. L.J. vol.85,1997,pp.775,803; see also Dan M. Kahan, The Secret Ambition of Deterrence, Harv. L. A?kvo1.113, n.16,1999,pp.419-20; Dan M. Kahan, What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean? U. Chi. L. Rev.vol.63,1996,pp.591,595; Dan M. Kahan, The Cognitively Illiberal State, STANFORD LAWREVLEW vol60,2007,pp.115-154.
724Joel Feinberg, Harm To Others, pp.24,248; Joel Feinberg, Harmless Wrongdoing, pp.149,354.
725Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April200lp.105.
726Jean Hampton, Liberalism, Retribution and Criminality, in In Harm s Way: Essays in honor of Joel Feinberg, Jules L. Coleman&Allen Buchanan eds.,1994,p.54.
727Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001. p.103.
728see Rasmusen, Eric. Stigma and Self-Fulfilling Expectations of Criminality. Journal of Law and Economics, vol39,1996,pp.519-543.
729see Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and PunishmentExploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.5,2001,pp.145-172.
730see see Rasmusen, Eric. Stigma and Self-Fulfilling Expectations of Criminality. Journal of Law and Economics, vol39,1996,pp.519-543.
731Coffee JR.,Does "Unlawful" Mean "Criminal"?: Reflections on the Disappearing Tort/Crime Distinction in American Law. Boston University Law Review, vol71,1991,pp.193-246.
732see Rasmusen, Eric. Stigma and Self-Fulfilling Expectations of Criminality. Journal of Law and Economics, vol39,1996,pp.519-543.
[89] see Abril Bedarf,Comment:Examining Sex Offenders Community Notification Laws, Californial Law Review, Vol83,1995,pp.885-886.
733see Rasmusen, Eric. Stigma and Self-Fulfilling Expectations of Criminality. Journal of Law and Economics, vol39,1996,pp.519-543..
734see Coffee JR.,Does "Unlawful" Mean "Criminal"?:Reflections on the Disappearing Tort/Crime Distinction in American Law. Boston University Law Review vol71,1991,pp.193-246.
735see Alon Harel and Alon Klement, The Economics of Stigma:Why More Detection of Crime May Result in Less Stigmatization, Journal of 'Legal' Studies vol36, at355-377(2007).
736see R. Posner, Shame, Stigma, and Crime:Evaluating the Efficacy of Shaming Sanctions in Criminal Law. Harvard Law Review vol116,at2186-2207(2003).
737see Funk, Patricia. On the Effective Use of Stigma as a Crime-Deterrent. European Economic Review vol48,2004,pp.715-728.
738see Kahan, Dan M., and Eric A. Posner. Shaming White-Collar Criminals:A Proposal for Reform for the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Journal of Law and Economics,vol.42,1999,pp.365-391.
739参见贺乐民、高全：“论政府与公民行政合作的理念与构建”,《理论导刊》,2008年第6期,第68-75页。
740see Keith Hawkins,Bargain and Bluff:Compliance Strategy and Deterrence in the Enforcement of Regulation, Law and Policy Quarterly, vol.5,no.1,1983,pp.35-73.
741see Michael G. Faure and Marjolein Visser, Law and Economics of Environmental Crime, in New Perspectives on Economic Crime, ed. Hans Sjogren and Goran Skogh,Cheltenham, Northampton:Edward Elgar,2004,pp.67-68.
742see Bowles, Roger, Michael G. Faure, and Nuno Garoupa. The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions:An Economic View and Policy Implications. Journal of Law and Society, vol.35,2008,pp.389-441.
see K. Pistor and C. Xu, Incomplete Law, Journal of International Law and Politics,vol35,2004,pp.931-1013.
746Rasmusen, Eric, An Economic Approach to Adultery Law, Marriage and Divorce: An Economic Perspective, edited by Antony Dnes and Robert Rowthorn,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2002. Chapter5, pp.70-91.
747ibid.
748kuk cho, The Crime Of Adultery In Korea:Inadequate Means For Maintaining Morality And Protecting Women, Journal Of Korean Law, vol.2, No.1,2002.pp.82-87.
749M J Siegel, For Better or for Worse:Adultery, Crime and the Constitution,Journal of Family Law Vol.30Issue:1,1992, pp45-96;Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, legal theory, vol11,2005,pp.259-284.
750ibid.
751kuk cho, The Crime Of Adultery In Korea:Inadequate Means For Maintaining Morality And Protecting Women, Journal Of Korean Law, vol.2, No.1,2002.pp.82-87.
752美国法学会编：《美国模范刑法典及其评注》,刘仁文等译,北京：法律出版社,2005年版,第144页。
753M J Siegel, For Better or for Worse:Adultery, Crime and the Constitution Journal of Family Law Volume:30Issue:1,1992, pp.45-96.
754Cousin Couple.(2009, February7). Wikipedia. Retrieved March3,2009From http://en.wikipedia.Org/w/index.php?title=Cousin_couple&oldid29154596.
755Kasemset, Should Consensual Incest Between Consanguine Adults Be Restricted?,Intersect,vol.2,2009, pp.83-89.
756Is Incest Okay? Christian Apologetics&Research Ministry. Retrieved March3,2009from http://www.carm.org/questions/about-sexuality/incest-okay(2009, March3).
[123] Lawrence v. Texas.(2003, June26). No.539U.S.558.
758杨春然：“伤害原则对法益保护原则的一次超越——兼论犯罪的本质”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2010年第2期。
759Kasemset, Should Consensual Incest Between Consanguine Adults Be Restricted? Intersect,vol.2,2009, pp.83-89.
760Giinther Jakobs, Imputation in the Criminal Law and the Conditions for NormValidity, BuK Crim. L. Rev vol7,2004,pp.491-495.
761Bendor, J. and Swistak, P,The evolution of norms. American Journal of Sociology, vol.106,no.6:,2001,pp.1490-545.
762但是,在规则层面上,价值在某些领域,比如恐怖犯罪领域,具有价值回归的趋势,但是,其不并不能否定规则判断的形式价值。参见Thomas Gilly, At the Crossroad Among Crime, Norms and Values.
763C R Snyman, The Definition Of The Proscription And The Structure Of Criminal Liability, The South African Law Journal,vol111,1994,pp.65-79;杨春然：“论故意在三阶层犯罪论体系中的位置”,《中外法学》,2011年第4期。
764See Hassemer&Kerner, Unrechtsbewubtsem Und Soziale Norm, Im3Sozialwissenschaften Im Studium Des Rechts: Strafrecht W.Hassemer&K. LUDerssen1st ed,67-70(1978); Hassemer&Hart-Honig, Generalpravention Im Strabenverkehr, Im Sozialwissenschaften Im Strafrecht,s.230-251(hassemer ed,1984).
765Frederick Schauer, Playing By The Rules:A Philosophical Examination Of Rule-Based Decision-Making In law And In Life, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1991, pp.77-78.
766颜厥安：从规范缝隙到规范存有——初探法律论证中的实践描述,《法律方法与法律思维》,2008年第5辑,第3-21页。
767巴比备忘录第44页。
768Article31(1)(d)ICC St。
769See P. Gaeta, May Necessity Be Available as a Defence for Torture in the Interrogation of Suspected Terrorists?, pp785-794.
770范立波：“规范裂缝的判定与解决”,《法学家》2010年第1期,第6-15页。
771Christopher Kutz, Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics, pp.243-244.(2007).
772Oren Gross, Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience,p.124.
773John T. Parry&Welsh S. White, Interrogating Suspected Terrorists:Should Torture be an Option? The University of Pittsburgh Law Review,vol62.2002, p.763.
774Is Torture Ever Justified?, The Economist Jan.11,2003, p.9转引自Oren Gross, Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience, p.149.
775Jeremy Waldron,Torture and Positive Law:Jurisprudence for the White House.pp.1721-1722.
776Thomas Nagel, War And Massacre, In War And Moral Responsibility, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1974, pp.3-5.
777See Yehezkel Dror, Challenge to the Democratic Capacity to Govern, in Martha Crenshaw, ed., Terrorism, Legitimacy, and Power:The Consequences of Political Violence Middletown, CT:Wesleyan University Press,1983,p.65.
778Harold Hongju Koh, A World Without Tor-ture, COLUM. J. TRANSNATL Z.vol.43,2005,p.655.
779United Nations, Committee Against Torture; Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article19of the Convention, Second Periodic Reports of States Parties Due in1996, Addendum, Israel7U.N. Doc. CAT/C/33/Add.2/Rev.l (1997).
780J. Mayer, Outsourcing Torture:The Secret History Of American's Extraordinary Rendition Program, at3,new Yorker,14feb,2005, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6(2009,november10).
781转引自Giorgi Chantuira, Torture-Closing The Pandora'S Box,p.l6.
782G.Gudjonsson, The Psychology Of Interrogations, Confessions And Testimony, Chichester:John Wiley&Sons,1999,p.217-218.
783这是心理学上的“心理抗拒理论”(reactance theory)、“恐惧管理理论”(terror management theory)和“创后应激理论”(traumatic stress theory)等结论,参见：S. Oskamp,P. W. Schultz Applied Social Psychology, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,Nj,1998,p.34; J. Greenberg, V. Solomon, P. Mitchell. A. Rosenblat, S. Kirland And D. Lyon, Evidence For Terror Management Theory Ⅱ, Journal Of 'Personality And 'SocialPsychology Vol.58,1990,pp.308-318.
784Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule,p.682.
785See Engander,Grund und Grenzen der Dothilfe,2008, s.335
786Rejali, Darius. Torture and Democracy, Princeton:Princeton University Press,2007, pp.21-23.
787Oren Gross, Chaos And Rules:Should Responses To Violent Crises Always Be Constitutional? Yale LJ, Vol112,2003,pp.1011-1042;
788Wantchekon, Leonard and Healy, Andrew. The'Game'of Torture, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol43,1999, pp.596-609.
789ibid,pp.599-600.
790ibid,pp.600-605.
791ibid,p.605.
792Jess Bravin and Gary Fields, How Do Interrogators Make Terrorists Talk, Wall Street Journal,2003,March3.
793Sobel, Joel. A Model of Declining Standatds,fnternational EconomicReview,vol41,2000, p.299.
794ibid, at304.
795ibid.at305
796Oren Gross, Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience, p.124
797. Hugo M. Mialon, Sue H. Mialon, etc, An Economic Analysis of Torture in Counterterrorism, p.7http://www.suemialon.com/research/an_economic_analysis_of_torture_in_counterterrorism_dec_10_2008.pdf
798Posner, Richard, The Best Offense, The New Republic September2,2002, pp.28-31.
799Oren Gross, Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience, p150.
800ibid, p130.
801David Cole, Enemy Aliens, Stanford Law Review, Vol.54,2002, pp.953-1005.
802一般来说,规范的行为侧面指向的是公众,而裁判侧面指向的是司法机关。参见Meir Dan-Cohen, Decision Rules And Conduct Rules:On Acoustic Separation In Criminal Law, Harv. L.Rew, vol97,1984, pp.625-667对于酷刑禁止来说,这一点恰恰发生了颠倒,因为根据反酷刑公约第1条的规定,司法机关或者侦查机关的工作人员是酷刑的实施者。
803See Henry Shue, Torture, p.143
804ibid, p.141.
805Amnesty International, Torture And Ill-Treatment:The Arguments, Amnesty International,2006, available at http://as iapacific. amnesty. org/pages/stoptorture-arguments-eng(2009).
806虽然其他的刑法禁止也不会得到有效的执行,但是,酷刑禁止与其不同,其规制的对象系国家公职人员的执法和行政行为。
807Mario J. Rizzo&Douglas Glen Whitman, The Gamel'S Nose In The Tent:Rules,Theories, And Slippery Slopes, UCLA.L.REV, vol51,2003,, p539.Frederick Schauer, Slippery Slopes, HARV. L. RFV.vol99,1985, p361.
808Oren Gross, Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience, p.153.
809Jens David Ohlin, The Torture Lawyers, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol.51,2010, p.199.
811See landgericht frankfurt a.M.,Judgment of20December2004, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift(2005),S,692-696.
812Jens David Ohlin, The Bounds Of Necessity, Journal OfInternaional Criminal Justice, vol.6,2008, p.297.
813ibid.
814Restatement(first)of torts§76; Salmond, Torts,11th ed., Heuston,1953, p.375.
815Restatement(second)of torts§76,Jens David Ohlin, The Bounds Of Necessity,p.297.
816这是德国特别委员会对刑法改革的报告提出的观点,参见Berufung auf die Begrundung des Sonderausschusses Strafrechtsreform in BT-Drucks. V/4095, S.16.
817See K. Shapira Ettinger, The Conundrum of Mental States:Substantive Rules and Evidence, Combined Cardozo Law Review,vol28,2007,pp.2577-2596.
818ibid.
819See P.H. Robinson, A Theory of Justification:Societal Harm as a Prerequisite for Criminal Liability, UCLA Law Review, Vol.23,1975,pp.266-292.
820See D. Davidson, Belief and the Basis of Meaning, in Lnquiries into Truth and Interpretation, New York:Oxford University Press,2001, p.141.
821这是德国特别委员会对刑法改革的报告提出的观点,对此,罗克辛提出了批评,指出这一点为什么不适用于为了财产而进行了紧急避险?参见克劳斯·罗克辛：《德国刑法学总论(第1卷)》,王世洲译,北京：法律出版社2005年版,第637页。
822参见：汉斯·海因里希·耶塞克、托马斯·魏根特：《德国刑法教科书》,许久生译,北京：中国法制出版社2001年版,第579页。
823罗克辛认为,免责的紧急避险的根据乃在于特殊预防与一般预防。参见克劳斯·罗克辛：《德国刑法学总论(第1卷)》,第637-738页。
824G..P. Fletcher, The Right And The Reasonable, Harvard Law Review, vol98,1985, pp.949-981.
825Jens David Ohlin, The Bounds Of Necessity, p.304
826CF. M.S. Moore, Causation And The Excuses, California Law Review, Vol73,1985,pp1091-1122,
827该案的情况是,被告是波斯尼亚·塞尔维亚军队的士兵,一天早晨,被告和九个人组成一个爆破小队,试图杀死波斯尼亚的平民。被告认为,他只杀死了70个人。他说,在这之前,其实是不知道其具体的任务是什么,但是,上司命令他必须和他人的行为保持一致,否则,自己和家人的生命会遭受不测。当时,他不想杀人,但是,他的上司说,不能留有活口,并命令他杀死了大楼内的500个人,他拒绝这么干,不过,周围有三个士兵强迫他杀了人。Sentencing judgment, prosecutor v. Erdemovic, case IT-96-22-T, T.CH.|,||28(CTY29Nov1996), at, http://www.un.org/icty.erdemovic/trialc/judgment.erd-tsj961129.htm>(访问时间是2001年3月20日).
828See P. Gaeta,May Necessity Be Available as a Defence for Torture in the Interrogation of Suspected Terrorists? p.793..
829Oren Gross,"Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience", pp101-175.
830See HCJ5100/94, Public Committee Against Torture In Israel V. Israel, Supreme Court Of Israel, Judgment Of6September1999.
831符合法益保护原则,并不一定说该行为一定会符合伤害原则,因为伤害原则还包含着对行为人主观上的要求。参见Albin Eser, The Principle Of "Harm"In The Concept Of Crime:A Comparative Analysis Of The Criminally Protected Legal Interests, Duquesne University Law Review,vol.14,1965.
832哈伯特L.帕克著：《刑事制裁的界限》，梁根林等译，法律出版社2008年版，第10-11页。
1胡建淼：《行政法学》，北京：法律出版社，2003年版。
2沈开举：《行政责任研究》，郑州：郑州大学出版社，2004年版。
3罗豪才：《行政法论》，北京：光明日报出版社，1988年版。
4于改之：《刑民分界论》，北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，2007年版。
5张维迎：《信息、信任与法律》，上海:三联书店出版，2003年版。
6国务院法制办：《政府立法中的法律责任设定研究论文集》，北京：中国法制出版社，2010年版。
7戴玉忠、刘明祥主编：《犯罪与行政违法行为的界限及惩罚机制的协调》，北京：北京大学出版社，2008年版。
8马克昌：《犯罪通论》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，1999年版。
10何秉松主编：《刑法教科书》上卷，北京：中国法制出版社，2000年版。
11高铭暄主编：《刑法学原理》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，1994年版。
12高铭暄、赵秉志编：《新中国刑法立法文献资料总览》，北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，1998年版。
13张新宝：《侵权责任法原理》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005年版。
14陈兴良著：《刑法哲学》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，1991年版。
15陈兴良著：《本体刑法学》，商务印书馆，2001年版。
16张明楷：《刑法的基本立场》，北京：法律出版社，2002年版。
17张明楷著：《刑法格言的展开》，北京：法律出版社，1999年版。
18李永升著：《刑法学的基本范畴研究》，重庆：重庆大学出版社，2000年版。
19李邦友著：《结果加重犯基本理论研究》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2002年版。
20张智辉著：《刑事责任通论》，北京：警官教育出版社，1995年版。
21冯军著：《刑事责任论》，北京：法律出版社，1996年版。
22王晨著：《刑事责任的一般理论》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，1998年版。
20高仰止著：《刑法总则之理论与实用》，台北：台湾五南图书出版公司，1986年版。
21韩忠谟著：《刑法原理》，台北：台湾雨利美术印刷有限公司，1987年增订14版。
22张灏著：《中国刑法理论及实用》，台北：台湾三民书局，1980年版。
23林山田著：《刑法通论》，台北：台湾三民书局，1986年版。
24陈朴生著：《刑法专题研究》，台北：台湾三民书局，1988年版。
25洪福增著：《刑事责任之研究》，台北：台湾刑事法杂志社，1982年版。
26高绍先著：《中国刑法史精要》，北京：法律出版社，2001年版。
27梅传强著：《犯罪心理生成机制研究（修订版）》，北京：中国检察出版社2008年版
29张明楷著：《法益初论》，中国政法大学出版社,2000
31王利荣著：《行刑法律机能研究》，法律出版社，2001年版。
32高铭暄、赵秉志主编：《当代国际刑法的理论与实践》，吉林人民出版社，2001年版。
34林山田:《刑罚学》，台湾商务印书馆，1985年版。
35熊选国著：《刑法中行为论》，北京：人民法院出版社，1992年版。
36（日）大冢仁著：《犯罪论的基本问题》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，1993年版。
37（日）木村龟二主编：《刑法学词典》，上海翻译出版公司，1991年版。
38（日）小野清一郎著：《犯罪构成要件理论》，北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，1991年版。
39（日）野村稔著：《刑法总论》，全理其译，北京：法律出版社，2001年版。
40.密尔：《论自由》，许宝译，北京：商务印书书馆，1998年版，
41（日）大谷实著：《刑事政策学》，黎宏译，北京：法律出版社，2000年版。
42（日）大谷实著：《刑法讲义总论》，黎宏译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2008年版。
43（日）西原春夫著：《刑法的根基与哲学》，北京：法律出版社，2004年版。
44梅仲协,《民法要义》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998年版;
45杨鸿烈,《中国法律思想史·下》,上海:商务印书馆,1936年版。
46储槐植著：《美国刑法》（第二版），北京：北京大学出版社，1996年版。
47李永升：经济刑法，法律出版社，2011年版。
48薛瑞麟著：《俄罗斯刑法研究》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年版。
49马克昌主编：《近代西方刑法学说史》，北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，2008年版。
50甘雨沛、何鹏著:《外国刑法学》（上、下），北京：北京大学出版社，1984年版。
51张明楷著：《外国刑法纲要》，北京：清华大学出版社，1999年版。
52赵秉志主编：《外国刑法原理》（大陆体系），北京：中国人民大学出版社，2000年版。
53美国法学会编：《美国模范刑法典及其评注》，刘仁文等译，北京：法律出版社，2005年版。
54（德）克劳斯·罗克辛：《德国刑法学总论（第1卷）》，王世洲译，北京：法律出版社2005年版。
55（德）汉斯·海因里希·耶塞克、托马斯·魏根特：《德国刑法教科书》，许久生译，北京：中国法制出版社2001年版。
56（美）哈伯特L.帕克著：《刑事制裁的界限》，梁根林等译，北京：法律出版社2008年版。
57杨春然：《上市公司欺诈及法律控制研究》，北京：群众出版社，2007年版。
58刘芝详：“法益概念辨识”，《政法论坛》，2008年第4期。
59张明楷：“犯罪的概念探讨”，《法学研究》，1989年第3期。
60黄文艺：“作为一种法律干预模式的家长主义”，《法学研究》，2010年第1期。
61杨春然：“论违法性与正当化事由缺失之间的规范缝隙及跨越——以英国连体婴儿案为例”，《中国刑事法杂志》，2011年第3期。
62杨春然：“论故意在三阶层犯罪论体系中的位置”，《中外法学》，2011年第4期。
63杨春然：“注册会计师职务侵权责任的经济分析和重构”，台湾东海大学《法学研究》，总共第29期（2008）。
64张子礼、杨春然：“论犯罪化的原则”，《河北法学》，2011年第4期。
65杨春然：“环境侵权责任的经济分析和可保性研究”，《新疆社会科学》，2010年第2期。
66陈清浦郭亚:“刑法中的严格责任若干问题研究”，《北京化工大学学报》（社会科学版）2004年第1期。
67颜厥安：从规范缝隙到规范存有——初探法律论证中的实践描述，《法律方法与法律思维》，2008年，第5辑。
68杨春然：“冒犯型犯罪的根据：伤害原则对法益保护原则的一次超越——兼论犯罪的本质”，《中国刑事法杂志》，2010年第2期。
69杨春然、胡乾坤、陈一凡：“论假冒专利罪的客观要件”，《山东理工大学学报（社会科学版）》，2004年第1期。
70陈兴良：“犯罪范围的合理定义”，《法学研究》2008年第3期。
71王钢：”出于营救目的的酷刑与正当防卫”，《清华法学》，2010年第2期。
72(英)安德鲁·冯·赫尔希，文樊文译，《法益的概念与“损害原则”》，《刑事法评论》第24卷。
73徐昕：“通过私力救济实现正义——兼论报应正义”，《法学评论》,2003年第5期。
74孙宪忠：“再谈物权行为理论”，《中国社会科学》，2001年第5期。
75梁根林：“犯罪化及其限制”，《中外法学》，1998年第3期。
76钊作俊、刘蓓蕾：“犯罪化与非犯罪化论纲”，《中国刑事法杂志》，2005年第5期。
77黄京平、陈鹏展：“无被害人犯罪非犯罪化研究”，《江海学刊》，2006年第4期;
78张明楷：“司法上的犯罪化与非犯罪化”，《法学家》，2008年第4期。
79陈正云：“刑法调控范围研究”，《中国法学》1996年第06期
80刘艳红：“新刑法调控范围之理性思考与启示”，《法律科学》，1999年第3期。
81刘宪权：《中国刑法学讲演录》，北京：人民出版社，2011年版。
82夏勇：《定罪与犯罪构成》，北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，2009年版。
83刘宪权、杨兴培：《刑法学专论》,北京：北京大学出版社,2007年版。
84李永升：《廉政建设与刑事法治研究》,中国公安大学出版社,2011年版。
85李永升：《经济刑法学》,中国法律出版社,2009年版。
86C. Clarkson, Introducing CriminalLaw,London: Sweet&Maxwell,2006.
87Claus Roxin, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil Band I,3. Auf1., C. H. Beck1997.
88Peter Sina, Die Dogmengeschichte des strctfrechtlichen Begriffs "Rechtsgut", Basel:Helbing&Lichtenhahn,1962.
89Hans-Heinrich Jescheck&Thomas Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strctfrechts: Allgemeiner Teil,Berlin:Duncker&Hamblot,1996.
90John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, New York:Norton Critical Editions,1975,
91Joel Feinberg, Harmless Wrongdoing, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1988.
92Joel Feinberg, Offense to Others,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1985.
93Michael Moore, Placing Blame: A General Theory Of The Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1997.
94J. Feinberg, Harm to Others, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1984.
95William Blackstone, Commentaries On The Laws Of England: Ln Four Books. Boston: Beacon.1769.
96Robert D. Cooter&Thomas S. Ullen, Law and Economics, Boston: Addison Wesley,1997(2d ed).
97George P. Fletcher, The Grammar Of Criminal Law: American, Comparative, Lnternational,Oxford: Oxford University Press,2007.
98H-H Jeschk, Lehrbuch Drs Strafrechts,Allgemeiner, Teil4ed,1988.
99.H.L.A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1978.
100James Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,London: Smith and Elder,1873.
101.H.L.A. Hart, Law, Liberty, and Morality,Stanford: Stanford University Press,1963.
102Georg Rusche,Otto Kirchheimer,Dario Melossi, Punishment and Social Structure, New Jersey: Columbia university press,2009(fifth).
103ules L. Coleman, The Practice of Principle: Ln Defense of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2001.
104John Stuart Mill, On Liberty,Norton Critical Edition,1975.
105Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, Yale:Yale University Press,1991Alejandro Alagia, Alejandro Slokar,&EugenioRaulZaffaroni, Derecho Penal: Parte General,2002(2nd ed.).
106George p. Fletcher, Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1998.
107P.J.A. Feuerbach, Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland geltenden peinlichen Rechts,1801(lst ed).
108Cornelius Nestler, Betaubungsmittelstrafrecht, Grundlagen und Kritik, in Handbuch des Betaubungsmittelstrafrechts, Arthur Kreuzer ed.,1997.
109Claus Roxin, Strafrecht: Allgemeiner Teil I, Miinchen: Beck,1997Hans-Heinrich Jescheck&Thomas Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts: Allgemeiner Teil6,1996(5th ed.).
110Alejandro Alagia, Alejandro Slokar,&Eugenio Raul Zaffaroni, Derecho Penal: Parte General,2002(2nd ed).
111Markus D. Dubber, Criminal Law: Model Penal Code,New York: Foundation Press,2002.
112Ivo Appel, Verfassung und Strafe: Zu den verfassungsrechtlichen Grenzen staatlichen Strafen, Berlin:Verlag. Duncker&Humblot,1998.
113Jesus M. Silva Sanchez, Kriminalpolitik bei der Strafrechtsdogmatik, in Strafrechtssystem und Betrug,2002(Bernd Schiinemann ed.).
114Claus Roxin, Kriminalpolitik und Strafrechtsdogmatik heute, in Strafrechtssystem und Betrug,stuttgart:Centaurus,2002.
115Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1965.
116Roscoe pound, jurisprudence,St. Paul, Minn: West Publishing Co.,1959.
117John Gray and G.W.Smith, J.S.Mill's On liberty in focus, New York:Routledge,2003.
118Jonathan Herring, Great Debates: Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009.
119A. Simester and G. Sullivan, Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine,Hart Publishing,2008(3rd ed).
120Douglas Hay&Francis Snyder, Using the Criminal Law, in Policing, Private Prosecution, and the State, in Douglas Hay&Francis Snyder eds: Policing And Prosecution Ln Britain, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1989.
121A. Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:"Remote" Harms and Fair Lmputation', in A. Simester and A. Smith (eds), Harm and Culpability, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996.
122Rasmusen, Eric, An Economic Approach to Adultery Law, Marriage and Divorce: An Economic Perspective, edited by Antony Dnes and Robert Rowthorn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2002.
123Jonathan Herring, Great Debates: Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009.
124Mark Findlay, Stephen Odgers and Stanley Yeo, Australian Criminal Justice, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005(3rd ed).
125Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2006.
126Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law,London: Stevens&Sons,1983(2nd ed).
127Nicola Lacey, Celia Wells and Oliver Quick, Reconstructing Criminal Law Text and Materials, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003(3rd ed).
128Simester and GR Sullivan, Criminal Law Theory and Doctrine Oxford:Hart Publishing,2003.
129Bernadette McSherry and Bronwyn Naylor, Australian Criminal Laws: Critical Perspectives,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2004.
130Mark Findlay, Stephen Odgers and Stanley Yeo, Australian Criminal Justice,Oxford:Oxford Univers ity Press,2005(3rd ed).
131AP Simester and GR Sullivan, Criminal Law Theory and Doctrine, Oxford:Hart,2003.
132Simon Bronitt and Bernadette McSherry, Principles of Criminal Law, Sydney:lawbook Co,2005(2nd ed).
133Nicola Lacey, Celia Wells and Oliver Quick, Reconstructing Criminal Law Text and Materials, Law in Context (3rd ed,2003).
134Christopher B. Gray, Philosophy of Law:An Encyclopedia, New York and London:Garland Pub. Co,1999.
135Nina Nikku, Informative Paternalism, Studies In The Ethics Of Promoting And Predicting Health, Linkoping:Linkopings Universitet,1997.
136John Stuart Mill, Principles Of Political Economy, With Some Of Their Applications To Social Philosophy, London; Longmans, Green and Co.1965.
137Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts Of Liberty, In Four Essays On Liberty, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1969.
138Gerald Dworkin, Paternalism, and Paternalism:Some Second Thoughts, both reprinted in Dworkin, The Theory And Practise OfAutonomy,Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1983.
139Dan Brock, Paternalism and Promoting the Good, In Rolf Sartorius, Ed., Paternalism,Minneapolis:Puniversity Minnesota Press,1983.
140Richard Dean, The Value OfHumanity Ln Kant's Moral Theory, Oxford:Clarendon Press,2006.
141R. Nozick, Anarchy, State And Utopia, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1974.
142Geoffrey Best, War And Law Since1945, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1994.
143Hassemer&Hart-Honig, Generalprdvention Lm Strabenverkehr, Im Sozialwissenschaften Im Strafrecht,1984(hassemer ed).
144Douglas Husak, Overcriminalization:The Limits Of The Criminal Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008.
145Dan Markel, Wrong Turns on the Road to Alternative Sanctions:Reflections on the Future of Shaming Punishments and Restorative Justice, TEX. L REV,vol.85,2007.
146Paul H. Robinson, The Criminal-Civil Distinction And The Utility Of Desert, Boston University Law Review, vol.76, April,1996.
147Markus Dirk Dubber, The Promise of German Criminal Law:A Science of Crime and Punishment, Ge Rman Law Joumal,Vol.6-No.7,2005.
148Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001.
149Jules L. Coleman, The Practice of Principle:In Defense of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory, Harvard Law Review,vol.115,no.6.Apri12002.
150Jean Hampton, The Moral Education Theory of Punishment, Philosophy&Public Affairs Vol.13, No.3Summer,1984.
151Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.5,2001.
152Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, Colum. L. Rev.vol.85,No.6, Oct,1985.
153Santiago mirpuig:Legal Goods Protected By The Law And Legal Goods Protected By The Criminal Law As Limits To The State's Power To Criminalize Conduct, New Criminal Law Review, vol,11,no,3,2008.
154Claire Finkelstein, Positivism and the Notion of an Offense, Calif. L. Rev. vol.88,2000.
155Christopher Kutz, Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics, California Law Review.,vol.95,2007'.
156John T. Sanders, why the numbers should sometimes count, Philosophy G Public Affairs,vol.17no1,winter,1988.
157Michael S. Moore, Torture and Balance of Evils, Israel Law Review,Vol23,1989.
158John M.Taurek. Should The Numbers Count? Philosophy G Public Affairs, vol6,no4Summer.1977.
159Becker, Gary S. Crime and Punishment:An Economic Approach.Joumal of Political Economy,vol76,1968.
159Steven Shavell, Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent, Columbia Law Review,Vol851985.
160Benjamin C. Zipursky, Civil Recourse, Not Corrective Justice, GEO. LJ.vol.91,2003.
161Cass R. Sunstein, David Schkade&Daniel Kahneman, Do People Want Optimal Deterrence?, J. LEGAL STUD,vol.29,2000.
162Robert W. Drane, David.Neal, On Moral Justifications For The Tort/Crime Distinction, California Law Review, Vol.68, No.2, Mar.,1980.
163C R Snyman, The Definition Of The Proscription And The Structure Of Criminal Liability, The South African Law Journal,vol.111,1994.
164Jean Hampton, The Moral Education Theory of Punishment, Philosophy&Public Affairs Vol.13, No.3, Summer,1984.
165Bendor, J. and Swistak, P.he evolution of norms. American Journal of Sociology American Journal of Sociology Vol.106, No.6, May2001.
166Elizabeth S. Anderson&Richard H. Pildes, Expressive Theories of Law:A General Restatement,148U.Pa L. Rev.vol.148,2000.
167Richard H. McAdams, A Focal Point Theory of Expressive Law,86Va. L Rev. vol.86,2000.
168Dan M. Kahan, What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean?63U. Chi. L. Rev. vol.63,1996.
169Dan M. Kahan, The Secret Ambition of Deterrence, Harv. L. Rev.vol113,1999.
170Carol Steiker, Foreword:Punishment and Procedure:Punishment Theory and the Criminal-Civil Procedural Divide, Geo. L.J. vol.85,1997.
171John Gardner, Punishment, Morality, and the State:Prohibiting Immoralities, Cardozo L. Rev, vol.28,2007.
172Santiago Mirpuig:Legal Goods Protected By The Law And Legal Goods Protected By The Criminal Law As Limits To The State'S Power To Criminalize Conduct, New Criminal Law Review, Vol,11,Number,3,2008.
173Luis E. Chiesa, Normative Gaps in the Criminal Law:A Reasons Theory of Wrongdoing, New Criminal Law Review Vol.101,2007.
174Bernd Schunemann, The System of Criminal Wrongs:The Concept of Legal Goods and Victim-based Jurisprudence as a Bridge between the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code, Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.7, No.2, January2004.
175Hart, The Aims Of The Criminal Law,Law and Contemporary Problems Vol.23, No.3, Summer,1958.
176Claire Finkelstein, Positivism and the Notion of an Offense, Calif. L. Rev,vol.88,2000.
177lbin Eser, The Principle Of "Harm"In The Concept Of Crime:A Comparative Analysis Of The Criminally Protected Legal Interests, Duquesne University Law Review, vol.14,1965.
178M. Madden Dempsey,Rethinking Wolfenden:Prostitute Use, Criminal Law and Remote Harm, Criminal Law Review,2005.
179D. Dripps, The Liberal Critique Of Harm Principle,Criminal Justice Ethics, vol.17,1998.
180C. Clarkson, Introducing Criminal Law, Sweet&Maxwe, vol.11,2006.
181A. von Hirsch,The Offence Principle in Criminal Law:Affront to Sensibility or Wrongdoing? Kings College Law Journal,vol.11,2000.
182R. Duff, Answering for Crime:Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, New Criminal Law Review,vol,12,2009.
183R. Duff and S. Marshall, Criminalization and sharing wrongs, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence.vol.11,1988.
184P. Cane, Taking law seriously:starting points of the Hart/Devlin Debate,The Journal of Ethics, vol.10,2006.
185R. Duff and S. Marshall, Criminalization and sharing wrongs, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence vol.111998.
186Richard A.Epstein, The Harm Principle And How It Grew, University Of Toronto Law Journal, vol45,1995.
187D. Husak, the Criminal Law as Last Resort, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol24,2004.
188Hamish Stewart, Legality and Morality in HLA Hart's Theory of Criminal Law, SMU Law Review,vol.52,1999.
189Nicola Lacey,'Abstraction in Context, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies,vol.l4,1994.
190Mirko Bagaric, The "Civilisation" of the Criminal Law, Criminal Law Journal, vol.25,2001.
191John Gardner, Prohibiting Immoralities, Cardozo Law Review,Vol.28,no.6,2007.
192Nicholas Capaldi, Liberal Value Versus Liberal Social Philosophy,Phil,&Theology,vol.4,1990.
193Larry A. Alexander, Deontology at the Threshold, San Diego Law Review, vol.37,2000.
194Frances Kamm, A Right To Choose Death? Boston review, vol22,1997.
195J. David Velleman, A Right of Self-Termination?,Ethics,vol.109,1999.
196Colin Camerer, Samuel Issacharoff, etc, Regulation For Conservatives:Behavioral Economics And The Case For "Asymmetric Paternalism" University Of Pennsylvania Law Review,Vol.151,2003.
197Dixon, N., Boxing, Paternalism, and Legal Moralism, Social Theory and Practice, vol.27,2001.
198Gerald Dworkin,"Moral Paternalism," Law and Philosophy, vol.24,2005.
199Oren Gross, Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience, Minnesota Law Review. Vol88,2004.
200Albin Eser, The Principle Of "Harm"In The Concept Of Crime:A Comparative Analysis Of The Criminally Protected Legal Interests, Duquesne University Law Review, vol.14,1965.
201Derek parfit, innumerate ethics, Philosophy GPublic Affairs,vol.1,no4,1978.
202Jeremy Waldron, Torture and Positive Law:Jurisprudence for the White House, Columbia Law Review, vol.105,2005.
203Bowles, Roger, Michael G. Faure, and Nuno Garoupa. The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions:An Economic View and Policy Implications. Journal of Law and Society, vol.35,2008.
204Christopher Kutz, Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics, California Law Review,vol.95,2007'.
205Florian Jessberger,Bad Torture-Good Torture? Journal of Lnternational Criminal Justice Vol.3,2005.
206F.M. Kamm, Non-consequentialism, the Person as an End-in-Itself, and the Significance of Status, Phil.&Pub Aff.Vol21,1992.
207Kenneth W. Simons, The Relevance Of Community Values To Just Deserts:Criminal Law, Punishmentrationales, And Democracy, Hofstra Law Review, vol.28,1999.
208David J. Seipp, The Distinction Between Crime and Tort in the Early Common Law, B. U. L. REV. vol.76,1996.
209John C.P. Goldberg&Benjamin C. Zipursky, Accidents of the Great Society, MD. L REV.nol.64,2005.
210William J. Stuntz, Substance, Process, and the Civil-Criminal Line, J. CONTEMP. LEGAL, vol.7,ISSUES1,1996.
211John C.P. Goldberg&Benjamin C. Zipursky, Tort Law and Moral Luck, CORNELL L. REV. vol.92,2007.
212Kenneth W. Simons, The Crime/Tort Distinction:Legal Doctrine And Normative Perspectives, Widener Law Journal,vol.17,2008.
213Robert Cooter, Prices and Sanctions, COLUM. L.REV vol.84,1984.
214Guido Calabresi&A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability:One View of the Cathedral, HARV.L. REV.vol.85,1972.
215Vera Bergelson, Victims and Perpetrators:An Argument for Comparative Liability in Criminal Law, BUFF. CRIM. L. REV. vol.8,2005.
216Stephen D. Sugarman, Doing Away with Tort Law, CAL. L.REV.vol.73,1985.
217Catherine M. Sharkey, Punitive Damages as Societal Damages, YALE, L.J. vol.113,2003.
218Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages:An Economic Analysis, HARV. L. REV.vol111,1998.
219Gary T. Schwartz, Mixed Theories Of Tort Law:Affirming Both Deterrence And Corrective Justice, TEX. L. REV. vol.75,1997.
220Fletcher, George P., Remembering Gary-and Tort Theory, UCLA Law Review, vol.50,2002.
221Goldberg, John C. P., Twentieth Century Tort Theory, Georgetown Law Journal,vol.91,2003.
222Ronen Perry, The Role of Retributive Justice in the Common Law of Torts:A Descriptive Theory, Tenn. L. Rev. vol.73,2006.
223Michael Davis, Criminal desert and unfair advantage:What's the connection?, Law and Philosophy, vol.12, no.2,1993.
224Ronen Avraham&Issa Kohler-Hausmann, Accident Law for Egalitarians, Legal Theory, vol.12,2006.
225John C.P. Goldberg&Benjamin C. Zipursky, Accidents of the Great Society, MD. L REV.,vol.64,2005.
226Gregory C. Keating, Strict Liability and the Mitigation of Moral Luck, J. ETHICS&SOC. PHIL. Vol.2,2006.
227Anthony Kennedy, Justifying the Civil Recovery of Criminal Proceeds, Journal of Financial Crime, vol.12,no.1,2004.
228Emilio S. Binavince, The Ethical Foundation Of Criminal Liability,Fordham Law Review, vol.33,1964.
229Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J. vol.101,1992.
2林克静，台湾敬宜大学法律系主任，教授，留德博士。
3张维迎：《经济学如何划分刑、民边界》，中国社会科学报，2009-9-15。
5Paul H. Robinson, The Criminal-Civil Distinction And The Utility Of Desert, Boston University Law Review, vol.76, April,1996, pp.201-214.
7C. Clarkson, Introducing CriminalLaw;London:Sweet&Maxwell,2006, p.263.
8Claus Roxin, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil Band I,3. Auf1., C. H. Beck1997§2/12.
9see Markus Dirk Dubber, The Promise of German Criminal Law:A Science of Crime and Punishment, Ge Rman Law Journal, Vol.06No.07,2005,pp1049-1071.
10Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001,p106.
11Jules L. Coleman, The Practice of Principle:In Defense of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory, Harvard Law Review,vol.115,no.6.Apri12002,pp1655-1987.
12Jean Hampton, The Moral Education Theory of Punishment, Philosophy&Public Affairs Vol.13, No.3Summer,1984, p.213.
13H.L.A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, p.72(1978).in Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.5,2001,ppl45-172.
14Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, Colum. L. Rev.vol.85,No.6, Oct,1985,p.1195.
15Id.
16Peter Sina, Die Dogmengeschichte des strafrechtlichen Begriffs "Rechtsgut", Basel:Helbing&Lichtenhahn,1962s.39-69; Hans-Heinrich Jescheck&Thomas Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts: Allgemeiner Teil,Berlin:Duncker&Hamblot,1996,s.7; see Santiago mirpuig: Legal Goods Protected By The Law And Legal Goods Protected By The Criminal Law As Limits To The State'sPower To Criminalize Conduct, New Criminal Law Review, vol,ll,no,3,2008,pp.409-418; John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, New York:Norton Critical Editions,1975,pp.10-11; see, e.g., Claire Finkelstein, Positivism and the Notion of an Offense, Calif. L. Rev. vol.88,2000,p.335; Feinberg, Harmless Wrongdoing, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1988, p.4.
17Claus Roxin, Strafrecht: Allgemeiner TeilL, s.15-21.
18Joel Feinberg, Harm To Others, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1988,ppll-12
19Christopher Kutz, Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics, California Law Review,vol.95,2001, pp.235-276.
20Nagel, T.. War and massacre, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol.1, No.2, Winter,1972, pp.53-74; Michael S. Moore, Torture and Balance of Evils, IsraelLaw Review,Vol23,1989, pp.280-323.
21John M.Taurek. Should The Numbers Count? Philosophy GPublic Affairs, vol6,no4Summer.1977,pp.293-316.
22William Blackstone, Commentaries On The Laws Of England:In Four Books. Boston:Beacon.(Original,1769).P.158
23Stockwell v. United States,80U.S.13Wall.531531(1871).
24Kennedy v.Mendoza-Martine,372U.S.144(1963).
25United States v. Chouteau,102U.S.603(1880).
26于改之：《刑民分界论》,北京：中国人民公安大学出版社,2007年版。
28国务院法制办：《政府立法中的法律责任设定研究论文集》，中国法制出版社(2010)。
29戴玉忠、刘明祥主编：《犯罪与行政违法行为的界限及惩罚机制的协调》，北京：北京大学出版社（2008）。
30梁根林：“犯罪化及其限制”，《中外法学》，1998年第3期。
31钊作俊、刘蓓蕾：“犯罪化与非犯罪化论纲”，《中国刑事法杂志》，2005年第5期。
32黄京平、陈鹏展：“无被害人犯罪非犯罪化研究”，《江海学刊》，2006年第4期;
33张明楷：“司法上的犯罪化与非犯罪化”，《法学家》，2008年第4期。
34陈正云：“刑法调控范围研究”，《中国法学》1996年第06期。
35刘艳红：“新刑法调控范围之理性思考与启示”，《法律科学》，1999年第3期。
36see Becker, Gary S. Crime and Punishment:An Economic Approach-Journal of Political Economy,vol76,1968, pp.169-217.
37see Steven Snavell, Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent Columbia Law Review1985,Vol85,pp.1232-1262.
38See, e.g., H.L.A. Hart, Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment, in Punishment and Responsibility,1968,pp.6-8; Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, Colum. L. Rev. vol.85,1985,p.1195; Robert D. Cooter&Thomas S. Ullen, Law and Economics, Boston:Addison Wesley,1997(2d ed). pp.387-407; Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001,p.106; Joel Feinberg, Harmless Wrongdoing, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1988,pp.164-165.
39see George P. Fletcher, The Grammar Of Criminal Law:American, Comparative, International,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007,pp.288-289.
40Markus Dirk Dubber, The Promise of German Criminal Law:A Science of Crime and Punishment, Ge Rman Law Journal, Vol.06No.07,2005,pp.1049-1071.
41Robert W. Drane, David.Neal, On Moral Justifications For The Tort/Crime Distinction, California Law Review, Vol.68, No.2, Mar.,1980,pp.398-421.
42这里美国刑罚法规指的是美国模范刑法典的规定。上述观点参见H-H Jeschk, Lehrbuch Drs Strafrechts,Allgemeiner, Teil4ed,1988,s.220-245.
43C R Snyman, The Definition Of The Proscription And The Structure Of Criminal Liability, The South African Law Journal,vol.111,1994,pp65-79(1994);杨春然：”“论故意在三阶层犯罪论体系中的位置”,《中外法学》,2011年第4期,第729-741页。
44在研究刑法边界的文献中,主要关注的是X的范围。Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.5, No.1, April2001,,pp.145-172.
45Jean Hampton, The Moral Education Theory of Punishment, Philosophy&Public Affairs Vol.13, No.3, Summer,1984, p.213.
46ibid
47ibid. P.219.
48H.L.A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility:Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1978, p.72.
49Bendor, J. and Swistak, P.he evolution of norms. American Journal of SociologyAmerican Journal of Sociology Vol.106, No.6, May2001, pp.1493-1545
50ibid, p231.
51ibid. P.11.
52James Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Lraternity,Londom Smith and Elder,1873, p.162.
53Id. Hart, supra note, pp.6-8.
54H.L.A. Hart, Law, Liberty, and Morality,Stanford:Stanford University Press,1963,p,36.
55ibid. Pp.37-38.
56Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, Columbia Law Review,Vol.85, No.6, Oct.,1985,p.1195.
57ibid.
58ibid.
59ibid.
60ibid.
61Posner, An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, p1205
62id, p1195.
63Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001
64Georg Rusche,Otto Kirchheimer,Dario Melossi, Punishment and Social Structure, New Jersey:Columbia university press(1939)(fifth printing2009).
65Georg Rusche&Otto Kirchheimer, Punishment and Social Structure, New York:Russell and Russell,1939,p5.
66Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001.
67Personal Correspondence from Jules Coleman, Professor of Law and Philosophy, Yale University (Nov.27,2000)(on file with author),in Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001
68Jules L. Coleman, The Practice of Principle:In Defense of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2001.
69ibid, p57.
70ibid.p.54
71ibid,p.58
72ibid.
73ibid.
74ibid.
75Elizabeth S. Anderson&Richard H. Pildes, Expressive Theories of Law:A General Restatement,148U. Pa. L. Rev.vol.148,2000,p.1503; Richard H. McAdams, A Focal Point Theory of Expressive Law,86Va. L. Rev. vol.86,2000,p.1649(2000)。
76这一因素最早是由Dan Kahan发现的,Dan M. Kahan, What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean?63U. Chi. L. Rev. vol.63,1996,p.595; Dan M. Kahan, The Secret Ambition of Deterrence, Harv. L. Rev.vol.113,1999,pp.419-20.
77Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.5,2001,pp.145-172.
78Joel feinberg, The Expressive Function Of Punishment,in Doing And Deserving, Princeton:Princeton University Press1970,pp.95-118.
79ibid.
80Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.5,2001,pp.145-172.
81Joel.Femberg,Harmless Wrongdoing,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1988,p.301.
82Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001,p.105.
84Joel feinberg, the expressive function of punishment,in Doing And Deserving, Princeton:Princeton University Press1970,p.98.
85Carol Steiker, Foreword:Punishment and Procedure:Punishment Theory and the Criminal-Civil Procedural Divide, Geo. L.J. vol.85,1997,p.803
87Joel Feinberg, The Expressive Function Of Punishment,in Doing And Deserving, Princeton:Princeton University Press1970,p.114.
88ibid.
89需要注意的是,有学者认为,刑罚法规应当是制裁规范,而不应当是禁止规范,在这里其实存在着逻辑上的缝隙(弱缝隙)。参见：颜厥安：”有规范缝隙到规范存有——初探法律论证中的实践描述”,《法律方法与法律思维》2008年第5辑,第3-21页。
90G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1967at69.
91Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics ofMorals, Yale:Yale University Press,1991,p.141(Mary Gregor trans.,).
92Alejandro Alagia, Alejandro Slokar,&Eugenio RaulZaffaroni, Derecho Penal:Parte General,s.57(2nd ed.2002).
93George p. Fletcher, Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1998,pp.37-38.
94George p. Fletcher,ibid.
95Joel feinberg, the expressive function of punishment,in Doing And Deserving, Princeton:Princeton University Press1970,p.118.
96ibid.
97事实上,行为造成了这种伤害。费因伯格并不认为,道德非难只是由特定的犯罪造成伤害来决定的,而是由这种犯罪造成的一般性的伤害来决定的。比如,恐怖行为碰巧没有造成任何的伤亡,这种非难仍然是巨大的,因为这种犯罪一般会产生巨大的伤害。
98杨春然：“冒犯型犯罪：伤害原则对法益保护原则的一次超越——兼论犯罪的本质”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2010年第2期。
99Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.5,2001.pp145-172.
100张明楷：“犯罪的概念探讨”,《法学研究》,1989年第3期。
101马克昌：《犯罪通论》,武汉：武汉大学出版社,1999年版,第14页。
102何秉松主编：《刑法教科书》上卷,北京：中国法制出版社,2000年版,第146页以下。
103Joel feinberg, the expressive function of punishment,in Doing And Deserving, Princeton:Princeton University Press1970,p.101
104John Gardner, Punishment, Morality, and the State:Prohibiting Immoralities, Cardozo L. Rev, vol.28,2007,pp2613-2628; Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, legal theory, vol.11,2005,pp.259-284.
105(日)山口厚：《刑法总论》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2011年版,第17页。
106Markus Dirk Dubber, The Promise of German Criminal Law:A Science of Crime and Punishment, Ge Rman Law Journal, Vol.06No.07,2005,pp.1049-1071.
107Johann Michael Franz Bimbaum, Ueber das ErforderniB einer Rechtsverletzung zum Begriffe des Verbrechens,15Archiv des Criminalrechts (NeueFolge),1834,s.149.
108Markus Dirk Dubber, Theories of Crime and Punishment in German Criminal Law, The American Journal of Comparative Law, vol,53,2005,p.688.
109Johann Michael Franz Bimbaum, Ueber das ErforderniB einer Rechtsverletzung zum Begriffe des Verbrechens,15Archiv des Criminalrechts (Neue Folge),1834,s.149.
110刘芝详：“法益概念辨识”,《政法论坛》,2008年第4期,第95-105页。
111Peter Sina, Die Dogmengeschichte des strafrechtlichen Begriffs "Rechtsgut", Basel, Helbing&Lichtenhahn,1962, s.39-69.
112Karl Binding, Die Normen und ihre Ubertretung,(1872; Leipzig:Felix Meiner,1922), vol.1, s.299,308.
113ibid,p.169
114Peter Sina, Die Dogmengeschichte des strafrechtlichen Begriffs "Rechtsgut", s.74.
115Hans-Heinrich Jescheck&Thomas Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts:Allgemeiner Teil6(5th ed.1996).
116ibid
117ibid.
118Bernd Schunemann, The System of Criminal Wrongs:The Concept of Legal Goods and Victim-based Jurisprudence as a Bridge between the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code,Buffalo Criminal Law Review Vol.7,2004,pp.551-553.
119Claus Roxm, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil Ⅰ, s.12-23
120Claus Roxm, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil Ⅰ, s.15.
121ibid.
122Claus Roxm, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil Ⅰ, s.15(3d ed.1997).
123ibid.
124ibid.
125ibid.
126ibid.
127ibid, p.16.
128ibid, p.18.
129Cornelius Nestler, Betaubungsmittelstrafrecht, Grundlagen und Kritik, in Handbuch des Betaubungsmittelstrafrechts (Arthur Kreuzered.,1997)("Volksgesundheit").
130Claus Roxin, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil I, Munchen:Beck,1997s.18-19.
131Markus Dirk Dubber,Theories of Crime and Punishment in German Criminal Law, Am. J. Comp. L. Vol.53,2005,pp.679-707.
132Bernd Schunemann, The System of Criminal Wrongs:The Concept of Legal Goods and Victim-based Jurisprudence as a Bridge between the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code,Buffalo Criminal Law Review Vol.7,2004,pp.551-553.
133see Santiago Mirpuig:Legal Goods Protected By The Law And Legal Goods Protected By The Criminal Law As Limits To The State's Power To Criminalize Conduct, New Criminal Law Review, Vol,11,Number,3, Pp409-418(2008).
134Alejandro Alagia, Alejandro Slokar,&Eugenio Raul Zaffaroni, Derecho Penal:Parte General.pp.126-128(2nd ed.2002).
135Lawrence v. Texas,539U.S.558(2003).
136Planned Parenthood v. Casey,505U.S.833(1992).
137City of Shreveport v. Curry,357So. zd1078(La.1978).
138Luis E. Chiesa, Normative Gaps in the Criminal Law:A Reasons Theory of Wrongdoing, New Criminal Law Review Vol.101,2007,pp.102-139.
139Roxm, s.19-21
140罗克辛认为,将这种行为犯罪是没有任何问题的,因为这已经清晰地规定了禁止的行为的范围,且这种行为与法益(生命、身体或者财产)之间有一种明确的关系。Roxin. s.20.
141德国刑法点第316条。
142Claus Roxin, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil I, Muncheri:Beck,1997, s.26-27.
143ibid. s.27.
144ibid, s.621.
145Markus D. Dubber, Criminal Law:Model Penal Code,New York:Foundation Press2002, pp.194-201.
146Claus Roxin, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil Ⅰ, s.621,622.
147Claus Roxin, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil Ⅰ, s.621.
148Ivo Appel, Verfassung und Strafe:Zu den verfassungsrechtlichen Grenzen staatlichen Strafen, Berlin:Verlag. Duncker&Humblot,1998,s.372-379(1998).
149. Claus Roxin, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil Ⅰ, s.243.
150在我国学界,这一点存在着争议：张明楷教授认为其并没有出罪价值,但笔者不这样认为,比如,以人身威胁为手段强制他人交出5元钱,按照刑法的规定,构成抢劫罪,因为抢劫罪并没有情节上的限制。如果不按照但书出罪,很容易得出行为人需要判处3年以上有期徒刑、且不能缓刑的下结论。这一点显然与罪刑相适应原则存在冲突。
151Markus D. Dubber, Criminal Law:Model Penal Code,pp.180-182
152Claus Roxm, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil Ⅰ, s.550.
153ibid,613.
160Bernd Schunemann, The System of Criminal Wrongs:The Concept of Legal Goods and Victim-based Jurisprudence as a Bridge between the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code, Buffalo Criminal Law Review,vol.7,2004,pp.551-583.
161Winfried Hassemer, Theorie und Soziologie des Verbrechens19(1973).
162Johann Michael Franz Birnbaum, Ueber das ErforderniB einer Rechtsverletzung zum Begriffe des Verbrechens,15Archiv des Criminalrechts (Neue Folge) s.149(1834)
163P.J.A. Feuerbach, Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland geltenden peinlichen Rechts§27(1st ed.1801); Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment, Buffalo Criminal Law Review Vol.5,2002,pp.145-172.
164Hans-Heinrich Jescheck&Thomas Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts:Allgemeiner Teil S.15(5th ed.1996).
165see Santiago mirpuig:Legal Goods Protected By The Law And Legal Goods Protected By The Criminal Law As Limits To The State's Power To Criminalize Conduct, New Criminal Law Review, Vol,ll,number,3,pp.409-418(2008).
166see Hart, The Aims Of The Criminal Law,Law and Contemporary Problems Vol.23, No.3, Summer,1958,p.404.
167see Roscoe pound, jurisprudence,St. Paul, Minn:West Publishing Co.,1959, pp.23-24,328-330.
168John Stuart Mill, On Liberty,Norton Critical Edition,1975,pp.10-11; see, e.g., Claire Finkelstein, Positivism and the Notion of an Offense, Calif. L. Rev,vol.88,2000,p.335.
169John Gray and G.W.Smith, J.S.Mill's On liberty in focus, New York:Routledge,2003,p.147.
170J. Feinerg, Harm to Others; Harm to Self,Oxford University Press,1986,p.4.
171P. Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals,Oxford University Press,1965, p.2.
172Jonathan Herring, Great Debates:Criminal Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009, p.2.
173ibid,p.4
174J. Feinerg, Harm to Others; Harm to Self, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1986,p.10.
175ibid.
176张子礼、杨春然：“论犯罪化的原则”,《河北法学》,2011年第4期。
177A. Simester and G. Sullivan, Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, Hart Publishing,2008Orded),p.590.
178杨春然：“冒犯型犯罪的根据：伤害原则对法益保护原则的一次超越——兼论犯罪的本质”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2010年第2期。
179Jonathan Herring, Great Debates: Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p.5.
180因为很多国家将污染行为所造成的累积性的伤害(accumulative harms),视为是一种间接伤害,属于法律评估的范围之内。参见A. VonHirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:"Remote" Harms and Fair Lmputation', inA. Simester and A. Smith (eds), Harm and Culpability, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996, p.265.
181ibid.
182Rasmusen, Eric, An Economic Approach to Adultery Law, Marriage and Divorce: An Economic Perspective, edited by Antony Dnes and Robert Rowthorn,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2002. Chapter5, pp.70-91
183杨春然：“冒犯型犯罪的根据：伤害原则对法益保护原则的一次超越——兼论犯罪的本质”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2010年第2期。
184Jonathan Herring, Great Debates: Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p.6.
185张子礼、杨春然：“论犯罪化的原则”,《河北法学》,2011年第4期。
186M. Madden Dempsey,Rethinking Wolfenden:Prostitute Use, Criminal Law and Remote Harm, Criminal Law Review,2005,pp444-455.
187A. Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:"Remote" Harms and Fair Imputation, in A. Simester and A. Smith (eds), Harm and Culpability,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996,pp.259,261.
188J. Feinerg, Harm to Others; Harm to Self, Oxford University Press,1986,p.105.
189D. Dripps, The liberal critique of harm principle,Criminal Justice Ethics,vol.17,1998,p.3.
190A. von Hirsch,The Offence Principle in Criminal Law:Affront to Sensibility or Wrongdoing? Kings College Law Journal,vol.11,2000,p.79.
191Jonathan Herring, Great Debates:Criminal Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009, p.10.
192Albin Eser, The Principle Of "Harm"In The Concept Of Crime: A Comparative Analysis Of The Criminally Protected Legal Interests, Duquesne University Law Review,vol.14,1965,pp345-417.
193Jonathan Herring, Great Debates: Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p.10.
194J. Feinberg, Harm to Others, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1984,p.26.
195C. Clarkson, Introducing Criminal Law, Sweet&Maxwe, vol.11,2006,p.263.
196R. Duff, Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, New Criminal Law Lieview,vol,12,2009,p.122.
197ibid.
198R. Duff and S. Marshall, Criminalization and sharing wrongs, Canadian Journal of Law ana Jurisprudence,vol.11,1988,p.7.
199A. Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2006, p.22.
200而死刑则是体现则是国家的绝对无能。J. Schonsheck, On Criminalisation, New York:Springer,1994,p.1.
201P. Cane说,“死亡使得时间变得各位珍贵,而永生则会使时间没有任何的意义,刑罚与自由的关系与其相同”。P. Cane, Taking law seriously:starting points of the Hart/Devlin Debate,The Journal of Ethics, vol.10,2006,p.21.
202see R. Duff and S. Marshall, Criminalization and sharing wrongs, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence vol.111998,p.7-22
203see Richard A.Epstein, The Harm Principle And How It Grew, University Of Toronto Law Journal, vol45,1995,pp.369-417.
204see D. Husak, the Criminal Law as Last Resort, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol24,2004,pp.207-235.
205转引自Mark Findlay, Stephen Odgers and Stanley Yeo, Australian Criminal Justice, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005(3rded).p.3.
206Hamish Stewart, Legality and Morality in HLA Hart's Theory of Criminal Law, SMULawReview,vol.52,1999,p.201.
207Patrick Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1965,pp.8-14.
208ibid.
209ibid.
210Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006(5th ed).p.41.
211Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law,p.44; Nicola Lacey, Celia Wells and Oliver Quick, Reconstructing Criminal Law Text and Materials, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003(3rd ed),(Law in Context), p.5.
212AP Simesterand GR Sullivan, Criminal Law Theory and DoctrineOxford:Hart Publishing,2003.P.17.
213ibid
214转引自Bernadette McSherry and Bronwyn Naylor, Australian Criminal Laws: Critical Perspectives,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2004,p.20.
215ibid.
216ibid.
217Mark Findlay, Stephen Odgers and Stanley Yeo, Australian Criminal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2005(3rd ed),p.3.
218AP Simester and GR Sullivan, Criminal Law Theory and Doctrine,(2003),p,16.
219Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law London: Stevens&Sons,1983(2nd ed), p.18.
220Joel Feinberg, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Offense to Others,1985, p.1.
221ibid,p.163
222AP Simesterand GR Sullivan, Criminal Law Theory and Doctrine, Oxford: Hart,2003,p.16.
223Simon Bronitt and Bernadette McSherry, Principles of Criminal Law, Sydney: lawbook Co,2005(2nd ed),p.58.
224Nicola Lacey, Celia Wells and Oliver Quick, Reconstructing Criminal Law Text and Materials, Law in Context (3rd ed,2003) p.5.
225Ib,p.4; Nicola Lacey,'Abstraction in Contcxt,Ox/brdJournal of Legal S'tudies,vol14,1994,pp.255,266.
226Mirko Bagaric, The "Civilisation" of the Criminal Law, Criminal Law Journal,vol.25,2001,p.187.
227Simon Bronitt and Bernadette McSherry, Principles of Criminal Law, Sydney: lawbook Co,2005(2nd ed),p.5.
228Mirko Bagaric, The "Civilisation" of the Criminal Law, Criminal Law Journal,vol.25,2001,p.189.
229ibid.
230Simon Bronitt and Bernadette McSherry, Principles of Criminal Law, Sydney: lawbook Co,2005(2nd ed),p.58.
231ibid.
232Mirko Bagaric, The "Civilisation" of the Criminal Law, Criminal Law Journal,vol.25,2001,p.187;Paul H Robinson, A Theory of Justification: Societal Harm as a Prerequisite for Criminal Liability,UCLA Law Review,vol.23,1975,pp.266,272.
233Simon Bronitt and Bernadette McSherry, Principles of Criminal Law, Sydney:Lawbook Co,2005(2nd ed),p.4.
234ibid, at4-5.
235Mirko Bagaric, The Civilisation of the Criminal Law, Criminal Law Journal,vol.25,2001,pp.184,193.
236康德有三个著名的命题：道德需要自治,法律需要强制,强制有损自治。John Gardner, Prohibiting Immoralities, Cardozo Law Review,Vol.28,no.6,2007,pp.2613-2629.
237Plato, laws, Translated by Benjamin Jowett, book IX, http://classics.mit.edu//Plato/laws.html(2011-7-19)
238Durkheim, Emile (1897). Suicide. New York:The Free Press,1997,p.327.
239SM Canick, Constitutional Aspects of Physician-Assisted Suicide After Lee v. Oregon, Am. JL&Med., http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-c gi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/amlmed23§ion=9(1997)
240Litman,RobertE,Medical-Legal Aspects of Suicide,Washburn L.J., vol.6,1966,pp.395, http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/wasbur6§ion=41.
241ES Shneidman."Approaches and commonalities of suicide". Suicide and its prevention.
242Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_Commentaries
243Wackwitz v. Roy in1992
244Robert I. Simon, MD, James L. Levenson, MD and Daniel W. Shuman, JD On Sound and Unsound Mind:The Role of Suicide in Tort and Insurance Litigation, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,2005
245Interview with Nadine Strossen, David Shankbone, Wikinews, October30,2007.
246Jacob Goldstein, Washington's Physician-Assisted Suicide Law Takes Effect, http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/03/05/washingtons-physician-assisted-suicide-law-takes-effect/tab/article/
247P. Rathinamv. Union of India (AIR1994SC1844).
248印度宪法第21条规定：“保护生命和人身自由——除依照法律规定的程序外,不得剥夺任何人的生命和个人自由”。Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (AIR1996SC946).
249Christopher B. Gray, Philosophy of Law:An Encyclopedia, New York and London:Garland Pub. Co,1999, pp.632-635.
250黄文艺：“作为一种法律干预模式的家长主义”,《法学研究》,2010年第1期,第3-17页。
251Christopher B. Gray, Philosophy of Law:An Encyclopedia, New York and London:Garland Pub. Co,1999, pp.632-635.
252Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, legal theory,vol.11,2005, pp.259-284.
253Nina Nikku, Informative Paternalism, Studies In The Ethics Of Promoting And Predicting Health, Linkoping:Lmkopings Universitet,1997,p.344.:
254John Stuart Mill, Principles Of Political Economy, With Some Of Their Applications To Social Philosophy, London; Longmans, Green and Co.1965, p.938.
255Feinberg, Harmless Wrongdoing, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1988,p.4.
256Nicholas Capaldi, Liberal Value Versus Liberal Social Philosophy,Phil,&7heology,vol.4,1990,pp.283;286.
257Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts Of Liberty, In Four Essays On Liberty, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1969,p.124.
258Feinberg,Harm To Others,P.9;Harm To Self, p.Ix; Harmless Wrongdoing, p.Ix.
259Feinberg,Harm To Others,p.10.
260Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, legal theory,vol.11,2005, pp.259-284.
261J. S. Mill, On Liberty, Longmans, Green, and co.,1913, chapter5, para.10.
262Feinbetg,Harm to Self, p.12
263Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, legal theory, vol.11,2005,p.259-284.
264ibid.
267密尔：《论自由》,许宝译,商务图书馆,1998年版,第68页。
268Feinberg, Harm To Self, p.112.
269Gerald Dworkin, Paternalism, and Paternalism:Some Second Thoughts, both reprinted in Dworkin, The Theory And Practise Of Autonomy,Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1983, p.121-129.. See also Dan Brock, Paternalism and Promoting the Good, In Rolf Sartorius, Ed., Paternalism,Minneapolis:Puniversity Minnesota Press,1983,p.237-260.
270Christopher B. Gray (ed.), Philosophy of Law:An Encyclopedia, Garland Pub. Co,1999, pp.632-635.
271Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, Legal Theory,vol.11,2005, pp.259-284.
272杨春然：“冒犯型犯罪：伤害原则对法益保护原则的一次超越——兼论犯罪的本质”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2011年第3期。
273Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, legal theory,vol.11,2005, pp259-284.
274Richard Dean, The Value OfHumanity In Kants Moral Theory, Oxford:Clarendon Press,2006, pp.110-111.;96-97.
275Feinber, Harm To Self, p.27.
276Fcinberg,Harm To Self, pp.96-97
277Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, legal theory.,2005, vol11, pp.259-284.
278J. David Velleman, A Right of Self-Termination? Ethics,vol,109,1999,p.612.
279P. Rathinamv. Union of India (AIR1994SC1844); Larry A. Alexander, Deontology at the Threshold, SanDiegoLaw Review, vol.37,2000,pp.893-912.
280prances Kamm, A Right To Choose Death? Boston review, vol22,1997,pp.20-23.
281J. David Velleman, A Right of Self-Temination?,Ethics,vol.109,1999,pp.612-613.
282ibid,p.613..
283Feinberg, Harm to Others, p.24.
284Feinberg, Harm to Self, p.59
285Colin Camerer, Samuel Issacharoff, etc, Regulation For Conservatives:Behavioral Economics And The Case For "Asymmetric Paternalism" University Of'Pennsylvania Law Review,Vol.151,2003,pp.1211-1254.
286Dixon, N., Boxing, Paternalism, and Legal Moralism, Social Theory and Practice, vol.27,2001,pp.323-344; Gerald Dworkin,"Moral Paternalism," Law and Philosophy, vol.24,2005,pp.305-319.
287规则结果主义(rule-consequentialists)是结果主义的一种,其从规则(或者原则)的成本(包括错误成本)和收益的关系,判断某项规则本身的价值。参见Oren Gross, Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience, Minnesota Law Review. Vol88,2004,pp.101-175这与康德从尊重人的理性能力的角度反对善良家父主义是不同的。
288Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment, Buffalo Criminal LawReview,Vol.5,2002,pp.145-172.
289Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, Legal Theoryyvol.11,2005,pp.259-284.
290林山田：《刑法通论(上)》,北京：北京大学出版,2012年版,第21页。
291Albin Eser, The Principle Of "Harn"In The Concept Of Crime:A Comparative Analysis Of The Criminally Protected Legal Interests, Duquesne University Law Review, vol.14,1965,pp.345-417.
292see Albin Eser, The Principle Of "Harm"In The Concept Of Crime:A Comparative Analysis Of The Criminally Protected Legal Interests, Duquesne University Law Review, vol4,1965,pp.345-417;参见(英)安德鲁·冯·赫尔希,文樊文译：“法益的概念与‘损害原则’”,《刑事法评论》第24卷,187-201页。另外需要指出的是,该文将harm principle翻译成“损害原则”是不准确的,因为,这里的‘'harm"包含有行为人主观的侵害性,参见see Robert W. Drane, David.Neal, On Moral Justifications For The Tort/Crime Distinction, California Law Review,vol68,1980,pp.398-421; Richard A.Epstein, supra note。损害(damage)的含义更侧重于客观损害,所以,本文不采纳这种翻译方式,而将其直译伤害原则。
293Tatjana Hornle, Offensive Behavior and German Penal Law, Buffalo Criminal Law Review Vol.5,2004,, pp.255-278.
294Albin Eser, The Principle Of "Harn" In The Concept Of Crime:A Comparative Analysis Of The Criminally Protected Legal Interests, Duquesne University Law Review, vol4,1965,pp.345-417.
295Jonathan Herring, Great Debates:Criminal Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009, pp.9-12.
296Albin Eser, ibid.
297see Becker, Gary S. Crime and Punishment:An Economic Approach.Journal of Political Economy, vol.76,1968,pp.169-217.
298see Bowles, Roger, Michael G. Faure, and Nuno Garoupa. The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions:An Economic View and Policy Implications. Journal of Law and Society, vol.35,2008,pp.389-441.
299Christopher Kutz, Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics, California Law Review,vol.95,2001,-pp-235-276.
300see R. Nozick, Anarchy, State And Utopia, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1974,p.10.
301ibid,p.28.
302ibid, pp.65-66.
303see Robert W. Drane, David.Neal, On Moral Justifications For The Tort/Crime Distinction, California Law Reviewvol68,1980,pp.398-421.
304see R. Nozick, Anarchy, State And Utopia,1974, p.72.
305ibid.
306ibid, pp.72-73
309参见孙宪忠：“再谈物权行为理论”,《中国社会科学》,2001年第5期,第125-135页。
310杨春然：“论违法性与正当化事由缺失之间的规范缝隙及跨越”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2011年第3期。
311W.Hechker, Relativierung des Folterverbots in der BRD?,Kritische Justiz,2003,S.210-218;F. Jessberger. Wenn Du Nicht Redest,Fuge Ich Dir Groβe Schmerzen Zu, Juristische Ausbildung,2003,S.711-715; C. Roxin,'Kann staatliche Folter in Ausnahmefallen zulassig oder wenigstens straflos sein?', in J. Arnold et al.(eds), Menschengerechtes Strafrecht, Festschrift fur Albin Eser,Munchen:C.H. Beck,2005,S.461-471.
312C. Fahl, Angewandte Rechtsphilosophie-Darf Der Staat Foltern?, Juristiche Rundschau,2004,S.182-191; V. Erb, Nothilfe Durch Folter, Juristische Ausbildung,2005,S.24-30.
313有人认为超法规的责任阻却事由(罗克辛)、也有人认为是免除责任的防卫过当、或者警察法上超法规的阻却违法紧急避险等,王钢：”出于营救目的的酷刑与正当防卫”,《清华法学》,2010年第2期,第26-44页。
314Florian Jessberger,'Bad Torture-Good Torture?Journal of International Criminal Justice Vol.3,2005,pp.1059-1073.
315F.M. Kamm, Non-consequentialism, the Person as an End-in-Itself, and the Significance of Status, Phil.&Pub. Aff Vol21,1992,pp.354-389.
316Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York:Basic Books,1975, p.41; Nagel, T.. War And Massacre, Philosophy&Public Affairs, Vol.6, No.4, Summer,1977pp.53-74.
317Christopher Kutz, Trture, Necessity and Existential Volitics,California law Review,vol.95,2007,pp236-276.
318Michael S. Moore, Torture and Balance of Evils, Israel law Review,vol.23,1989,pp.280-323.
319John T. Sanders, why the numbers should sometimes count, Philosophy GPublicAffairs,vol.17nol,winter,1988,pp3-14.
320Derek parfit, innumerate ethics, Philosophy GPublic Affairs, vol.7,no4,1978, pp.285-301.
321John M.Taurek. Should The Numbers Count? Philosophy&Public Affairs,vol.6,no.4, Summer,1977,pp.293-316.
322ibid.
323John M. Taurek, Should the Numbers Count? Philosophy&Public Affairs,vol.6.no.4,summer,1977,pp.293-316; Derek Parfit, Innumerate Ethics, Philosophy&Public Affairs, Vol.7, No.4, Summer,1978,PP.285-301.
324See Geoffrey Best, War And Law Since1945, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1994,p.323.
325See Henry Shue, Torture,PfHIL.&PUB. OFF. Vol7,1977,p.124.
326Luis E. Chiesa, Normative Gaps in the Criminal Law:A Reasons Theory of Wrongdoing, New Criminal Law Review, Vol.101,2007,pp.102-139.
327Michael S. Moore, Torture and Balance of Evils, Israel Law Review,Vol23,1989,pp.280-323.
328Christopher Kutz, Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics, California LawReview,vol95,2007,pp.236-276.
329Larry A. Alexander, Deontology at the Threshold, San Diego Law Review, vol.37,2000,pp.893-912.
330如果功利主义与道义论对一个行为的评价是矛盾的,在力量相当的情况下,是不能入罪的,否则,这无异于国家推行一种道德伦理而否定另一种道德理论。See Luis E. Chiesa, Normative Gaps in the Criminal Law:A Reasons Theory of Wrongdoing, New Criminal Law Review Vol.10No.11,2007,pp.102-141.
331Christopher Kutz, Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics, California Law Review,vol.95,2007,pp.235-276.
332A. Ashworth, Principles ojCriminal Law,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003,pp.33-37.
333Kenneth W. Simons, The Relevance Of Community Values To Just Deserts:Criminal Law, Punishmentrationales, And Democracy, HofstraLawReview; vol.28,1999,pp.635-666.
334哈伯特L.帕克著：《刑事制裁的界限》,梁根林等译,北京：法律出版社,2008年版,第10-11页。
335Bowles, Roger, Michael G. Faure, and Nuno Garoupa. The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions:An Economic View and Policy Implications. Journal of Law and Society;vol.35,2008, pp.389-435.
336Larry A. Alexander, Deontology at the Threshold, San Diego LawReview; vol.37,2000,pp.893-912.
337ibid.
[41] See Hassemer&Kerner, Unrechtsbewubtsein Und Soziale Norm, Im3Sozialwissenschaften Im Studium Des Rechts: Strafrecht W.Hassemer&K. LUDerssen1978,1st ed, S.67-70; Hassemer&Hart-Honig, Generalpravention Im Strabenverkehr, Im Sozialwissenschaften Im Strafrecht,1984(hassemer ed,),S.230-251.
338Claus Roxin, Strafrecht:Allgemeiner Teil I,1997(3d ed), s.18..
339杨春然：“论违法性与正当化事由缺失之间的规范缝隙及跨越——以英国连体婴儿案为例”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2011年第3期；C. Roxin, Kann staatliche Folter in Ausnahmefallen zulassig oder wenigstens straflos sein?', in J. Arnold et al.(eds), Menschengerechtes Strafrecht, Festschrift fur Albin Eser,Munchen:C.H. Beck,2005, S.461-471.
341Luis E. Chiesa, Normative Gaps in the Criminal Law:A Reasons Theory of Wrongdoing, New Criminal Law Review,vol.10,2007,pp.102-141.
342Jeremy Waldron, Torture and Positive Law:Jurisprudence for the White House, Columbia Law Review, vol.105,2005,pp.1721-1722.
344参见陈兴良：“犯罪范围的合理定义”,《法学研究》2008年第3期,第141-143页。
345Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment,Buffalo Criminal Law Review,vol.5,220,pp145-172.
346梅仲协,《民法要义》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1998年版,第15-16页；杨鸿烈,《中国法律思想史·下》,上海：商务印书馆,1936年版,第250-51页；,《中国民法总论》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997年版,第16页。
347David J. Seipp, The Distinction Between Crime and Tort in the Early Common Law, B. U. L. REV. vol.76,1996,p59.
348John C.P. Goldberg&Benjamin C. Zipursky, Accidents of the Great Society, MD. L.REV.vol.64,2005,pp.402-403; Benjamin C. Zipursky, Civil Recourse, Not Corrective Justice, GEO. Z.J vol.91,2003,p.695.
349Note,Victim Restitution in the Criminal Process:A Procedural Analysis, HARV. L. REV, vol.97,1984, pp.934-935.
350这种处罚措施我国还没有,需注意的是,其与过我国民法中的停止侵害是不同的。
351William J. Stuntz, Substance, Process, and the Civil-Criminal Line, J. CONTEMP. LEGAL, vol.7,ISSUES1,1996,pp.19-24.
352John C.P. Goldberg&Benjamin C. Zipursky, Tort Law and Moral Luck, CORNELLL. REV. vol.92,2007,1142-43.
355陈清浦郭亚：“刑法中的严格责任若干问题研究”,《北京化工大学学报》(社会科学版)2004年第1期,总第44期,第11页-17页。
356Douglas Husak, Overcriminalization:The Limits Of The Criminal Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008, pp.9-10
357张新宝：《侵权责任法原理》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年版,第30-31页。
358在侵权法领域内,发生了很多违反逻辑的观点,比如说侵权责任分成过错责任、无过错责任和严格责任,这种分类本身就很荒谬：其一,过错责任与无过错责任,他们之间显然是A与非A的关系,即两者相加即等于其上位概念,又如何能在分出过错责任来?其二,过错成为规则原则,无过错就无法成为无过错原则,因为所谓的原则系绝大多数的规则所应遵循的标准,既然承认过错是原则,则意味着至少有百分之五十以上的侵权规则执行该原则,此时,作为其对立概念的无过错,又怎能控制百分之五十之上的侵权法规则呢?其三,过错不能成为侵权法的原则,最明显的理由有两个：首先,无行为能力人致他人伤害的,行为人要为此承担赔偿责任,没有责任能力的,则其监护人(一定范围内)要代为赔偿,即其要对其行为承担无过错责任(比如,没有认识能力的小孩子或者精神病人,其谈不上责任的),而成年人则要承担比无过错责任更为严格的过错责任,亦即法律对小孩子或者精神病人提出了更为严格的要求,这岂不是荒唐!其二,这违背行为人自担行为成本原则,即行为人是行为收益的享有者,故也应当是成本的承担者,其主管过错与否与这一点是没有联系的,国际社会在环境领域内主张的“谁污染,谁赔偿”就是这个意思。参见Kenneth W. Simons, The Crime/Tort Distinction:Legal Doctrine And Normative Perspectives, Widener Law Journal,vol.17,2008,pp719-732;杨春然：“注册会计师职务侵权责任的经济分析与重构”,《东海大学法学研究(台)》,2008年,总第29期刊；杨春然：“环境污染的侵权责任及其可保性的经济分析”,《新疆社会科学》,2010年第1期。
359杨春然,“注册会计师职务侵权责任的经济分析与重构”,《东海大学法学研究(台)》,2008年,总第29期刊。
360William J. Stuntz, Substance, Process, and the Civil-Criminal Line, J. CONTEMP. LEGAL,vol.7,1996, ISSUES1, p.20.
361Robert Cooter, Prices and Sanctions, COLUM.L. REV.vol.84,1984,p.l523.
362Guido Calabresi&A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, HARV.L. REV.vol.85,1972, pp.1089-1092.
363Vera Bergelson, Victims and Perpetrators: An Argument for Comparative Liability in Criminal Law, BUFF. CRLM. L. REV.vol.8,2005,pp.405-18; Kenneth W. Simons, The Relevance of Victim Conduct in Tort and Criminal Law, BUFF. CRLM. L. REV.vol.8,2005,p.541.
364Wayne R. Lafave, Criminal Law, St. Paul, MN:Thomson/West,2003(4th ed.),p.l6; Paul H. Robinson, Criminal Law, Aspen Law&Business,1997,pp.6-7.
365Stephen D. Sugarman, Doing Away with Tort Law, CAL. L. REV.vol.73,1985,pp.613-16.
366Margaret Jane Radin, Compensation and Commensurability, DUKEL.J. vol.43,1993,pp.57-61.
367Catherine M. Sharkey, Punitive Damages as Societal Damages, YALE, L.J. vol.113,2003,pp.349-52.
368See A. Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages:An Economic Analysis,V. L.890-891.
369Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co.,124N.W. pp.221-222(1910).
370Kenneth W. Simons, Tort Negligence, Cost-Benefit Analysis, And Tradeoffs:A Closer Look At The Controversy, LOY. L. REV. Loy. L.A. L. Rev.vol.41, Summer,2008pp.171-1208; Richard W. Wright, The Standards of Care In Negligence Law, In Philosophical Foundations Of Tort Law, edited by David G. Owen, ed. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1995,p.249.
371Gary T. Schwartz, Mixed Theories Of Tort Law:Affirming Both Deterrence And Corrective Justice, TEX. L. REV. vol.75,1997,pp.1824-1828.
372Ernest J. Weinrib, The Idea Of Private Law45-46(1995).对这种观点的批评,可以参见Kenneth W. Simons, Justification in Private Law, CORNELLL. REV,vol.81,1996,p.698.
373See A. Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages:An Economic Analysis, HARV. L. REV.vol.111,1998,p.891.
375Fletcher, George P.,'Remembering Gary-and Tort Theory", UCLA Law Review, vol.50,2002,pp.279-292.
376Goldberg, John C. P., Twentieth Century Tort Theory, Georgetown Law Journal,vol.91,2003,pp.513-583.
378徐昕：”通过私力救济实现正义——兼论报应正义”,《法学评论》,2003年第5期。
379Ronen Perry, The Role of Retributive Justice in the Common Law of Torts:A Descriptive Theory, Tenn. L. Rev. vol.73,2006,p.177.
380Cavadino, M&Dignan, J. The Penal System:An Introduction London:Sage.1997(2nd ed.), p.39.
381Martin, Jacqueline. The English LegalSystem London:Hodder Arnold,2005(4th ed.), p.174.
382ibid.
383Michael Davis, Criminal desert and unfair advantage:What's the connection?, Law and Philosophy, vol.12, no.2,1993, pp.133-156.
384Kenneth W. Simons, The Crime/Tort Distinction:Legal Doctrine And Normative Perspectives,WIDENER LAW JOURNAI,vol.17,2008,pp.719-732.
385参见第五章第三节。
386Ronen Avraham&Issa Kohler-Hausmann, Accident Law for Egalitarians,LEGAL THEORY,vol.12,2006,p.181; John C.P. Goldberg&Benjamin C. Zipursky, Accidents of the Great Society, MD. L. REV.,vol.64,2005,pp.402-403; Gregory C. Keating, Strict Liability and the Mitigation of Moral Luck, J. ETHICS&SOC. PHIL. Vol.2,2006,p.1;see Michael Moore, Placing Blame:A General Theory Of The Criminal law, Oxford University Press,1997,p.5.
387see Anthony Kennedy, Justifying the Civil Recovery of Criminal Proceeds, Journal of Financial Crime, vol.12,no.1,2004,pp.8-23.
388see Robert Cooter, Prices and Sanctions, Columbia Law Review,vol.84,1984, pp.1523-1561.
389有学者考证,在欧洲,原先个人的权利主要通过复仇、民事诉讼来解决,只有侵扰“国王”的安宁的行为才会被犯罪化,后来,个人的重大权利逐渐融入“国王”安宁之中,刑法的体系越来越庞大。参见Emilio S. Binavince, The Ethical Foundation Of Criminal Liability,Fordham law Review,vol.33,1964,pp.1-39.
390即所谓的成本内化说是然。参见,A. Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages:An Economic Analysis,HARV.L. REV. vol.111.1998,pp.873-875.
391Emilio S. Binavince, The Ethical Foundation Of Criminal Liability,Fordham Law Review,vol.33,1964,pp1-39.
392see Bowles, Roger, Michael G. Faure, and Nuno Garoupa. The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions:An Economic View and Policy Implications. Journal of Law and Society, vol.35,2008,pp.389-441.
396William L. Prosser, Handbook Of The Law Of Torts§4, West Publishing1984(5th ed),p.22.
397see Steven Shavell, Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent, Columbia Law Review Vol85,1985,pp.1232-1262.
398ibid.
399see William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of Intentional Torts, Lnternational Review of Law and Economics,Vol1,1981,pp.127-154.
400see Steven Shavell, Liability For Harm Versus Regulation Of Safety, The Journal Of Legal Studies, Vol,13,No2,1984,pp.357-374.
401see Bowles, Roger, Michael G. Faure, and Nuno Garoupa. The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions:An Economic View and Policy Implications. Journal of Law and Society, vol.35,2008,pp.389-441.
402see Robert W. Drane, David.Neal, On Moral Justifications For The Tort/Crime Distinction California Law Review vol68,1980,pp.398-421.
404see Guido Calabresi and A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability:One View of the Cathedral,Harvard Law Review, vol.85, no.6,1972,pp.1089-1128.
405Becker, Gary S. Crime and Punishment:An Economic Approach,Jornal of Political Economy,vol.16,1968,pp.169-217.
406see Guido Calabresi and A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability:One View of the Cathedral,HarvardLaw Review, vol.85, no.6,1972,pp.1089-1128.
407see A. Mitchell Polinsky and Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages:An Economic Analysis, Harvard Law Review, vol.111, no.4,1998,pp.764-780.
408参见和育东：“专利侵权损害赔偿计算制度：变迁、比较与借鉴”,《知识产权》2009年第5期,第7-18页.
409see Steven Shavell, Liability For Harm Versus Regulation Of Safety, The Journal Of Legal Studies, Vol,13,No2,1984, pp.357-374.
410see Steven Shavell, The Fundamental Divergence between the Private and the Social Motive to Use the Legal Syste,. Journal of Legal Studies,vol26,1997,pp.575-612.
414Michael Faure,The White Paper On Environmental Liability: Efficiency And Insurability Analysis, Environmental Liability No.4, Witney (OXON): Sweet&Maxwell,2001,pp.188-201.
415H. Kunreuther, R. Hogarth And J. Meszaros, Insurer Ambiguity And Market Failure, Journal Of Risk And Uncertainty, vol.7,no.1,1993,pp.71-87.
418Rich, Bradford W. Environmental Litigation and the Insurance Dilemma.Risk Management,vol.32,Decembet1985,pp.34-43.
419Martin T. Katzman, Environmental Risk Management Through Insurance, The Cato Journal, vol.,6, No.3,1987, pp775-799.
420ibid.
424Steven Shavell, Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent, Columbia Law Review,vol.85,1985,pp.1232-1262.
425see Steven Shavell, Liability For Harm Versus Regulation Of Safety, The Journal Of Legal Studies, Vol,13,No2,1984,pp357-374.
426Mireille Hildebrandt, Regulatory Offences:Criminal Or Administrative Law? In Foundational Issues In The Philosophy Of Criminal Law, Special Workshop At The23rd IVR Congress, Krakow Poland,2007, pp.55-69.需要说明的是,‘'police"有时不能直接翻译成为“警察”,根据上下文应当理解成为“监管”,比较符合其本来的含义,违警罪,也可以翻译成为违反监管之罪。
427R. Nozick, Anarchy, State And Utopia, p.67..
428see Steven Shavell, Liability For Harm Versus Regulation Of Safety, The Journal Of Legal Studies, Vol,13,No2,1984,pp.357-374.
429ibid.
430see Wittman, Donald. Prior Regulation Versus Post Liability:The Choice between Input and Output Monitoring Journal of Legal Studies vol6,1977,pp.193-211.
431林德瑞：“论惩罚性赔偿”，《中正大学集刊》（创刊号），1998年7月第25-66页；高利红，余耀军：“环境民事侵权适用惩罚性赔偿原则之探究”，《法学》2003年第3期，第106-112页。
433Robert Cooter, price and sanctions, Colum. L.Rev, vol.84,1984,pp.1523-1560.
434Hicks V. Feiock,485U.S.624,636-37(1988); Hilton V. Braunskill,481U.S.770,776(1987); Harris V. Nelson,394U.S.286,293-94(1969). Phillip E. Johnson, Criminal Law (4th Ed.1990); Sanford H. Kadish&Stephen J. Schulhofer, Criminal Law And Its Processes (5th Ed.1989); Wayne R. Lafave, Modern Criminal Law (2d Ed.1988).
435Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J. vol.101,1992,pp.1795-1873.
436金福海：“惩罚性赔偿不宜纳入我国民法典”,《烟台大学学报：哲学社会科学版》,2003年第2期,第157-161。页
437Thomas B. Colby, Beyond The Multiple Punishment Problem:Punitive Damages As Punishment For Individual, Private Wrons, Minnesota Law Review, vol.87,2003, pp.583-678.
438United States v. Halper,490U.S.435(1989).
439United States v.40Moon Hill Road,884F.2d41,43(1st Cir.1989); see also United States v.141st St. Corp.,911F.2d870,880-81(2d Cir.1990), cert, denied,111S. Ct.1017(1991).
441William Holdsworth, A History Of English Law, London:Methuen,1956, p.276(reprint1977).
442杨春然：“注册会计师职务侵权的经济分析和重构”,《台湾东海大学法学研究》,2008年总第29期。
443William L. Prosser, Handbook Of The Law Of Torts, Minnesota:West Pub. Co,1984(5th ed),§4, p.22.
444See, e.g., Jules L. Coleman, Crime, Kickers, and Transaction Structures, in J. Roland Pennock&John W. Chapman Eds: Criminal Justice, New York:New York University Press,1985p.323; Guido Calabresi&A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability:One View of the Cathedral, HARV. L.REV vol.85,1972, pp.1124-1127; Alvin K. Klevorick, Legal Theory and the Economic Analysis of Torts and Crimes, COLUM. L.REV,vol.85,1985,. P.908.批评的观点可以参见George P. Fletcher, A Transaction Theory of Crime?, COLUM. L. REV.vol.85,1985,p.925.
445William Holdsworth, A History Of English Law, London: Methuen,1956,p453(reprint1977).
446Blackstone认为,不法可以分成私的不法和公的不法两种。前者剥夺了个人的财产或者民事权利；后者违反了法律或者职责,从而对整个社会产生消极的影响；所以,这才存在着犯罪与轻罪的区分。William Blackstone, Commentaries (of Prive Wrong): Ln Four Books, p.2
447Jerome Hall, Interrelations of Criminal Law and Torts, COLUM. L. REV.vol.42,1943,p.969.
448See,Gompers v. Bucks Stove&Range Co.,221U.S.418,441-42(1911)。
449这里的报应,其实就是惩罚之意。Browning-Ferris Indus. V. Kelco Disposal,492U.S.257,272(1989); Hicks V. Feiock,485U.S.624,636-37(1988). Hilton V. Braunskill,481U.S.770,776(1987); Harris V. Nelson,394U.S.286,293-94(1969); Fisher V. Baker,203U.S.174,181(1906); Phillip E. Johnson, Criminal Law (4th Ed.1990); Sanford H. Kadish&Stephen J. Schulhofer, Criminal Law And Lts Processes, New York: Wolters Kluwer Law&Business,1989(5th Ed); See Joseph Goldstein Et Al., Criminal Law: Theory And Process, New York: Free Press,1974,pp253-317(1974).
450Robert Cooter, Prices and Sanctions, COLUM. L. REV,vol.84,1984,pp.l523-1560.
452See HENRY M. HART, JR., The Aims of the Criminal Law, LAW&CONTEMP. PROBS. vol.23,1958,pp.401;405.
453Jerome Hall, Interrelations of Criminal Law and Torts, COLUM. L. REV. vol.43,1943,p.756.
4543William Blackstone, Commentaries,pp.*6-7
455在公司法中,法律救济的制度与传统的法律制度是不同的,其包括罚款、资格剥夺、没收财产、制定标准、行政监管、禁令、剥夺交易权利等。
4563William Blackstone, Commentaries,p.*16.
457程序表达了社会的价值,比如,判断的准确性程度、个人隐私和个人自我决定权意义等,参见Herbert L. Packer, The Limits Of The Criminal Sanction, Stanford:Stanford University Press,1968,pp.149-173.
458John H. Wigmore, Evidence In Trials At Common law James H. Chadbourn,1981.pp.2497,2498
459See Douglas Hay&Francis Snyder, Using the Criminal Law,1750-1850:Policing, Private Prosecution, and the State, in Douglas Hay&Francis Snyder eds:Policing And Prosecution In Britain, Oxford:Clarendon Press,1989pp.3,24.
460John C. Coffee, Jr, Paradigms Lost:The Blurring of the Criminal and Civil Law Models-And What Can Be Done About It, Yale L.J. vol.101,1992,p.1875.
461Dan Markel, Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell Law Review, vol.94,2009,p.239; Kenneth Mann,Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J. vol.101,1992,p.1795.
462see Bowles, Roger, Michael G. Faure, and Nuno Garoupa. The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions:An Economic View and Policy Implications. Journal of Law and Society, vol.35,2008,pp.389-441.
463See, e.g., Coffey v. United States,116U.S.436(1886); United States v. One Assortment of89Firearms,465U.S.354,361(1984).
464William Blackstone, Commentaries On The Laws Of England:In Four Books. Boston:Beacon.(Original work published1769).P.2.
465ibid.P.158.
466ibid.
467Atcheson v. Everitt,98Eng. Rep.1142(K.B.1775).
468Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J. vol.101,1992,pp.1795-1873.
469See Restatement (Second) Of Contracts§356(1981); See also Sandra Chutorian, Note, Tort Remedies for Breach of Contract:The Expansion of Tortious Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing into the Commercial Realm, COLUM. L. REV,vol.86,1986,p.377;对此,有人持绝对反对的态度,参见cf. Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co.,769F.2d1284,1286-89(7th Cir.1985).
470Stockwell v. United States,80U.S.13Wall.531531(1871).
471ibid, at547.
472HeLveringv.Mitchell,303U.S.391(1938).
473ibid.Y.395
474Helveringv.Mitchell,303U.S. p.398.
475Mitchell v. Commissioner,89F.2d873,878(2d Cir.1937); Helvering v. Mitchell,303U.S. p.402(1938).
476United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess,317U.S.537(1943).
477United States v. Shapleigh,54F. at130(8th Cir.1893).
478Mitchell,303U.S. at404-405; OTUnited States v. Ward,448U.S.242,254(1980).
479Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale Law Journal, vol.101,1992,p.1831.
480Kennedy v.Mendoza-Martine,372U.S.144(1963).
481518F.2d990,1011(5th Cir.1975). The appeal of this case was joined for hearing with Frank Irey, Jr., Inc. v. Occupational Safety&Health Review Comm'n,519F.2d1200(3d Cir.1974), affdon reh'g,519F.2d1215(3d Cir.1975), affd sub. nom. Atlas Roofing,430U.S.442
482Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission,372U.S. at168-169(1963)
483518F.2d at992.-994.
484United States v. Ward,448U.S.242(1980).
485See Richard A. Posner, Optimal Sentences for White-Collar Criminals, AM.CRIM. L. REV. vol.17,1980,pp409,417.不过,对于监禁刑而言,其威慑效果却不能由罚款数额的增加来取代。参见,John C. Coffee, Jr., Corporate Crime and Punishment:A Non-Chicago View of the Economics of Criminal Sanctions, AM. CRIM. L. REV. vol.17,1980,p.423.
486Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488.
487United States v. Chouteau,102U.S.603(1880).
488Revised Statutes,第3303条和3296条。
489United States v. Chouteau,102U.S.603(1880).
490Boyd v. United States,116U.S.616(1886), and One1958Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania,380U.S.693(1965). Fisher v. United States,425U.S.391(1976); United States v. Leon,468U.S.987(1984),
491Tull v. United States,481U.S.412(1987); Clean Water Act,33U.S.C.§§1251-1297(1988); Erica Clements, Comment, The Seventh Amendment Right to Jury Trial in Civil Penalties Actions:A Post-Tull Examination of the Insider Trading Sactions Act of1984, U. MIAMI L. REV. vol.43,1988, p.361.
492Boyd v. United States,116U.S.616(1886), and One1958Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania,380U.S.693(1965). Fisher v. United States,425U.S.391(1976); United States v. Leon,468U.S.987(1984).
493United States v. Harper,490U.S.448(1989).
494United States v. Halper,490U.S.448(1989).
495United States v. Halper,490U.S.445; United States v.38Whalers Cove Drive,954F.2d29(2d Cir.1991); Lynn C. Hall, Note, Crossing the Line Between Rough Remedial Justice and Prohibited Punishment:Civil Penalty Violates the Double Jeopardy Clause, WASH. L. REV,vol.65,1990,p.437.
496490U.S.435(1989)
497Susan Shapiro, The Road Not Taken:The Elusive Path to Criminal Prosecution for White-Collar Offenders, LAW&SVC. REV.vol.19,1985,p.205.
498See Lawrence G. Baxter, Judicial Responses to the Recent Enforcement Activities of the Federal Banking Regulators, FORDHAML. REV,vol,59,1991,p.198.
499Thomas B. Colby, Beyond The Multiple Punishment Problem:Punitive Damages As Punishment For Individual, Private Wrons, Minnesota Law Review, vol.87,2003, pp.583-678.
500Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488.
501ibid.
502Ciraolo v. City of New York,216F.3d236,244-46(2d Cir.2000). See, e.g., A. Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages:An Economic Analysis,HARV. L. REV.vol.111,1998,p.906.
503A. Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, ibid,pp.873-875.
504也就是说,其并不主张要全面的杜绝行为的发生,而是根据边际效率来决定是否实施某种行为。这一点与完全预防是不同的。参见杨春然：“环境侵权责任的经济分析和可保性研究”,《新疆社会科学》,2010年第2期。
505A. Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages:An Economic Analysis, Harvard Law Review,Vol.111, No.4, Feb.,1998,pp.873-875.
506QTBMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore,517U.S.559,592-594(1996).
507Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008, pp.1386-1488.
508TXO procj Corp. v. Alliance Res. Corp.,509U.S. at460-462(1993). see Posting of Dan Markel to PrawfsBlawg, Philip Morris:Up in Smoke?, http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2007/02/philip_morris_u.html (Feb.20,2007); see also BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore,517U.S.559,582n.35(1996); Kirkland v. Midland Mortgage Co.,243F.3d1277,1280(11th Cir.2001).
509Philip Morris USA v. Williams,549U.S.346,353-54(2007)陪审团判决,死者妻子获得经济赔偿是2.1万美元,非经济赔偿金是80万美元,惩罚性赔偿金是7950万美元.ibid. At350.; See Williams v. Philip Morris Inc.,176P.3d1255,1260-61(Or.2008). S. Philip Morris USA Inc. v.Williams,128S. Ct.2904(2008); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams, No.07-1216, slip op.(U.S. Mar.31,2009).
510Thomas B. Colby, Clearing the Smoke from Philip Morris v. Williams.The Past, Present, and Future of Punitive Damages, YALE L.J. vol.118,2008, pp.467-479.
511Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488.
512See Dan Markel, Retributive Damages:A Theory of Punitive Damages as Intermediate Sanction, CORNELL L. REV. vol.94,2009,pp.257-266.
513See Anthony J. Sebok, What Did Punitive Damages Do? Why Misunderstanding the History of Punitive Damages Matters Today, CHI.-KENT L.REV.vol.78,2003,pp.204-205.
514see Anthony J. Sebok&Vanessa Wilcox, Aggravated Damages, in Helmut Koziol&Vanessa Wilcox eds, Punitive Damages:Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives, Vienna:Springer-Verlag Vienna,2009.
515See Michael B. Kelly, Do Punitive Damages Compensate Society?, SAN DIEGO L. REV,vol.41.2004,p.1441.
516Dan Markel, Wrong Turns on the Road to Alternative Sanctions:Reflections on the Future of Shaming Punishments and Restorative Justice, TEX. L. REV,vol.85,2007,p.1385.
517Sachin Bansal, Philip Morris Usa V. Williams:A Confusing Distinction, Duke Journal Of Constitutional Law&Public Policy Sidebar, Vol.3,,2007'. pp.49-61.
518Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University ofPennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488.
519ibid.
520Michael S. Moore, The Moral Worth Of Retribution, In Responsibility, Character And The Emotions:New Essays In Moral Psychology179, p.179(Ferdinand Schoeman ed.,1987). Moore认为,道德可责性等同于报应。Id. at181-82; cf. also H.L.A. HART, Postscript:Responsibility and Retribution, in Punishment And Responsibility:Essays In The Philosophy Of Law,2008(2d ed.).pp.210-231.
521Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008, pp.1386-1488.
522John Rawls, Two Concepts of Rules, PHIL. REV.vol.64,1955,pp.3-5.
523Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488.
524Anthony J. Sebok, Punitive Damages:From Myth to Theory, LOWA L. REV,vol.92,2007,pp.1032-1036.
525See Guido Calabresi&A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability:One View of the Cathedral, HARKL. REV,vol.85,1972,pp.1126-27.
526See Jeffrie G. Murphy&Jules L. Coleman, Philosophy Of Law, Totowa:Rowman and Allenheld,1990,p.116.
527See Gerard V. Bradley, Retribution:The Central Aim of Punishment, HARV. J.L.&PUB. POL, vol.27,2003,pp.25-26; John Finnis, Retribution:Punishment's Formative Aim, Am. J. Jurisprudence,vol.44,1999, pp.99-101.
528Dan Markel, Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell Law Review, vol.94,2009,p.264.
529See Hugo Adam Bedau, An Abolitionist's Survey of the Death Penalty in America Today, in Hugo Adam Bedau&Paul G. Cassell eds.,2004:Debating The Death Penalty15,34-35.
531Thomas B. Colby, Beyond The Multiple Punishment Problem:Punitive Damages As Punishment For Individual, Private Wrons, Minnesota Law Review, vol.87,2003, pp.583-678.
532David G. Owen, The Moral Foundations of Punitive Damages, ALA. L. REV. vol.40,1989, p.730.
533See Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.,563N.W.2d154, pp.158-162(Wis.1997)
534比如,允许第三人就加害行为所造成的精神伤害提出赔偿。参见Of Restatement (Second) Of Torts§§313(2),436(3)(1965).
535Cf., e.g., MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN.§767.41(West2008); NEB. REV. STAT. ANN.§29-1606(LexisNexis2003).
536从技术的角度看,律师检索起诉权制度通过非当事人提起诉讼的方式,强行执法,似乎违反了Philip Morris的判决。不过,因为其并不是要求损害赔偿,而是对不法行为进行中间性的处罚,其代表的是国家,所获得收益是源自于国家利益,所以,这种做法并非不妥。参见Philip Morris USA v. Williams,127S. Ct.1057,1063(2007).; Jordan Rau, Key Ballot Measures Go Governor's Way, L.A. TIMES, Nov.3, at Al (2004).
537See Larry Laudan, The Social Contract and the Rules of Trial Procedure (Feb.25,2008), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1075403.
538E.g., Dan Markel, Against Mercy, MINN. L. REV,vol.88,2004,pp.1453-1464; Dan Markel, Luck or Law? The Constitutional Case Against Indeterminate Sentencing, FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No.376,June,2009; see also Paul H. Robinson, Distributive Principles Of Criminal Law:Who Should Be Punished How Much?, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2008,pp.62-66; Cf. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip,499U.S.1,46-48(1991).
539Dan Markel, Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell Law Review, Vol.94,2009,pp.287-288; SeeMsrk A. Geistfeld, Punitive Damages, Retribution, and Due Process,81S. CAL. L. REV. vol.81,2008, p.263.
540ibid..263.
541Dan Markel, Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction,Cornell Law Review,vol.94,2009,pp.287-288.
542Thomas B. Colby, Beyond The Multiple Punishment Problem:Punitive Damages As Punishment For Individual, Private Wrons, Minnesota Law Review, vol.87,2003, pp.583-678.
543See Cass R. Sunstein et al., Predictably Incoherent Judgments, STAN. L.REV,vol.54, June,2002,pp.1172-1173.
544ibid, at1171-1179..
545See Cass R. Sunstein et al., Assessing Punitive Damages (with Notes on Cognition and Valuation in Law), The Yale Law Journal,Vol.107, No.7, May,1998,at2074-2075.See, e.g., Neil Vidmar, Experimental Simulations and Tort Reform: Avoidance, Error, and Overreaching in Sunstein et al.'s Punitive Damages, Emory Law Journal, Vol.53,2004,p.1366.
547See Bureau Of Justice Assistance, How To Use Structured Fines (Day Fines) As An Intermediate Sanction1(1996), available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/156242. pdf; Nora V. Demleitner Et Al., Sentencing Law And Policy:Cases, Statutes, AND GUIDELINES598-99(2d ed.2007).
548See BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore,517U.S.559,615(1996).
549这种观点只考虑被告的不法行为仅仅威胁到他人的财产这种情况。报应性赔偿金绑定在赔偿金之上的结构,不会鼓励被告人挑选穷人作为受害人,除非这些穷人不大可能通过侵权制度寻求救济或者获得赔偿。
549当然,对于赔偿金是否也会传递价值不平等这种错误信息,也会产生很多的问题。不过,Geistfeld认为,应当使用政府监管数据和监管方法去量化社会成本。
550参见See Mark A. Geistfeld, Punitive Damages, Retribution, and Due Process,81S. CAL. L. REV. at284-295(2008).
551罚金额既不能也不应当被法律所固定。从很多的原因看,金钱的价值自身是有可变性的,不管在何时,损毁一个人财产的后果,另一个人可能根本不予关心；Ronen Perry, The Role of Retributive Justice in the Common Law of Torts:A Descriptive Theory, Tennessee Law Review, Vol.73,2006,p.188;给无产者或者意外的伤害者处以一千元的罚金,就足够了,但对于富人而言,损失一千元,可能不会有任何的感觉。See4William Blackstone, Commentaries*378.
552See Mathias v. Accor Econ. Lodging, Inc.,347F.3d672,677(7th Cir.2003).
553在诉讼中,有时富人有可能通过经济能力,迫使诉讼拖延,使得原告人无法承受相关的诉讼成本。See CGBOccupational Therapy, Inc. v. RHA Health Servs., Inc.,499F.3d184,192(3d Cir.2007); Cont'1Trend Res., Inc. v. OXY USA Inc.,101F.3d634,642(10th Cir.1996).
554cf.Kenneth S. Abraham&John C. Jeffries, Jr., Punitive Damages and the Rule of Law:The Role of Defendant's Wealth, The Journal of Legal Studies,Vol.18, No.2, Jua,1989, pp.421-424.
555See, e.g., Brief Amicus Curiae of the Business Roundtable in Support of Appellant Urging Reversal, White v. Ford Motor Co.,500F.3d963(9th Cir.2005)(No.05-15655).at7n.1(citing Bell v. Clackamas County,341F.3d858,868(9th Cir.2003)); see also Bell,341F.3d at868.
556See Vac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip,499U.S.1,21-22(1991).
557See Robert Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981,pp.366-368.
558Eric Kades, Windfalls, The Yale Law Journal,Vol.108, No.7, May,1999,p.1564.
559当然,这种规定是不合理的,参见杨春然：“论罪犯的权利”,《山东理工大学学报(社科版)》,2006年第2期。
560这种观点实质上没有将罚款考虑在内。Cf.Marc Galanter&David Luban, Poetic Justice:Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism,AM. U. L. REV,vol.42,1993,pp.1457-1458.
561Dan Markel,Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell Law Review, Vol.94,2009,pp.239-340.
562比如Mark A. Geistfeld认为宪法正当程序对惩罚性赔偿的限制,不应当适用于痛苦和疼痛性的损害赔偿,Due Process and the Determination of Pain and Suffering Tort Damages, DEPAUL L. REV,vol.55,winter,2006,p.331.
563宪法正当程序对惩罚性赔偿的限制,不应当适用于痛苦和疼痛性的损害赔偿,参见Mark A. Geistfeld, Due Process and the Determination of Pain and Suffering Tort Damages, DEPAUL L. REV,vol.55,winter,2006,p.331(2006);比如,对于疼痛之类的伤害,相似的痛苦而赔偿金存在着巨大的差别。Id,p.342.
564以经济收入为基础的做法,会破坏平等原则,参见Dan Markel,Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell Law Review, Vol.94,2009,pp.290-291.
565see Thomas B. Colby, Clearing the Smoke from Philip Morris v. Williams:The Past, Present, and Future of Punitive Damages, Yale Law Journal, Vol.118,2009,p.469.
566Colby,ibid. P.476;Michael P. Allen, The Supreme Court, Punitive Damages and State Sovereignty, GEO. MASONL. REV.vol.13,2004,pp.21-25.
567See generally1WAYNE R. LAFAVE ET AL. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE§1.8(e)(3d ed.2008)(discussing special constitutional rules in the capital punishment context); Stuart P. Green, Rationing Criminal Procedure:A Comment on Ashworth and Zedner, CRLM. L.&PHII. Vol.2,2008,pp.53,-54.
568Stuart P. Green, Rationing Criminal Procedure:A Comment on Ashworth and Zedner, CRLM. L.&PHIL. Vol.2,2008,pp.53,-54; Scott,440U.S.367; Callan v. Wilson,127U.S.540(1888); Mackinv. United States,117U.S.348,351(1885).
569See generally Gabriel J. Chin, Race, the War on Drugs, and the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction, J. GENDER RACE&JUST.vol.6,2002,p.253.
570See Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice:Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, AM. U. L. REV. vol.42,1993,pp.1457-1458.
571Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J,vol.101,1992.
572See Benjamin C. Zipursky, A Theory of Punitive Damages, TEX L.REV,vol.84,2005,-p.146.
573Dan Markel,Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell Law Review, Vol.94,2009,pp.239-340.
574ibid.pp.287-289.
575Linda L. Schlueter&Kenneth R. Redden, Punitive Damages, LEXIS Publishing,2005(5th ed),§5.3(H)(2); COLO. REV. STAT.§13-25-127(2)(2008).
576Hoffman v. United States,341U.S.479,486(1951); see also Carlson v. United States,209F.2d209,214(1st Cir.1954)
577See Ronald J. Allen, Theorizing About Self-Incrimination, CARDOZOL. I..REV,vol.30,no.25,2008,pp.730-739; William J. Stuntz, Self-Incrimination and Excuse, COLUM. L. REV. vol.88,1988,pp.1227-1228.
578美国宪法第五修正案规定,当行为人拒绝拿出证据反驳对其不利的证据时,在民事案件中,可以对其进行不利的推论,这也是一个主要的规则,See Baxter v. Palmigiano,425U.S.308,318(1976); See, e.g., Hale v. Henkel,201U.S.43,67(1906); see also18U.S.C.§6003(2006).
579See Lefkowitz v. Turley,414U.S.70,77(1973); Spevack v. Klein,385U.S.511,515-16(1967).
581Jeremy Bentham, Rationale Of Judicial Evidence, Littleton:Colo., Fred B. Rothman&Co.1995(1827).p.1.
582Markel, Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?,University of Pennsylvania Law Review vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488
583See Ronald J. Allen, Theorizing About Self-Incrimination, CARDOZOL. REV,vol.30. December,2008,pp.734-736.
584即使承认不得强迫自证其罪权,无辜的被告人仍可以告诉事实真相,而有罪的被告人则可以合理地使用这种权力。这样,有罪的被告人就不能通过撒谎而与无辜的人混在一起,最后导致法官不会错误地给无辜的被告人定罪。See Daniel J. Seidmann&Alex Stein, The Right to Silence Helps the Innocent:A Game-Theoretic Analysis of the Fifth Amendment Privilege, Harvard Law Review, Vol.114,2000.p.430-510.
585See Stephanos Bibas, The Right to Remain Silent Helps Only the Guilty, IOWA L.REV,vol.88,2003,p.421.
586See ibid, at432不过,Alex Stein对此又进行解释。参见Alex Stein, The Right to Silence Helps the Innocent:A Response to Critics, CARDOZOL. REV,vol.30,2008,p.1115.
587被告人有回答依法进行的审问的义务,正义并不会因此而受到影响。See Palko v. Connecticut,302U.S.319,326(1937)(Cardozo, J.).
588United States v. Halper,490U.S.435,440(1989), overruled on other grounds by Hudson v. United States,522U.S.93,95-96(1997).. See Dep't of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch,511U.S.767,769n.1(1994).
589See, e.g., Helvering v. Mitchell,303U.S.391,399(1938); United States v. Ely,142F.3d1113,1121(9th Cir.1997); Hansen v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp.,734F.2d1036,1042(5th Cir.1984); cf. Hudson,522U.S. at99.
590See, e.g., Shore v. Gurnett,18Cal. Rptr.3d583,586-87(Ct. App.2004).
591See State v. McDowell,699A.2d987,989(Conn.1997).
592See See Thomas B. Colby, Clearing the Smoke from Philip Morris v. Williams:The Past, Present, and Future of Punitive Damages, Yale L.J.vol.118,December,2008,pp.452-453; Malcolm E. Wheeler, The Constitutional Case for Reforming Punitive Damages Procedures, Virginia Law Review, Vol.69, No.2, Mar.,1983,p.272.; See, e.g., Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,378F.2d832,841(2d Cir.1967)(Friendly, J.)
593See Blockburger v. United States,284U.S.299,304(1932)
594See Marc L. Miller&Ronald F. Wright, Criminal Procedures, New York:Aspen,2007(3d ed),pp.1002-1005.
595See Heath v. Alabama,474U.S.82,88(1985).
596Dan Markel, Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell L. Rev,vol.94,2009,pp.280-286.
597就此而言,我国行政处罚的有关禁止双重处罚的规定,是有一定的问题的。
598Dan Markel, Retributive Damages:A Theory Of Punitive Damages As Intermediate Sanction, Cornell L. Rev,vol.94,2009,pp.280-286.
599Tullidge. v. Wade,95Eng, Rep, p.909(C.P.1769).
600ibid.
601BMW of North America, Inc. v.Gore,517U.S. P.563(1996).
602Thomas B. Colby, Beyond The Multiple Punishment Problem:Punitive Damages As Punishment For Individual, Private Wtons,Minesota Law Review, vol.87,2003, pp.594-595.
603Ibid,p.595.
605The Insider Trading Sanctions Act of1984,15U.S.C.§78u-1(a)(2)(1988);. Cf. One1958Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania,380U.S.693(1965).
606See generally Jeffrey Reiman, The Rich Get Richer And The Poor Get Prison:Ideology,Crime, And Criminal Justice (8th ed.2007)(探讨对富人进行处罚的障碍).
607See Stuart P. Green, Lying, Cheating,And Stealing:A Moral Theory Of White-Collar Crime, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006,pp.14-20; See Darryl K. Brown, The Problematic and Faintly Promising Dynamics of Corporate Crime Enforcement, Ohio St. J. Crim. Z.vol.l, Spring,2004, pp.526-28.
609Darryl K. Brown, The Problematic and Faintly Promising Dynamics of Corporate Crime Enforcement, OHIO ST. J. CRIM. Z.vol.1,2004,p.528; Kurt Eichenwald, White-Collar Defense Stance: The Criminal-less Crime, N.Y. TIMES, Mar.3,2002,§4,p.3.
610See Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice: Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, AM. U. I. REV. vol.42,1993,pp.1440-1445.
611David G. Owen, Civil Punishment and the Public Good,56S. CAL. L. REV.vo.56, no.4,1982, p.103; See, e.g., Thomas H. Koenig&Michael L. Rustad, In Defense Of Tort Law,New York: New York University,2001,pp.82-101; See David. G. Owen, Punitive Damages in Products Liability Litigation, Michigan law Review, Vol.74, No.7, Jua,1976,pp.l325-1361.
612Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice: Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism,AM U. I. REVvolA2,1993,p.1441.
613See Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.,174Cal. Rptr.348,382-83(Cal. Ct. App.1981); David Luban, Lawyers And Justice: An Ethical Study, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1988,pp.206-213.反对的观点可以参见,Gary T. Schwartz, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, RUTGERS I. REV,vol.43,1991,pp.l020-1026; Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice: Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, AM. U. I. REV. vol.42,1993,p.1441. see Gary T. Schwartz, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, RUTGERS I. REV,vol.43,1991,pp.1020-1035.
615Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice:Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, AM. U. L. REV. vol.42,1993,p.1441.616本文将罚款视为是报应性赔偿,其实,就是惩罚性的赔偿,但是惩罚性赔偿通常还包含着加重性的赔偿和威慑性赔偿,后两者有时很难解释成为具有“惩罚性”,再加上,人们习惯上将后两者也称之为惩罚性赔偿,所以,本文借鉴有些学者的观点,将罚款成为报应性赔偿,参见Markel, Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488; See THOMAS H. KOENIG&MICHAEL L. RUSTAD, IN DEFENSE OF TORT LAW,2001, p.176.
617Cf. Tom Baker, Blood Money, New Money and the Moral Economy of Tort Law in Action, LAW&SOC' Y REV. vol.35,2001,p.314.
618See Darryl K. Brown, The Problematic and Faintly Promising Dynamics of Corporate Crime Enforcement,1OHIO ST. J. CRIM. L. vol.1,2004,p.524.
619Set See Tom Baker, Transforming Punishment into Compensation: In the Shadow of Punitive Damages, WIS.L. REV.1998, pp.219-220,222; Tom Baker, Liability Insurance as Tort Regulation: Six Ways that Liability Insurance Shapes Tort Law in Action, CONN. INS. L.J.,vol.12,2005,pp.1,4-6.
620Cf,Mathias v. Accor Econ. Lodging, Inc.,347F.3d672,677(7th Cir.2003).
621Kenneth Mann, Defending White-Collar Crime: a Portrait Of Attorneys At Work, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,1985,pp.4,8-13,22-23,200,204,218,231.
622Stuart P. Green, Lying, Cheating, And Stealing: A Moral Theory Of White-Collar Crime, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006, pp.28-29.
623Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice: Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, AM. U.L. REV. vol.42,1993,p.1443; see also John Braithwaite&Gilbert Geis, On Theory and Action for Corporate Crime Control, in ON WHITE-COLLAR CRIME189,189-94(Gilbert Geis ed.,1982).
624See Kathleen F. Brickey, In Enron's Wake: Corporate Executives on Trial, J. CRIM. L.&CRIMINOLOGY,,vol.96,2006, pp.397,419; See Christine Hurt, The Undercivilization of Corporate Law, J. CORP. L.vol.33,2008,pp.361,373-375,378-379.
625See Christine Hurt, The Undercivilization of Corporate Law, J. CORP. I. Vol.33,2008, p.404.
626Samuel W. Buell, Criminal Procedure Within the Firm, STAN. L. REV,vol.59,2007,pp.1613,1616. Press Release, Dep't of Justice, Justice Department Revises Charging Guidelines for Prosecuting Corporate Fraud (Aug.28,2008), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/August/08-odag-757.html.
627See ibid. at37173；错误1是指行为人没有违法而受到追究,或者违法较轻而受到较重的处罚；错误2是指违法行为没有受到追究,或者较重的违法行为受到了较重的处罚。参见后文。
628See Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice:Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, AM. U. I. REV. vol.42,1993,p.1443.
629See Cary Segall, Bill Would Ease Punitive Damages, WIS. ST.J., Nov.29,1987, p.12.
630H. Koenig&Michael L. Rustad, In Defense OfTort Law,New York:New York University,2001,pp.69-101.
631See Timothy A. Johnson, Note, Sentencing Organizations After Booker,YALE L.J.vol.116,n.47,2006.p.632,641.
632See Assaf Hamdani&Alon Klement, Corporate Crime and Deterrence, STAN.L. REV,vol.61,2009.pp.271-310.
633See Joseph A. Grundfest, Over Before It Started, N.Y. TIMES, June14,2005, p.A23; see Assaf Hamdani&Alon Klement, ibid; Elizabeth K. Ainslie,Indicting Corporations Revisited:Lessons of the Arthur Andersen Prosecution, AM. CRIM.L. RFF.,vol.43,2006,p.107. See Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States,544U.S.696,708(2005).
634See Hamdani&Klement, supra note,p.273.273Kathleen F. Brickey, Andersen's Fall from Grace, WASH. U. L.Q. Vol.81,2003,pp.917-929.
635Kathleen F. Brickey, Andersen's Fall from Grace, WASH. U. L.Q. Vol.81,2003, pp.917-929.
636See, e.g., Larry E. Ribstein, Perils of Criminalizing Agency Costs,J. Bus.&Tech. Z.vol.2.,n.1,2007,pp.59-69;Cf. Miriam Hechler Baer, Insuring Corporate Crime, IND. L.J. vol.83,2008,p.1035.
637See Marc Galanter&David Luban,Poetic Justice:Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, AM. U. L. REV. vol.42,1993,p.1444; see also Darryl K. Brown, Street Crime, Corporate Crime, and the Contingency of Criminal Liability,U. PA. L. REV,vol.149.2001,pp.1295,1331.
638参见《中国人民共和国刑法》第1条。
639Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J. vol.101,1992, pp.1845-1848.
640See Cesare B. Beccaria, An Essay On Crimes And Punishment, London, E. Hodson,1801(5th Ed); Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction To The Principles Of Morals And Legislation, Laurence J. Lafleur Ed., Hafner Publishing,1948; A. V. Dicey, Lectures On The Relation Between Law And Public Opinion Ln England During The Nineteenth Century,1905, p.125.
641William M. Landes&Richard A. Posner, The Economic Structure Of Tort Law,1987,p.6,该书探讨了功利主义的发展史,明确指出这种观点源自于边沁。
642Cesare B. Beccaria, An Essay On Crimes And Punishment, London, E. Hodson,1801(5th Ed),pp.94-98.
643Jerome Hall, Interrelations of Criminal Law and Torts (pts.1&2), COLUM. L. REV,vol.43,1943,p.758.
644ibid,p,753.
645Charles A. Reich, Beyond the New Property:An Ecological View of Due Process, BROOK. L. REV,vol.56,1990,pp.731,743.
646Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis Of Law (3d Ed.1986).在该文中,波斯纳指出,维持人们对侵权法的信赖,有一个前提,即一旦确定其对损害负有责任,其必须要对此进行赔偿。损害赔偿金之所以由受害人享有,而不是国家享有,有两个方面的原因,其一,鼓励受害人积极起诉,这对侵权法有效地控制过失行为是非常关键的；其二,避免受害人采取过分的预防,即防止过剩预防。
647ibid,p.205.
648Lawrence M. Friedman, Total Justice (1985)该书提到了很多原本在法律之外后来被法律处罚的一些行为,其甚至用“法律爆炸”来描述这种变化。
649S. REP. NO.345,99th Cong.,2d Sess.2(1986), reprinted in1986U.S.C.C.A.N.5266,5267
650修正案将罚金的上限从1万美元提高到100万美元,有期徒刑从5年增加到10年。18U.S.C.§287(1988).
651See H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co.,492U.S.229(1989); Report of the Ad Hoc Civil RICO Task Force,1985A.B.A. SEC. CORP., BANKING&BUS. L.55-56.
652See Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip,111S. Ct.1032,1066(1991).
653ibid, at1032。
654ibid, at1035; See also Browning-Ferris Indus, v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.,492U.S.257(1989).
655BMW of North America,Inc. v. Gore701So.2d507(Ala,1997)。
656See Robert L. Robin, Federal Regulation in Historical Perspective,38STAN. L. REV.1189,1191-96(1986).
657Stephen G. Breyer&Richard B. Stewart, Administrative Law And'Regulatory Policy,1992(3dEd.),pp.20-31.
658Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law,Fale L.J,vol.101,1992.
659Glen O. Robinson Et Al., The Administrative Process, at456-57(3d ed.1986).
660See ROBINSON ET AL,ibid, at552-555.
661See ROBINSON ET AL,ibid, at8-9.
662See United States v. Ward,448U.S.242(1980); Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety&Health Review Comm'n,430U.S.442(1977)
663Civil Monetary Penalties Act of1981,42U.S.C.§1320a-7a (1988).
664See RONALD A. CASS&COLIN S. DIVER, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW503(1987);cf Jonathan D. Libber, Penalty Assessment at the Environmental Protection Agency: A View From Inside,35S.D. L. REV.189(1990).
665See ibid, CASS&DIVER, supra, at536-38.
666Colin S. Diver, The Assessment and Mitigation of Civil Money Penalties by Federal Administrative Agencies,79COLUM. L. REV. at1440(1979).
667The evolution from judicial to administrative assessment of civil penalties is found in the False Claims Act,31U.S.C.§3729(1988).
668See Ronald M. Levin, Understanding Unreviewability in Administrative Law,74MINN. L. REV.689(1990); cf. Colin S. Diver, The Optimal Precision of Administrative Rules,93YALE L.J.65,77-78(1983).
669Kenneth W. Simons, The Hand Formula in the Draft Restatement (Third) of Torts:Encompassing Fairness as well as Efficiency Values, VAND. L. REV. Vol.54,2001,pp.905. Markel, Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work??, University of Pennsylvanta Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488.
670Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?,University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488.
671ibid.
672ibid.
673See Susan Shapiro, Wayward Capitalists, Yale Univ Press,1987,p.159.
674See John C. Jeffries, Jr.&Paul B. Stephan Ⅲ, Defenses, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law, YALEL.J. vol.88, no.7,june,1979,p.l367. See Ann Hopkins, Mens Rea and the Right to Trial by Jury, California Law Review,Vol.76, No.2,Mar.,1988,p.391.
675ibid, at273.. Herbert L. Packer, The Limits Of The Criminal Sanction, Stanford:Stanford University Press,1968,p.251.
676See United States v. Sanchez-Escareno,950F.2d193,200(5th Cir.1991); United States v. Mayers,897F.2d1126,1127(11th Cir.1990), cert, denied,111S. Ct.178(1990); see also United States v. Bizzell,921F.2d263,266-67(10th Cir.1990).
677See Elizabeth S. Jahncke, United States v. Harper, Punitive Civil Fines, and the Double Jeopardy and Excessive Fines Clauses,66N.Y.U. L. REV. at139-142(1991)。这一点与我国行政处罚法第28条第二款的规定不同。
678U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual§lbl.l (1992).
679See Joseph T. Small, Jr.&Robert A. Burgoyne, Criminal Prosecutions Initiated by Administrative Agencies:The FDA, The Accardi Doctrine and the Requirement of Consistent Agency Treatment,. The Journal of Criminal Law and CriminolVol78, No.1, Spring,1987,pp.116-117
680Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip,111S. Ct.1032(1991).
68118U.S.C.§1964(c)(1991); See generally William M. Landes&Richard A. Posner, The Private Enforcement of Law, J. LEGAL STUD,vol.4, no.62,November,1974,1-46.
682See, e.g., Browning-Ferris Indus, v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.,492U.S.257(1989).
683United States v. Halper,490U.S.435,451(1989).
684Gary S. Becker&George J. Stigler, Law Enforcement, Malfeasance, and Compensation of Enforcers,3J. LEGAL STUD.1(1974).
685See Susan Shapiro, The Road Not Taken:The Elusive Path to Criminal Prosecution for White-Collar Offenders, LAW&SOC. REV.vol.19,1995. pp.187-190.
686See Stephen G. Breyer&Richard B. Stewart, Administrative Law And Regulatory Policy,New York:Aspen,1992(3d ed),pp.3-6.
687Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J,vol.101,1992.
688490U.S.435(1989)
689Susan Shapiro, The Road Not Taken:The Elusive Path to Criminal Prosecution for White-Collar Offenders, LAW&SOC. REV,vol.19,1985,p.205.
690See Anthony J. Sebok, What Did Punitive Damages Do? Why Misunderstanding the History of Punitive Damages Matters Today, CHI.-KENTL. REV,vol.78,2003,pp.204-205.
691Cf. BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore,517U.S.559,592-594(1996).
692Dan Markel, How Should Punitive Damages Work?, University of Pennsylvania Law Review vol.157,2008,pp.1386-1488; A. Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, pp.873-875.
693William r. Landes&Richard a. Posner, The Economic Structure Of Tort Law,1987, pp.153-160.
694即complete deterrence" or "total deterrence",Alan H. Scheiner, Note, Judicial Assessment of Punitive Damages, The Seventh Amendment and The Politics of Jury Power, COLUM. L. REV. Vol.91,1991,p.175..
695Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J. vol.101,1992, pp.1845-1848.
696John C. Coffee, Jr, Paradigms Lost:The Blurring of the Criminal and Civil Law Models-And What Can Be Done About It. YaleLJ, vol,101, June,1992, p.1879.
697See Jules L. Coleman, Crime, Kickers, and Transaction Structure, in Nomos Xxvii:Criminal Justice, J. Ronald Pennock&John W. Chapman eds.,1985,pp.289;313; Alvin K. Klevorick, Legal Theory and the Economic Analysis of Torts and Crimes,85COLUM. L. REV. Vol.85,1985,pp.907-908(1985).
700SeeJohn C. Coffee, Jr., Does "Unlawful" Mean "Criminal"?:Reflections on the Disappearing Tort/Crime Distinction in American Law,71B.U. L. REV.193(1991).
701See Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, An Economic Analysis of the Criminal Law as a Preference-Shaping Policy,1990DUKE L.J.1.; Professor Dau-Schmidt or Professor Johnston.; Jason S. Johnston, Punitive Liability:A New Paradigm of Efficiency in Tort Law,87COLUM. L. REV.1385(1987),,
702John C. Coffee, Jr, Paradigms Lost:The Blurring of the Criminal and Civil Law Models--And What Can Be Done About It. Yale.J, vol,101, June,1992, pp.1875-1893.
703ibid.
704See Jeffrey Reiman, The Rich Get Richer And The Poor Get Prison:Ideology, Crime, And Criminal Justice (8th ed.2007)(探讨对富人进行处罚的障碍).
706周小燕：“墨西哥湾漏油污染罚款引争议”，《亮报》，第LB08版，2011年4月9日。
708George P. Fletcher, A Transaction Theory of Crime?, COLUM.L. REV,vol.85,1985,p.924.
709需要注意的,这里的行政犯并不受法院的管辖,属于行政的范畴。seeMireille Hildebrandt, Regulatory Offences: Criminal Or Administrative Law? In Foundational Issues In The Philosophy Of Criminal Law, Special Workshop At The23rd IVR Congress, Krakow Poland,2007, pp.55-69..
710ibid..
711ibid.
713Winfried Hassemer, Justification And Excuse In Criminal Law:Theses And Comments, Brigham Young University Law Review,1983,pp.573-609.
714不管是行政拘留、劳动教养,还是行政罚款,在一定程度上违反了《公民权利和政治权利公约》第9条第1款的规定。尽管中国大陆已经签署还未获人大批准,但是中国政府以及多次表示要实施该公约。
715see Miceli, T., Optimal prosecution of defendants whose guilt is uncertain, Journal of Law, Economics and Organisation, vol.6,1990,pp.189-201.
716see Ogus, Anthony, and Carolyn Abbot. Sanctions for Pollution:Do We Have the Right Regime? Journal of EnvironmentalLaw,vol14,2002,pp.283-298.
717see Becker, Gary S. Crime and Punishment:An Economic Approach-Journal of Political Economy,vol76,1968,pp.169-217.
718参见林山田：《刑罚学》,台湾商务印书馆,1985年版,第128页。
719see Steven Shavell, Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent Columbia Law Review1985,Vol85,pp.1232-1262.
720see Ogus, Anthony, and Carolyn Abbot. Sanctions for Pollution:Do We Have the Right Regime? Journal of Environmental Law,vol.14,2002,pp.283-298.
721Joel feinberg, The Expressive Function Of Punishment,in Doing And Deserving, Princeton:Princeton University Press1970,pp.95-118.
722Elizabeth S.Anderson&Richard H. Pildes, Expressive Theories of Law:A General Restatement, U. Pa. L. Rev. vol.148,200,p.1503; Richard H. McAdams, A Focal Point Theory of Expressive Law, Va. L. Rev vol.86,2000,p.l649: Richard H. Pildes, Why Rights Are Not Trumps:Social Meanings, Expressive Harms, and Constitutionalism, J. Legal Stud.vol.28,1998,p,725; Dan M. Kahan, What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean? U. Chi. L. Rev. vol.63,1996,p.591; Cass R. Sunstein, On the Expressive Function of Law, U. Pa. L. Rev.vol.144,1996,p.2021; Elizabeth Anderson, Value in Ethics and Economics,1993,pp.17-43; Lawrence Lessig, The Regulation of Social Meaning, U. Chi. L. Rev.vol.62,1995,p.943; Richard H. Pildes&Richard G. Niemi, Expressive Harms,"Bizarre Districts," and Voting Rights:Evaluating Election-District Appearances After Shaw v. Reno, Mich. L. Rev.vol.92,p.483.
723Carol Steiker, Foreword:Punishment and Procedure:Punishment Theory and the Criminal-Civil Procedural Divide, Geo. L.J. vol.85,1997,pp.775,803; see also Dan M. Kahan, The Secret Ambition of Deterrence, Harv. L. A?kvo1.113, n.16,1999,pp.419-20; Dan M. Kahan, What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean? U. Chi. L. Rev.vol.63,1996,pp.591,595; Dan M. Kahan, The Cognitively Illiberal State, STANFORD LAWREVLEW vol60,2007,pp.115-154.
724Joel Feinberg, Harm To Others, pp.24,248; Joel Feinberg, Harmless Wrongdoing, pp.149,354.
725Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April200lp.105.
726Jean Hampton, Liberalism, Retribution and Criminality, in In Harm s Way: Essays in honor of Joel Feinberg, Jules L. Coleman&Allen Buchanan eds.,1994,p.54.
727Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff. Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001. p.103.
728see Rasmusen, Eric. Stigma and Self-Fulfilling Expectations of Criminality. Journal of Law and Economics, vol39,1996,pp.519-543.
729see Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and PunishmentExploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.5,2001,pp.145-172.
730see see Rasmusen, Eric. Stigma and Self-Fulfilling Expectations of Criminality. Journal of Law and Economics, vol39,1996,pp.519-543.
731Coffee JR.,Does "Unlawful" Mean "Criminal"?: Reflections on the Disappearing Tort/Crime Distinction in American Law. Boston University Law Review, vol71,1991,pp.193-246.
732see Rasmusen, Eric. Stigma and Self-Fulfilling Expectations of Criminality. Journal of Law and Economics, vol39,1996,pp.519-543.
[89] see Abril Bedarf,Comment:Examining Sex Offenders Community Notification Laws, Californial Law Review, Vol83,1995,pp.885-886.
733see Rasmusen, Eric. Stigma and Self-Fulfilling Expectations of Criminality. Journal of Law and Economics, vol39,1996,pp.519-543..
734see Coffee JR.,Does "Unlawful" Mean "Criminal"?:Reflections on the Disappearing Tort/Crime Distinction in American Law. Boston University Law Review vol71,1991,pp.193-246.
735see Alon Harel and Alon Klement, The Economics of Stigma:Why More Detection of Crime May Result in Less Stigmatization, Journal of 'Legal' Studies vol36, at355-377(2007).
736see R. Posner, Shame, Stigma, and Crime:Evaluating the Efficacy of Shaming Sanctions in Criminal Law. Harvard Law Review vol116,at2186-2207(2003).
737see Funk, Patricia. On the Effective Use of Stigma as a Crime-Deterrent. European Economic Review vol48,2004,pp.715-728.
738see Kahan, Dan M., and Eric A. Posner. Shaming White-Collar Criminals:A Proposal for Reform for the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Journal of Law and Economics,vol.42,1999,pp.365-391.
739参见贺乐民、高全：“论政府与公民行政合作的理念与构建”,《理论导刊》,2008年第6期,第68-75页。
740see Keith Hawkins,Bargain and Bluff:Compliance Strategy and Deterrence in the Enforcement of Regulation, Law and Policy Quarterly, vol.5,no.1,1983,pp.35-73.
741see Michael G. Faure and Marjolein Visser, Law and Economics of Environmental Crime, in New Perspectives on Economic Crime, ed. Hans Sjogren and Goran Skogh,Cheltenham, Northampton:Edward Elgar,2004,pp.67-68.
742see Bowles, Roger, Michael G. Faure, and Nuno Garoupa. The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions:An Economic View and Policy Implications. Journal of Law and Society, vol.35,2008,pp.389-441.
see K. Pistor and C. Xu, Incomplete Law, Journal of International Law and Politics,vol35,2004,pp.931-1013.
746Rasmusen, Eric, An Economic Approach to Adultery Law, Marriage and Divorce: An Economic Perspective, edited by Antony Dnes and Robert Rowthorn,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2002. Chapter5, pp.70-91.
747ibid.
748kuk cho, The Crime Of Adultery In Korea:Inadequate Means For Maintaining Morality And Protecting Women, Journal Of Korean Law, vol.2, No.1,2002.pp.82-87.
749M J Siegel, For Better or for Worse:Adultery, Crime and the Constitution,Journal of Family Law Vol.30Issue:1,1992, pp45-96;Richard J. Arneson, Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism, legal theory, vol11,2005,pp.259-284.
750ibid.
751kuk cho, The Crime Of Adultery In Korea:Inadequate Means For Maintaining Morality And Protecting Women, Journal Of Korean Law, vol.2, No.1,2002.pp.82-87.
752美国法学会编：《美国模范刑法典及其评注》,刘仁文等译,北京：法律出版社,2005年版,第144页。
753M J Siegel, For Better or for Worse:Adultery, Crime and the Constitution Journal of Family Law Volume:30Issue:1,1992, pp.45-96.
754Cousin Couple.(2009, February7). Wikipedia. Retrieved March3,2009From http://en.wikipedia.Org/w/index.php?title=Cousin_couple&oldid29154596.
755Kasemset, Should Consensual Incest Between Consanguine Adults Be Restricted?,Intersect,vol.2,2009, pp.83-89.
756Is Incest Okay? Christian Apologetics&Research Ministry. Retrieved March3,2009from http://www.carm.org/questions/about-sexuality/incest-okay(2009, March3).
[123] Lawrence v. Texas.(2003, June26). No.539U.S.558.
758杨春然：“伤害原则对法益保护原则的一次超越——兼论犯罪的本质”,《中国刑事法杂志》,2010年第2期。
759Kasemset, Should Consensual Incest Between Consanguine Adults Be Restricted? Intersect,vol.2,2009, pp.83-89.
760Giinther Jakobs, Imputation in the Criminal Law and the Conditions for NormValidity, BuK Crim. L. Rev vol7,2004,pp.491-495.
761Bendor, J. and Swistak, P,The evolution of norms. American Journal of Sociology, vol.106,no.6:,2001,pp.1490-545.
762但是,在规则层面上,价值在某些领域,比如恐怖犯罪领域,具有价值回归的趋势,但是,其不并不能否定规则判断的形式价值。参见Thomas Gilly, At the Crossroad Among Crime, Norms and Values.
763C R Snyman, The Definition Of The Proscription And The Structure Of Criminal Liability, The South African Law Journal,vol111,1994,pp.65-79;杨春然：“论故意在三阶层犯罪论体系中的位置”,《中外法学》,2011年第4期。
764See Hassemer&Kerner, Unrechtsbewubtsem Und Soziale Norm, Im3Sozialwissenschaften Im Studium Des Rechts: Strafrecht W.Hassemer&K. LUDerssen1st ed,67-70(1978); Hassemer&Hart-Honig, Generalpravention Im Strabenverkehr, Im Sozialwissenschaften Im Strafrecht,s.230-251(hassemer ed,1984).
765Frederick Schauer, Playing By The Rules:A Philosophical Examination Of Rule-Based Decision-Making In law And In Life, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1991, pp.77-78.
766颜厥安：从规范缝隙到规范存有——初探法律论证中的实践描述,《法律方法与法律思维》,2008年第5辑,第3-21页。
767巴比备忘录第44页。
768Article31(1)(d)ICC St。
769See P. Gaeta, May Necessity Be Available as a Defence for Torture in the Interrogation of Suspected Terrorists?, pp785-794.
770范立波：“规范裂缝的判定与解决”,《法学家》2010年第1期,第6-15页。
771Christopher Kutz, Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics, pp.243-244.(2007).
772Oren Gross, Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience,p.124.
773John T. Parry&Welsh S. White, Interrogating Suspected Terrorists:Should Torture be an Option? The University of Pittsburgh Law Review,vol62.2002, p.763.
774Is Torture Ever Justified?, The Economist Jan.11,2003, p.9转引自Oren Gross, Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience, p.149.
775Jeremy Waldron,Torture and Positive Law:Jurisprudence for the White House.pp.1721-1722.
776Thomas Nagel, War And Massacre, In War And Moral Responsibility, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1974, pp.3-5.
777See Yehezkel Dror, Challenge to the Democratic Capacity to Govern, in Martha Crenshaw, ed., Terrorism, Legitimacy, and Power:The Consequences of Political Violence Middletown, CT:Wesleyan University Press,1983,p.65.
778Harold Hongju Koh, A World Without Tor-ture, COLUM. J. TRANSNATL Z.vol.43,2005,p.655.
779United Nations, Committee Against Torture; Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article19of the Convention, Second Periodic Reports of States Parties Due in1996, Addendum, Israel7U.N. Doc. CAT/C/33/Add.2/Rev.l (1997).
780J. Mayer, Outsourcing Torture:The Secret History Of American's Extraordinary Rendition Program, at3,new Yorker,14feb,2005, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6(2009,november10).
781转引自Giorgi Chantuira, Torture-Closing The Pandora'S Box,p.l6.
782G.Gudjonsson, The Psychology Of Interrogations, Confessions And Testimony, Chichester:John Wiley&Sons,1999,p.217-218.
783这是心理学上的“心理抗拒理论”(reactance theory)、“恐惧管理理论”(terror management theory)和“创后应激理论”(traumatic stress theory)等结论,参见：S. Oskamp,P. W. Schultz Applied Social Psychology, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,Nj,1998,p.34; J. Greenberg, V. Solomon, P. Mitchell. A. Rosenblat, S. Kirland And D. Lyon, Evidence For Terror Management Theory Ⅱ, Journal Of 'Personality And 'SocialPsychology Vol.58,1990,pp.308-318.
784Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule,p.682.
785See Engander,Grund und Grenzen der Dothilfe,2008, s.335
786Rejali, Darius. Torture and Democracy, Princeton:Princeton University Press,2007, pp.21-23.
787Oren Gross, Chaos And Rules:Should Responses To Violent Crises Always Be Constitutional? Yale LJ, Vol112,2003,pp.1011-1042;
788Wantchekon, Leonard and Healy, Andrew. The'Game'of Torture, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol43,1999, pp.596-609.
789ibid,pp.599-600.
790ibid,pp.600-605.
791ibid,p.605.
792Jess Bravin and Gary Fields, How Do Interrogators Make Terrorists Talk, Wall Street Journal,2003,March3.
793Sobel, Joel. A Model of Declining Standatds,fnternational EconomicReview,vol41,2000, p.299.
794ibid, at304.
795ibid.at305
796Oren Gross, Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience, p.124
797. Hugo M. Mialon, Sue H. Mialon, etc, An Economic Analysis of Torture in Counterterrorism, p.7http://www.suemialon.com/research/an_economic_analysis_of_torture_in_counterterrorism_dec_10_2008.pdf
798Posner, Richard, The Best Offense, The New Republic September2,2002, pp.28-31.
799Oren Gross, Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience, p150.
800ibid, p130.
801David Cole, Enemy Aliens, Stanford Law Review, Vol.54,2002, pp.953-1005.
802一般来说,规范的行为侧面指向的是公众,而裁判侧面指向的是司法机关。参见Meir Dan-Cohen, Decision Rules And Conduct Rules:On Acoustic Separation In Criminal Law, Harv. L.Rew, vol97,1984, pp.625-667对于酷刑禁止来说,这一点恰恰发生了颠倒,因为根据反酷刑公约第1条的规定,司法机关或者侦查机关的工作人员是酷刑的实施者。
803See Henry Shue, Torture, p.143
804ibid, p.141.
805Amnesty International, Torture And Ill-Treatment:The Arguments, Amnesty International,2006, available at http://as iapacific. amnesty. org/pages/stoptorture-arguments-eng(2009).
806虽然其他的刑法禁止也不会得到有效的执行,但是,酷刑禁止与其不同,其规制的对象系国家公职人员的执法和行政行为。
807Mario J. Rizzo&Douglas Glen Whitman, The Gamel'S Nose In The Tent:Rules,Theories, And Slippery Slopes, UCLA.L.REV, vol51,2003,, p539.Frederick Schauer, Slippery Slopes, HARV. L. RFV.vol99,1985, p361.
808Oren Gross, Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience, p.153.
809Jens David Ohlin, The Torture Lawyers, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol.51,2010, p.199.
811See landgericht frankfurt a.M.,Judgment of20December2004, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift(2005),S,692-696.
812Jens David Ohlin, The Bounds Of Necessity, Journal OfInternaional Criminal Justice, vol.6,2008, p.297.
813ibid.
814Restatement(first)of torts§76; Salmond, Torts,11th ed., Heuston,1953, p.375.
815Restatement(second)of torts§76,Jens David Ohlin, The Bounds Of Necessity,p.297.
816这是德国特别委员会对刑法改革的报告提出的观点,参见Berufung auf die Begrundung des Sonderausschusses Strafrechtsreform in BT-Drucks. V/4095, S.16.
817See K. Shapira Ettinger, The Conundrum of Mental States:Substantive Rules and Evidence, Combined Cardozo Law Review,vol28,2007,pp.2577-2596.
818ibid.
819See P.H. Robinson, A Theory of Justification:Societal Harm as a Prerequisite for Criminal Liability, UCLA Law Review, Vol.23,1975,pp.266-292.
820See D. Davidson, Belief and the Basis of Meaning, in Lnquiries into Truth and Interpretation, New York:Oxford University Press,2001, p.141.
821这是德国特别委员会对刑法改革的报告提出的观点,对此,罗克辛提出了批评,指出这一点为什么不适用于为了财产而进行了紧急避险?参见克劳斯·罗克辛：《德国刑法学总论(第1卷)》,王世洲译,北京：法律出版社2005年版,第637页。
822参见：汉斯·海因里希·耶塞克、托马斯·魏根特：《德国刑法教科书》,许久生译,北京：中国法制出版社2001年版,第579页。
823罗克辛认为,免责的紧急避险的根据乃在于特殊预防与一般预防。参见克劳斯·罗克辛：《德国刑法学总论(第1卷)》,第637-738页。
824G..P. Fletcher, The Right And The Reasonable, Harvard Law Review, vol98,1985, pp.949-981.
825Jens David Ohlin, The Bounds Of Necessity, p.304
826CF. M.S. Moore, Causation And The Excuses, California Law Review, Vol73,1985,pp1091-1122,
827该案的情况是,被告是波斯尼亚·塞尔维亚军队的士兵,一天早晨,被告和九个人组成一个爆破小队,试图杀死波斯尼亚的平民。被告认为,他只杀死了70个人。他说,在这之前,其实是不知道其具体的任务是什么,但是,上司命令他必须和他人的行为保持一致,否则,自己和家人的生命会遭受不测。当时,他不想杀人,但是,他的上司说,不能留有活口,并命令他杀死了大楼内的500个人,他拒绝这么干,不过,周围有三个士兵强迫他杀了人。Sentencing judgment, prosecutor v. Erdemovic, case IT-96-22-T, T.CH.|,||28(CTY29Nov1996), at, http://www.un.org/icty.erdemovic/trialc/judgment.erd-tsj961129.htm>(访问时间是2001年3月20日).
828See P. Gaeta,May Necessity Be Available as a Defence for Torture in the Interrogation of Suspected Terrorists? p.793..
829Oren Gross,"Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience", pp101-175.
830See HCJ5100/94, Public Committee Against Torture In Israel V. Israel, Supreme Court Of Israel, Judgment Of6September1999.
831符合法益保护原则,并不一定说该行为一定会符合伤害原则,因为伤害原则还包含着对行为人主观上的要求。参见Albin Eser, The Principle Of "Harm"In The Concept Of Crime:A Comparative Analysis Of The Criminally Protected Legal Interests, Duquesne University Law Review,vol.14,1965.
832哈伯特L.帕克著：《刑事制裁的界限》，梁根林等译，法律出版社2008年版，第10-11页。
1胡建淼：《行政法学》，北京：法律出版社，2003年版。
2沈开举：《行政责任研究》，郑州：郑州大学出版社，2004年版。
3罗豪才：《行政法论》，北京：光明日报出版社，1988年版。
4于改之：《刑民分界论》，北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，2007年版。
5张维迎：《信息、信任与法律》，上海:三联书店出版，2003年版。
6国务院法制办：《政府立法中的法律责任设定研究论文集》，北京：中国法制出版社，2010年版。
7戴玉忠、刘明祥主编：《犯罪与行政违法行为的界限及惩罚机制的协调》，北京：北京大学出版社，2008年版。
8马克昌：《犯罪通论》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，1999年版。
10何秉松主编：《刑法教科书》上卷，北京：中国法制出版社，2000年版。
11高铭暄主编：《刑法学原理》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，1994年版。
12高铭暄、赵秉志编：《新中国刑法立法文献资料总览》，北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，1998年版。
13张新宝：《侵权责任法原理》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005年版。
14陈兴良著：《刑法哲学》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，1991年版。
15陈兴良著：《本体刑法学》，商务印书馆，2001年版。
16张明楷：《刑法的基本立场》，北京：法律出版社，2002年版。
17张明楷著：《刑法格言的展开》，北京：法律出版社，1999年版。
18李永升著：《刑法学的基本范畴研究》，重庆：重庆大学出版社，2000年版。
19李邦友著：《结果加重犯基本理论研究》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2002年版。
20张智辉著：《刑事责任通论》，北京：警官教育出版社，1995年版。
21冯军著：《刑事责任论》，北京：法律出版社，1996年版。
22王晨著：《刑事责任的一般理论》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，1998年版。
20高仰止著：《刑法总则之理论与实用》，台北：台湾五南图书出版公司，1986年版。
21韩忠谟著：《刑法原理》，台北：台湾雨利美术印刷有限公司，1987年增订14版。
22张灏著：《中国刑法理论及实用》，台北：台湾三民书局，1980年版。
23林山田著：《刑法通论》，台北：台湾三民书局，1986年版。
24陈朴生著：《刑法专题研究》，台北：台湾三民书局，1988年版。
25洪福增著：《刑事责任之研究》，台北：台湾刑事法杂志社，1982年版。
26高绍先著：《中国刑法史精要》，北京：法律出版社，2001年版。
27梅传强著：《犯罪心理生成机制研究（修订版）》，北京：中国检察出版社2008年版
29张明楷著：《法益初论》，中国政法大学出版社,2000
31王利荣著：《行刑法律机能研究》，法律出版社，2001年版。
32高铭暄、赵秉志主编：《当代国际刑法的理论与实践》，吉林人民出版社，2001年版。
34林山田:《刑罚学》，台湾商务印书馆，1985年版。
35熊选国著：《刑法中行为论》，北京：人民法院出版社，1992年版。
36（日）大冢仁著：《犯罪论的基本问题》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，1993年版。
37（日）木村龟二主编：《刑法学词典》，上海翻译出版公司，1991年版。
38（日）小野清一郎著：《犯罪构成要件理论》，北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，1991年版。
39（日）野村稔著：《刑法总论》，全理其译，北京：法律出版社，2001年版。
40.密尔：《论自由》，许宝译，北京：商务印书书馆，1998年版，
41（日）大谷实著：《刑事政策学》，黎宏译，北京：法律出版社，2000年版。
42（日）大谷实著：《刑法讲义总论》，黎宏译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2008年版。
43（日）西原春夫著：《刑法的根基与哲学》，北京：法律出版社，2004年版。
44梅仲协,《民法要义》,北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998年版;
45杨鸿烈,《中国法律思想史·下》,上海:商务印书馆,1936年版。
46储槐植著：《美国刑法》（第二版），北京：北京大学出版社，1996年版。
47李永升：经济刑法，法律出版社，2011年版。
48薛瑞麟著：《俄罗斯刑法研究》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年版。
49马克昌主编：《近代西方刑法学说史》，北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，2008年版。
50甘雨沛、何鹏著:《外国刑法学》（上、下），北京：北京大学出版社，1984年版。
51张明楷著：《外国刑法纲要》，北京：清华大学出版社，1999年版。
52赵秉志主编：《外国刑法原理》（大陆体系），北京：中国人民大学出版社，2000年版。
53美国法学会编：《美国模范刑法典及其评注》，刘仁文等译，北京：法律出版社，2005年版。
54（德）克劳斯·罗克辛：《德国刑法学总论（第1卷）》，王世洲译，北京：法律出版社2005年版。
55（德）汉斯·海因里希·耶塞克、托马斯·魏根特：《德国刑法教科书》，许久生译，北京：中国法制出版社2001年版。
56（美）哈伯特L.帕克著：《刑事制裁的界限》，梁根林等译，北京：法律出版社2008年版。
57杨春然：《上市公司欺诈及法律控制研究》，北京：群众出版社，2007年版。
58刘芝详：“法益概念辨识”，《政法论坛》，2008年第4期。
59张明楷：“犯罪的概念探讨”，《法学研究》，1989年第3期。
60黄文艺：“作为一种法律干预模式的家长主义”，《法学研究》，2010年第1期。
61杨春然：“论违法性与正当化事由缺失之间的规范缝隙及跨越——以英国连体婴儿案为例”，《中国刑事法杂志》，2011年第3期。
62杨春然：“论故意在三阶层犯罪论体系中的位置”，《中外法学》，2011年第4期。
63杨春然：“注册会计师职务侵权责任的经济分析和重构”，台湾东海大学《法学研究》，总共第29期（2008）。
64张子礼、杨春然：“论犯罪化的原则”，《河北法学》，2011年第4期。
65杨春然：“环境侵权责任的经济分析和可保性研究”，《新疆社会科学》，2010年第2期。
66陈清浦郭亚:“刑法中的严格责任若干问题研究”，《北京化工大学学报》（社会科学版）2004年第1期。
67颜厥安：从规范缝隙到规范存有——初探法律论证中的实践描述，《法律方法与法律思维》，2008年，第5辑。
68杨春然：“冒犯型犯罪的根据：伤害原则对法益保护原则的一次超越——兼论犯罪的本质”，《中国刑事法杂志》，2010年第2期。
69杨春然、胡乾坤、陈一凡：“论假冒专利罪的客观要件”，《山东理工大学学报（社会科学版）》，2004年第1期。
70陈兴良：“犯罪范围的合理定义”，《法学研究》2008年第3期。
71王钢：”出于营救目的的酷刑与正当防卫”，《清华法学》，2010年第2期。
72(英)安德鲁·冯·赫尔希，文樊文译，《法益的概念与“损害原则”》，《刑事法评论》第24卷。
73徐昕：“通过私力救济实现正义——兼论报应正义”，《法学评论》,2003年第5期。
74孙宪忠：“再谈物权行为理论”，《中国社会科学》，2001年第5期。
75梁根林：“犯罪化及其限制”，《中外法学》，1998年第3期。
76钊作俊、刘蓓蕾：“犯罪化与非犯罪化论纲”，《中国刑事法杂志》，2005年第5期。
77黄京平、陈鹏展：“无被害人犯罪非犯罪化研究”，《江海学刊》，2006年第4期;
78张明楷：“司法上的犯罪化与非犯罪化”，《法学家》，2008年第4期。
79陈正云：“刑法调控范围研究”，《中国法学》1996年第06期
80刘艳红：“新刑法调控范围之理性思考与启示”，《法律科学》，1999年第3期。
81刘宪权：《中国刑法学讲演录》，北京：人民出版社，2011年版。
82夏勇：《定罪与犯罪构成》，北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，2009年版。
83刘宪权、杨兴培：《刑法学专论》,北京：北京大学出版社,2007年版。
84李永升：《廉政建设与刑事法治研究》,中国公安大学出版社,2011年版。
85李永升：《经济刑法学》,中国法律出版社,2009年版。
86C. Clarkson, Introducing CriminalLaw,London: Sweet&Maxwell,2006.
87Claus Roxin, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil Band I,3. Auf1., C. H. Beck1997.
88Peter Sina, Die Dogmengeschichte des strctfrechtlichen Begriffs "Rechtsgut", Basel:Helbing&Lichtenhahn,1962.
89Hans-Heinrich Jescheck&Thomas Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strctfrechts: Allgemeiner Teil,Berlin:Duncker&Hamblot,1996.
90John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, New York:Norton Critical Editions,1975,
91Joel Feinberg, Harmless Wrongdoing, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1988.
92Joel Feinberg, Offense to Others,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1985.
93Michael Moore, Placing Blame: A General Theory Of The Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1997.
94J. Feinberg, Harm to Others, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1984.
95William Blackstone, Commentaries On The Laws Of England: Ln Four Books. Boston: Beacon.1769.
96Robert D. Cooter&Thomas S. Ullen, Law and Economics, Boston: Addison Wesley,1997(2d ed).
97George P. Fletcher, The Grammar Of Criminal Law: American, Comparative, Lnternational,Oxford: Oxford University Press,2007.
98H-H Jeschk, Lehrbuch Drs Strafrechts,Allgemeiner, Teil4ed,1988.
99.H.L.A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1978.
100James Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,London: Smith and Elder,1873.
101.H.L.A. Hart, Law, Liberty, and Morality,Stanford: Stanford University Press,1963.
102Georg Rusche,Otto Kirchheimer,Dario Melossi, Punishment and Social Structure, New Jersey: Columbia university press,2009(fifth).
103ules L. Coleman, The Practice of Principle: Ln Defense of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2001.
104John Stuart Mill, On Liberty,Norton Critical Edition,1975.
105Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, Yale:Yale University Press,1991Alejandro Alagia, Alejandro Slokar,&EugenioRaulZaffaroni, Derecho Penal: Parte General,2002(2nd ed.).
106George p. Fletcher, Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1998.
107P.J.A. Feuerbach, Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland geltenden peinlichen Rechts,1801(lst ed).
108Cornelius Nestler, Betaubungsmittelstrafrecht, Grundlagen und Kritik, in Handbuch des Betaubungsmittelstrafrechts, Arthur Kreuzer ed.,1997.
109Claus Roxin, Strafrecht: Allgemeiner Teil I, Miinchen: Beck,1997Hans-Heinrich Jescheck&Thomas Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts: Allgemeiner Teil6,1996(5th ed.).
110Alejandro Alagia, Alejandro Slokar,&Eugenio Raul Zaffaroni, Derecho Penal: Parte General,2002(2nd ed).
111Markus D. Dubber, Criminal Law: Model Penal Code,New York: Foundation Press,2002.
112Ivo Appel, Verfassung und Strafe: Zu den verfassungsrechtlichen Grenzen staatlichen Strafen, Berlin:Verlag. Duncker&Humblot,1998.
113Jesus M. Silva Sanchez, Kriminalpolitik bei der Strafrechtsdogmatik, in Strafrechtssystem und Betrug,2002(Bernd Schiinemann ed.).
114Claus Roxin, Kriminalpolitik und Strafrechtsdogmatik heute, in Strafrechtssystem und Betrug,stuttgart:Centaurus,2002.
115Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1965.
116Roscoe pound, jurisprudence,St. Paul, Minn: West Publishing Co.,1959.
117John Gray and G.W.Smith, J.S.Mill's On liberty in focus, New York:Routledge,2003.
118Jonathan Herring, Great Debates: Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009.
119A. Simester and G. Sullivan, Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine,Hart Publishing,2008(3rd ed).
120Douglas Hay&Francis Snyder, Using the Criminal Law, in Policing, Private Prosecution, and the State, in Douglas Hay&Francis Snyder eds: Policing And Prosecution Ln Britain, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1989.
121A. Von Hirsch, Extending the Harm Principle:"Remote" Harms and Fair Lmputation', in A. Simester and A. Smith (eds), Harm and Culpability, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996.
122Rasmusen, Eric, An Economic Approach to Adultery Law, Marriage and Divorce: An Economic Perspective, edited by Antony Dnes and Robert Rowthorn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2002.
123Jonathan Herring, Great Debates: Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009.
124Mark Findlay, Stephen Odgers and Stanley Yeo, Australian Criminal Justice, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005(3rd ed).
125Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2006.
126Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law,London: Stevens&Sons,1983(2nd ed).
127Nicola Lacey, Celia Wells and Oliver Quick, Reconstructing Criminal Law Text and Materials, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003(3rd ed).
128Simester and GR Sullivan, Criminal Law Theory and Doctrine Oxford:Hart Publishing,2003.
129Bernadette McSherry and Bronwyn Naylor, Australian Criminal Laws: Critical Perspectives,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2004.
130Mark Findlay, Stephen Odgers and Stanley Yeo, Australian Criminal Justice,Oxford:Oxford Univers ity Press,2005(3rd ed).
131AP Simester and GR Sullivan, Criminal Law Theory and Doctrine, Oxford:Hart,2003.
132Simon Bronitt and Bernadette McSherry, Principles of Criminal Law, Sydney:lawbook Co,2005(2nd ed).
133Nicola Lacey, Celia Wells and Oliver Quick, Reconstructing Criminal Law Text and Materials, Law in Context (3rd ed,2003).
134Christopher B. Gray, Philosophy of Law:An Encyclopedia, New York and London:Garland Pub. Co,1999.
135Nina Nikku, Informative Paternalism, Studies In The Ethics Of Promoting And Predicting Health, Linkoping:Linkopings Universitet,1997.
136John Stuart Mill, Principles Of Political Economy, With Some Of Their Applications To Social Philosophy, London; Longmans, Green and Co.1965.
137Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts Of Liberty, In Four Essays On Liberty, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1969.
138Gerald Dworkin, Paternalism, and Paternalism:Some Second Thoughts, both reprinted in Dworkin, The Theory And Practise OfAutonomy,Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1983.
139Dan Brock, Paternalism and Promoting the Good, In Rolf Sartorius, Ed., Paternalism,Minneapolis:Puniversity Minnesota Press,1983.
140Richard Dean, The Value OfHumanity Ln Kant's Moral Theory, Oxford:Clarendon Press,2006.
141R. Nozick, Anarchy, State And Utopia, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1974.
142Geoffrey Best, War And Law Since1945, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1994.
143Hassemer&Hart-Honig, Generalprdvention Lm Strabenverkehr, Im Sozialwissenschaften Im Strafrecht,1984(hassemer ed).
144Douglas Husak, Overcriminalization:The Limits Of The Criminal Law, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008.
145Dan Markel, Wrong Turns on the Road to Alternative Sanctions:Reflections on the Future of Shaming Punishments and Restorative Justice, TEX. L REV,vol.85,2007.
146Paul H. Robinson, The Criminal-Civil Distinction And The Utility Of Desert, Boston University Law Review, vol.76, April,1996.
147Markus Dirk Dubber, The Promise of German Criminal Law:A Science of Crime and Punishment, Ge Rman Law Joumal,Vol.6-No.7,2005.
148Hugo Adam Bedau, Feinberg's Liberal Theory of Punishment, Buff Crim L. Rev. Vol.5, No.1, April2001.
149Jules L. Coleman, The Practice of Principle:In Defense of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory, Harvard Law Review,vol.115,no.6.Apri12002.
150Jean Hampton, The Moral Education Theory of Punishment, Philosophy&Public Affairs Vol.13, No.3Summer,1984.
151Bernard E. Harcourt, Joel Feinberg on Crime and Punishment:Exploring the Relationship Between The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law and The Expressive Function of Punishment. Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.5,2001.
152Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, Colum. L. Rev.vol.85,No.6, Oct,1985.
153Santiago mirpuig:Legal Goods Protected By The Law And Legal Goods Protected By The Criminal Law As Limits To The State's Power To Criminalize Conduct, New Criminal Law Review, vol,11,no,3,2008.
154Claire Finkelstein, Positivism and the Notion of an Offense, Calif. L. Rev. vol.88,2000.
155Christopher Kutz, Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics, California Law Review.,vol.95,2007'.
156John T. Sanders, why the numbers should sometimes count, Philosophy G Public Affairs,vol.17no1,winter,1988.
157Michael S. Moore, Torture and Balance of Evils, Israel Law Review,Vol23,1989.
158John M.Taurek. Should The Numbers Count? Philosophy G Public Affairs, vol6,no4Summer.1977.
159Becker, Gary S. Crime and Punishment:An Economic Approach.Joumal of Political Economy,vol76,1968.
159Steven Shavell, Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanctions as a Deterrent, Columbia Law Review,Vol851985.
160Benjamin C. Zipursky, Civil Recourse, Not Corrective Justice, GEO. LJ.vol.91,2003.
161Cass R. Sunstein, David Schkade&Daniel Kahneman, Do People Want Optimal Deterrence?, J. LEGAL STUD,vol.29,2000.
162Robert W. Drane, David.Neal, On Moral Justifications For The Tort/Crime Distinction, California Law Review, Vol.68, No.2, Mar.,1980.
163C R Snyman, The Definition Of The Proscription And The Structure Of Criminal Liability, The South African Law Journal,vol.111,1994.
164Jean Hampton, The Moral Education Theory of Punishment, Philosophy&Public Affairs Vol.13, No.3, Summer,1984.
165Bendor, J. and Swistak, P.he evolution of norms. American Journal of Sociology American Journal of Sociology Vol.106, No.6, May2001.
166Elizabeth S. Anderson&Richard H. Pildes, Expressive Theories of Law:A General Restatement,148U.Pa L. Rev.vol.148,2000.
167Richard H. McAdams, A Focal Point Theory of Expressive Law,86Va. L Rev. vol.86,2000.
168Dan M. Kahan, What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean?63U. Chi. L. Rev. vol.63,1996.
169Dan M. Kahan, The Secret Ambition of Deterrence, Harv. L. Rev.vol113,1999.
170Carol Steiker, Foreword:Punishment and Procedure:Punishment Theory and the Criminal-Civil Procedural Divide, Geo. L.J. vol.85,1997.
171John Gardner, Punishment, Morality, and the State:Prohibiting Immoralities, Cardozo L. Rev, vol.28,2007.
172Santiago Mirpuig:Legal Goods Protected By The Law And Legal Goods Protected By The Criminal Law As Limits To The State'S Power To Criminalize Conduct, New Criminal Law Review, Vol,11,Number,3,2008.
173Luis E. Chiesa, Normative Gaps in the Criminal Law:A Reasons Theory of Wrongdoing, New Criminal Law Review Vol.101,2007.
174Bernd Schunemann, The System of Criminal Wrongs:The Concept of Legal Goods and Victim-based Jurisprudence as a Bridge between the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code, Buffalo Criminal Law Review,Vol.7, No.2, January2004.
175Hart, The Aims Of The Criminal Law,Law and Contemporary Problems Vol.23, No.3, Summer,1958.
176Claire Finkelstein, Positivism and the Notion of an Offense, Calif. L. Rev,vol.88,2000.
177lbin Eser, The Principle Of "Harm"In The Concept Of Crime:A Comparative Analysis Of The Criminally Protected Legal Interests, Duquesne University Law Review, vol.14,1965.
178M. Madden Dempsey,Rethinking Wolfenden:Prostitute Use, Criminal Law and Remote Harm, Criminal Law Review,2005.
179D. Dripps, The Liberal Critique Of Harm Principle,Criminal Justice Ethics, vol.17,1998.
180C. Clarkson, Introducing Criminal Law, Sweet&Maxwe, vol.11,2006.
181A. von Hirsch,The Offence Principle in Criminal Law:Affront to Sensibility or Wrongdoing? Kings College Law Journal,vol.11,2000.
182R. Duff, Answering for Crime:Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, New Criminal Law Review,vol,12,2009.
183R. Duff and S. Marshall, Criminalization and sharing wrongs, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence.vol.11,1988.
184P. Cane, Taking law seriously:starting points of the Hart/Devlin Debate,The Journal of Ethics, vol.10,2006.
185R. Duff and S. Marshall, Criminalization and sharing wrongs, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence vol.111998.
186Richard A.Epstein, The Harm Principle And How It Grew, University Of Toronto Law Journal, vol45,1995.
187D. Husak, the Criminal Law as Last Resort, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol24,2004.
188Hamish Stewart, Legality and Morality in HLA Hart's Theory of Criminal Law, SMU Law Review,vol.52,1999.
189Nicola Lacey,'Abstraction in Context, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies,vol.l4,1994.
190Mirko Bagaric, The "Civilisation" of the Criminal Law, Criminal Law Journal, vol.25,2001.
191John Gardner, Prohibiting Immoralities, Cardozo Law Review,Vol.28,no.6,2007.
192Nicholas Capaldi, Liberal Value Versus Liberal Social Philosophy,Phil,&Theology,vol.4,1990.
193Larry A. Alexander, Deontology at the Threshold, San Diego Law Review, vol.37,2000.
194Frances Kamm, A Right To Choose Death? Boston review, vol22,1997.
195J. David Velleman, A Right of Self-Termination?,Ethics,vol.109,1999.
196Colin Camerer, Samuel Issacharoff, etc, Regulation For Conservatives:Behavioral Economics And The Case For "Asymmetric Paternalism" University Of Pennsylvania Law Review,Vol.151,2003.
197Dixon, N., Boxing, Paternalism, and Legal Moralism, Social Theory and Practice, vol.27,2001.
198Gerald Dworkin,"Moral Paternalism," Law and Philosophy, vol.24,2005.
199Oren Gross, Are Torture Warrants Warranted? Pragmatic Absolutism and Official Disobedience, Minnesota Law Review. Vol88,2004.
200Albin Eser, The Principle Of "Harm"In The Concept Of Crime:A Comparative Analysis Of The Criminally Protected Legal Interests, Duquesne University Law Review, vol.14,1965.
201Derek parfit, innumerate ethics, Philosophy GPublic Affairs,vol.1,no4,1978.
202Jeremy Waldron, Torture and Positive Law:Jurisprudence for the White House, Columbia Law Review, vol.105,2005.
203Bowles, Roger, Michael G. Faure, and Nuno Garoupa. The Scope of Criminal Law and Criminal Sanctions:An Economic View and Policy Implications. Journal of Law and Society, vol.35,2008.
204Christopher Kutz, Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics, California Law Review,vol.95,2007'.
205Florian Jessberger,Bad Torture-Good Torture? Journal of Lnternational Criminal Justice Vol.3,2005.
206F.M. Kamm, Non-consequentialism, the Person as an End-in-Itself, and the Significance of Status, Phil.&Pub Aff.Vol21,1992.
207Kenneth W. Simons, The Relevance Of Community Values To Just Deserts:Criminal Law, Punishmentrationales, And Democracy, Hofstra Law Review, vol.28,1999.
208David J. Seipp, The Distinction Between Crime and Tort in the Early Common Law, B. U. L. REV. vol.76,1996.
209John C.P. Goldberg&Benjamin C. Zipursky, Accidents of the Great Society, MD. L REV.nol.64,2005.
210William J. Stuntz, Substance, Process, and the Civil-Criminal Line, J. CONTEMP. LEGAL, vol.7,ISSUES1,1996.
211John C.P. Goldberg&Benjamin C. Zipursky, Tort Law and Moral Luck, CORNELL L. REV. vol.92,2007.
212Kenneth W. Simons, The Crime/Tort Distinction:Legal Doctrine And Normative Perspectives, Widener Law Journal,vol.17,2008.
213Robert Cooter, Prices and Sanctions, COLUM. L.REV vol.84,1984.
214Guido Calabresi&A. Douglas Melamed, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability:One View of the Cathedral, HARV.L. REV.vol.85,1972.
215Vera Bergelson, Victims and Perpetrators:An Argument for Comparative Liability in Criminal Law, BUFF. CRIM. L. REV. vol.8,2005.
216Stephen D. Sugarman, Doing Away with Tort Law, CAL. L.REV.vol.73,1985.
217Catherine M. Sharkey, Punitive Damages as Societal Damages, YALE, L.J. vol.113,2003.
218Mitchell Polinsky&Steven Shavell, Punitive Damages:An Economic Analysis, HARV. L. REV.vol111,1998.
219Gary T. Schwartz, Mixed Theories Of Tort Law:Affirming Both Deterrence And Corrective Justice, TEX. L. REV. vol.75,1997.
220Fletcher, George P., Remembering Gary-and Tort Theory, UCLA Law Review, vol.50,2002.
221Goldberg, John C. P., Twentieth Century Tort Theory, Georgetown Law Journal,vol.91,2003.
222Ronen Perry, The Role of Retributive Justice in the Common Law of Torts:A Descriptive Theory, Tenn. L. Rev. vol.73,2006.
223Michael Davis, Criminal desert and unfair advantage:What's the connection?, Law and Philosophy, vol.12, no.2,1993.
224Ronen Avraham&Issa Kohler-Hausmann, Accident Law for Egalitarians, Legal Theory, vol.12,2006.
225John C.P. Goldberg&Benjamin C. Zipursky, Accidents of the Great Society, MD. L REV.,vol.64,2005.
226Gregory C. Keating, Strict Liability and the Mitigation of Moral Luck, J. ETHICS&SOC. PHIL. Vol.2,2006.
227Anthony Kennedy, Justifying the Civil Recovery of Criminal Proceeds, Journal of Financial Crime, vol.12,no.1,2004.
228Emilio S. Binavince, The Ethical Foundation Of Criminal Liability,Fordham Law Review, vol.33,1964.
229Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions:The Middleground Between Criminal and Civil Law, Yale L.J. vol.101,1992.