美国刑法犯意研究
摘要
作为美国刑法基本概念范畴之一的犯意(Mens Rea)所承载的理论与现实意义不言而喻,更为重要的是,通过对此问题的探索可以为中国刑法学界今后在美国刑法学方向上的深入研究提供方法上的经验和教训,在此基础上,通过对于我国刑法学实然研究方法的反思,论者在本文当中提出并初步论证了建构中国刑法学“实用主义”研究方法这一命题。概括来说,通过针对美国刑法中犯意源流、演进以及研究可能性和可行性的考察,将本文的研究模式建构在较为符合中国学者认知习惯的基础之上。除了考问美国刑法犯意研究逻辑上的正当性之外,论者还通过探究犯意之于美国刑法理论若干根本问题的关系,论证了此项研究的意义。由此深入,在针对犯意含义的研究过程当中一方面承认并剖析了以语言为载体的犯意所先天具有的模糊性,另一方面通过将其与道德、动机等相关概念剥离,从而在不同深度上对于美国刑法犯意加以厘定。在完成对于犯意的普通法解读基础上,结合美国刑法现实情状,根据论者自身对美国刑法解读范式的理解,以作为美国刑事成文法摹版出现的模范刑法典中犯意规定为范本,对其加以解读、区分和评价。在完成对于美国刑法中犯意核心含义考察的同时,论者又从普通法和制定法两个领域当中犯意要求缺失的典型情况出发,对犯意边缘化这一重要趋势加以研讨。另外,论者还着力考察了美国刑法中犯罪纵向和横向两个发展维度中犯意的表现样态,从而进一步丰富和完善对于犯意问题研究的广度,同时,结合美国刑事实体法与程序法密接的实际,从直接和间接两个层面论了美国刑法中犯意之证成这一重大实际问题。在完成美国刑法学研究方法的总结基础上,论者在文章的最后针对我国刑法学研究方法的缺失现状,分析论证了中国刑法学研究方法的“实用主义”建构这一理论问题。
Being a fundamental concept, Mens rea has its own value in the researching on the American criminal law theory. So by doing this can we fill the blank in the concerning domestic studying and most importantly, by digging out the sprint buried in the method of American style researching, can we find some valuable experience and lessons for the orientation finding for Chinese criminal law research in the future.
This dissertation includes the following eight chapters.
Chapter I mainly concern the setting up of the vantage point for the researching on the mens rea in American criminal law. By dating back the origin and the trace of development of men rea, we can make it sure the time period for our following researching. On the other hand, by arguing for whether existing the binary constitution of crime and whether can it be knowledgeable, can we find the possibility of the researching on the mens rea. Also in this chapter, by discussing the characteristics of relatively stationarity, the absolutely diversity and indirect expression, we try to find the feasibility of the concerning research? In the end of this part, the value of researching on mens rea has been put forwarded.
Chapter II focus on the relationship between mens rea and other important concepts in the American criminal law theory. Beginning from ascertaining the development history of the American criminal law theory, we can get some general impression of its status ego. In the following part, the author discusses the relationship between mens rea and aim of criminal law in U.S and the relationship between the mens rea and the punitive theory in American criminal law theory. Besides, in this part, the dynamic interaction between mens rea and the voluntariness has been discussed in details.
Chapter III mainly talks about the meaning of mens rea from the perspective of common law. In this chapter, the author starts his augments from the character of Ambiguity of mens rea. By differentiating Ambiguity and vagueness, the author draws the conclusion mentioned above. Arguing from this basis, the author distinguishes the concept of mens rea and the concept of moral culpability. Further more, the author tries to have mens rea stripped from interrelated concepts by discussing various arguments in this problem.
Chapter IV can be seen as the core of this dissertation. In this chapter, by making the Modern Penal Code being the facsimile, the author explores some fundamental questions in the interpretation of mens rea in codified criminal law. Firstly, by discriminating interpretation and reasoning, the author makes a detailed inquiry about the prerequisites for the interpretation of mens rea. Arguing form this basis, the author then explores the legislative procedure so as to make sure its impact on the object of interpretation. And by researching on the validity of being the subject in the interpretation of court and jury, the author makes it ascertain the court, rather than the jury, has the qualification to be the subject. After talking about the subject and the object of interpretation, the author discusses the method of interpretation in the American criminal law, i.e., the way of compromise in the interpretation. After this kind of general introduction, the author then focus on the interpretation of the mens rea regulated in the MPC. In this part, the author emphasizes the peculiar method adopted by the MPC, this is to say, the method of elemental analysis. By discussing the advantages and disadvantages of elemental analysis, the author explains the components of this way of interpretation and its classification. And then the author uses the elemental analysis as weapon to explore the mens rea stipulated in the MPC, i.e., knowledge, purpose, recklessness and negligence and the dynamic relationship among the four kinds of mens rea. And the author does not satisfy by doing the research talked above, in the end of this chapter, he try to analysis and evaluate the stipulation about the mens rea in the MPC. By exploring the theoretical constitutes of the mens rea in the MPC and the concerning evaluating standards, the author make it clear the advantage and shortcoming of the related regulation in MPC.
Chapter V can be hold as the nature extension of the preceding discussion. Finishing the researching on the core part of mens rea, this part generally concerns the border of the concept. From the historical and the logical perspective, the author introduces the trace of marginalizing of mens rea, the difference between nature crime and codified crime and the binary in the retribution theory in punishment. Then the author tries hard to classify the margin of mens rea from different considerations, especially those parts between torts and between civil liabilities. Take the felony murder and statutory rape as examples, the author analyzes the margin of mens rea in traditional crime, on the other hand, take the CWA and NFA as target, the author researches the margin of mens rea in codified crimes.
Chapter VI introduces mens rea in different period of crime and in the different shape of crime. Since we can’t make the whole picture in one chapter, the author adopts attempt crime and accomplice as the example respectively. In the former, the author pays attention to the value of attempt and its components so as to make it clear what is attempt. By doing this, the author inquires whether the mens rea in attempt should be the same as those asked for finished crime. From the perspective of elemental analysis, by adopting valid standard, the author then explores the mens rea in the attempt. Besides conducting the researching preceding, the author also uses the same method to analyze mens rea in accomplice.
Chapter VII mainly talks about the proving of mens rea in the American criminal law, owning to the close relation between the substantial and procedure law in the U.S. In the beginning, the author set up the logical prerequisites for the proving of mens rea i.e., whether is there basis for us to support the augment of the binary theory about the mind and the body. In this part, the author also compares the presumption and the inference. By doing this, the author concludes that inference has constitutional validity. And then the author takes the transferred intent and the willful blandness as example to explore the indirect proving of mens rea in the American criminal law theory.
Chapter VIII is the final part of this dissertation. In this part, the author puts forward a standard by which we can analyze the American criminal law more efficiently. Borrowing valuable experience and lessons from the researching on the mens rea in American criminal law, the author sings high praise for the pragmatism in Chinese criminal law research. From the experience drawing from the researching on the mens rea in American criminal law, the author concludes that the methods adopted by American scholars to analyze have the mark of pragmatism, such as focusing on concrete problem and arguing for contextlism and comprising method. In this chapter, the author points out that pragmatism only a researching method, rather than ideology. So in view of the deadlock in the criminal law researching in China, the author holds that we should adopt some valuable sprit in the pragmatism to innovate our method of research, such as prefer the solving of concrete problem, adopt a step by step method to change our criminal law, respect our own history and culture, etc.
Being a fundamental concept, Mens rea has its own value in the researching on the American criminal law theory. So by doing this can we fill the blank in the concerning domestic studying and most importantly, by digging out the sprint buried in the method of American style researching, can we find some valuable experience and lessons for the orientation finding for Chinese criminal law research in the future.
This dissertation includes the following eight chapters.
Chapter I mainly concern the setting up of the vantage point for the researching on the mens rea in American criminal law. By dating back the origin and the trace of development of men rea, we can make it sure the time period for our following researching. On the other hand, by arguing for whether existing the binary constitution of crime and whether can it be knowledgeable, can we find the possibility of the researching on the mens rea. Also in this chapter, by discussing the characteristics of relatively stationarity, the absolutely diversity and indirect expression, we try to find the feasibility of the concerning research? In the end of this part, the value of researching on mens rea has been put forwarded.
Chapter II focus on the relationship between mens rea and other important concepts in the American criminal law theory. Beginning from ascertaining the development history of the American criminal law theory, we can get some general impression of its status ego. In the following part, the author discusses the relationship between mens rea and aim of criminal law in U.S and the relationship between the mens rea and the punitive theory in American criminal law theory. Besides, in this part, the dynamic interaction between mens rea and the voluntariness has been discussed in details.
Chapter III mainly talks about the meaning of mens rea from the perspective of common law. In this chapter, the author starts his augments from the character of Ambiguity of mens rea. By differentiating Ambiguity and vagueness, the author draws the conclusion mentioned above. Arguing from this basis, the author distinguishes the concept of mens rea and the concept of moral culpability. Further more, the author tries to have mens rea stripped from interrelated concepts by discussing various arguments in this problem.
Chapter IV can be seen as the core of this dissertation. In this chapter, by making the Modern Penal Code being the facsimile, the author explores some fundamental questions in the interpretation of mens rea in codified criminal law. Firstly, by discriminating interpretation and reasoning, the author makes a detailed inquiry about the prerequisites for the interpretation of mens rea. Arguing form this basis, the author then explores the legislative procedure so as to make sure its impact on the object of interpretation. And by researching on the validity of being the subject in the interpretation of court and jury, the author makes it ascertain the court, rather than the jury, has the qualification to be the subject. After talking about the subject and the object of interpretation, the author discusses the method of interpretation in the American criminal law, i.e., the way of compromise in the interpretation. After this kind of general introduction, the author then focus on the interpretation of the mens rea regulated in the MPC. In this part, the author emphasizes the peculiar method adopted by the MPC, this is to say, the method of elemental analysis. By discussing the advantages and disadvantages of elemental analysis, the author explains the components of this way of interpretation and its classification. And then the author uses the elemental analysis as weapon to explore the mens rea stipulated in the MPC, i.e., knowledge, purpose, recklessness and negligence and the dynamic relationship among the four kinds of mens rea. And the author does not satisfy by doing the research talked above, in the end of this chapter, he try to analysis and evaluate the stipulation about the mens rea in the MPC. By exploring the theoretical constitutes of the mens rea in the MPC and the concerning evaluating standards, the author make it clear the advantage and shortcoming of the related regulation in MPC.
Chapter V can be hold as the nature extension of the preceding discussion. Finishing the researching on the core part of mens rea, this part generally concerns the border of the concept. From the historical and the logical perspective, the author introduces the trace of marginalizing of mens rea, the difference between nature crime and codified crime and the binary in the retribution theory in punishment. Then the author tries hard to classify the margin of mens rea from different considerations, especially those parts between torts and between civil liabilities. Take the felony murder and statutory rape as examples, the author analyzes the margin of mens rea in traditional crime, on the other hand, take the CWA and NFA as target, the author researches the margin of mens rea in codified crimes.
Chapter VI introduces mens rea in different period of crime and in the different shape of crime. Since we can’t make the whole picture in one chapter, the author adopts attempt crime and accomplice as the example respectively. In the former, the author pays attention to the value of attempt and its components so as to make it clear what is attempt. By doing this, the author inquires whether the mens rea in attempt should be the same as those asked for finished crime. From the perspective of elemental analysis, by adopting valid standard, the author then explores the mens rea in the attempt. Besides conducting the researching preceding, the author also uses the same method to analyze mens rea in accomplice.
Chapter VII mainly talks about the proving of mens rea in the American criminal law, owning to the close relation between the substantial and procedure law in the U.S. In the beginning, the author set up the logical prerequisites for the proving of mens rea i.e., whether is there basis for us to support the augment of the binary theory about the mind and the body. In this part, the author also compares the presumption and the inference. By doing this, the author concludes that inference has constitutional validity. And then the author takes the transferred intent and the willful blandness as example to explore the indirect proving of mens rea in the American criminal law theory.
Chapter VIII is the final part of this dissertation. In this part, the author puts forward a standard by which we can analyze the American criminal law more efficiently. Borrowing valuable experience and lessons from the researching on the mens rea in American criminal law, the author sings high praise for the pragmatism in Chinese criminal law research. From the experience drawing from the researching on the mens rea in American criminal law, the author concludes that the methods adopted by American scholars to analyze have the mark of pragmatism, such as focusing on concrete problem and arguing for contextlism and comprising method. In this chapter, the author points out that pragmatism only a researching method, rather than ideology. So in view of the deadlock in the criminal law researching in China, the author holds that we should adopt some valuable sprit in the pragmatism to innovate our method of research, such as prefer the solving of concrete problem, adopt a step by step method to change our criminal law, respect our own history and culture, etc.
引文
2 参见曾尔恕 郭琛:《本土法和外国法:美国的经验》,载《政法论坛》2000 年第 2 期,第 137 页。
3 由于美国独特的法律架构,使其相对于单一制国家的法律制度而言能够更为鲜活地体现出作为法律思维抑或逻辑的分析和建构模式。限于篇幅,这里不作过多的解释。同时,笔者十分认同有学者提出的,“我们应该停止讨论什么‘英美法’,而把英国法和美国法当作是极为不同的事物。这是避免错误的第一步,却是重要的一步”。参见[德]伯恩哈德·格罗斯菲尔德著,孙世彦 姚建宗 译:《比较法的力量与弱点》,清华大学出版社 2003 年 10 月第一版,第 91 页。
5 Francis Bowes Sayer, Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol.45, No. 6 (1932), p.986.
7 笔者十分认同刘南平博士对于法学博士论文当中所谓命题(thesis)的论断,并将“美国刑法学研究方法之归纳以及中国刑法学研究方法之建构”作为本文的命题。关于博士论文命题的内容参见刘南平:《法学博士论文的骨髓和皮囊》,载《中外法学》2000 年第 1 期,第 101 页。
8 Frederick M. Lawrence, Civil Rights and Criminal Law: the Mens Rea of Federal Civil Rights Crimes, 67Tul. L. Rev (1993), p.2114.
9 这里进行的仅仅是粗略的分析。事实上殖民地时期的北美大陆法律制度以多元为特色,正如有学者曾经略带夸张地宣称的那样,最终北美发展出 13 个独立的法律体系。而这片大陆上曾经存在过很多国家法律的影子,参见 Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law (2nd Ed.), Simon Schuster, Inc (1985), pp.19-20.
10 Huaiming Wang, Chinese and American Criminal Law: Some Comparison, The Journal of Criminal law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol.46, No.6 (1956), p.815.
11 Mihajlo M. Alimovic, Conceptions of culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI (1965), p.34.
12 参见 Cynthia H. Finn, the Responsible Corporate Officer, Criminal Liability, and Mens Rea: Limitations on the Rco Doctrine, 46 Am. U.L. Rev (1996), p.543.
13 参见 Francis Bowes Sayre, Mens Rea, 45 Harv. L. Rev. 974 (1932), p.981.
14 Glanville Williams, Criminal law: The General Part. 2d. Stevens & Sons, Ltd (1961), p.30.
15 参见 Tidow, der schuldbegriff im englischen und nordamerikaischen strafrecht 60 (1952)。转引自Mihajlo M. Alimovic, Conceptions of culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI (1965), p.36.
16 参见 Huaiming Wang, Chinese and Amercian Criminal Law: Some Comparison, the Journal of Criminal law, Criminology and Police Science,Vol.46, No.6 (1956), p.815.
17 参见 Schwartz, the American Penal System: Sprit and Technique, Annals 1 (1962), p. 339.
18 Mihajlo M. Alimovic, Conceptions of culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI (1965), p.37.
19 Farnsworth, an Introduction to the Legal System of the United States. 3rd.Ed. New York: Oceana (1996), p.164.
20 [美]阿瑟?库恩,陈朝壁译著:《英美法原理》,法律出版社 2002 年 12 月版,第 103 页。
21 Herbert L. Packer, Mens Rea and Super Court, the Supreme Court review, Vol (1962), p. 134.
23 Dennis v. United States, 341, U.S.494.500 (1951),转引自 Bickel and Wellington, the legislative propose and judicial process, 71. Har. L. Rev (1957), p.1.
24 Morissette v. United States, 342, U.S. 246 (1952), 转引自 Hart, The time chart of the justices, 73. Har. L.Rev (1959), p.85.
25 有学者认为行为本身是无色的,是犯意区分了无辜与有罪,参见 Edwin R. Keedy, Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law, 22 Harv. L. Rev (1908), p.76.
26 参见 Miguel, Angelmendez, A Sisyphean Task: The Common Law Approach to Mens Rea, 28 U.C. Davis L. Rev (1995),p. 407.
27 参见 W. LaFave& A. Scott, Criminal Law, West Publishing Co., (1972) , p.6.以及 Model Penal Code § 2.02 (Official Draft 1962),
29 参见李洁 李立丰:《美国刑法中主观罪过表现形式初探》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》 2005 年第1 期(总第 129 期),第 99 页。
30 郑祝君:《英美法时代性背景下的制度变迁》,载《法商研究》2002 年第 2 期,第 136 页。
31 [美]波尔?H?罗宾逊著,何秉松 王桂萍译:《美国刑法的结构概要》(下),载《政法论坛》(中国政法大学学报) 第 23 卷第 3 期,第 98 页。
32 关于刑法学家将犯罪分为主观要素和客观要素可能导致极其不符合逻辑的争论,见 H.L.A.哈特:《过失、犯意与刑事责任》,载《惩罚与犯罪》,第 136 页。转引自[美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年第一版,第 185 页。
33 参见埃德蒙?格蒂尔撰写的“被证明真实相信就是明知吗?”,载《分析》1963 年第 23 期,第121 页。转引自[美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国人民公安大学出版社2004 年第一版,第 192 页。
34 [美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年第一版,第 185 页。
35 Norman J. Finke, When Mistakes Happen: Commonsense Rules of Culpability March, 3 Psych. Pub. Pol. and L (1997), p. 65.
36 Claire Finkelstein, The Inefficiency of Mens Rea, 88 Calif. L. Rev (2000), p.895.
37 Sanford H. Kadish, The Decline of Innocence in Blame and Punishment, Essays in the Criminal law 65 (1987),p. 77.
38 在学习和研究美国法时,人们常常喜欢使用“英美法系”一词,好像美国法和英国法的关系总是非常密切。许多美国律师也似乎倾向于认为美国私法的古老的英国根基是他们作为职业律师的尊严的一个主要因素。但是,美国法律并不像我们甚至一些美国人所认为的那样具有英国性。人们所认为的美国法和英国法的一体性掩盖了许多东西,正如它所揭示的那么多。参见秦前红 刘新英:《美国民事诉讼法的宪法渊源及其成因与启示》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》2001 年第 6 期(总第 110 期),第 134 页。
39 Stephen J. Morse, the Twenty-Second Annual National Student Federalist Society Symposium on Law and Public Policy--2003: Inevitable Mens Rea, 27 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y (2003),p.51.
40 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 84 页。
41 Claire Finkelstein, The Inefficiency of Mens Rea, 88 Calif. L. Rev (2000), p.898.
42 参见 Adam Candeub, Consciousness & Culpability,54 Ala. L. Rev (2002), p.123.
43 John D. Greenwood, Introduction to the Future of the Folk Psychology, Cambridge University Press (1991), p.325.
44 Ronald J. Allen, Common Sense, Rationality, and the Legal Process, 22 Cardozo L. Rev (2001), p. 1419.
45 Andrew E. Lelling, Comment: Eliminative Materialism, Neuroscience & the Criminal Law, 141 U. Pa. L. Rev (1993), p. 1471.
46 参见 M. Varn Chandola, and Anoop Chandola, A Cognitive Framework for Mens Rea and Actus Reas: The Application of Contactics Theory to Criminal Law, 35 Tulsa L.J. winter (2000),p. 383.
47 参见 Francis Bowes Sayer, Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol.45, No. 6 (1932), p.994.
48 参见 Stanislaw Frankowski, Mens Rea and Punishment in England: In Search of Interdependence of the Two Basic Components of Criminal Liability (A Historical Perspective), 63 U. Det. L. Rev (1986), p.393.
49 有些学者并不认同刑法起源于严格责任。如有学者就认为早期英国法要求责任建立在某些犯意要素的基础之上,参见 Percy H. Winfield, the Myth of Absolute Liability, 42 Law Q. Rev (1926), p. 37.
50 Eugene J. Chesney, The Concept of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 29, No.5 (1939),p.627.
51 参见 Sanford Kadish,the Decline of Innocence, 26 Cambridge L.J (1968), p.273.
52 当然情况并不全是如此,某些严格责任犯罪就不需要犯意的证据。参见 W. LaFave& A. Scott, Criminal Law, West Publishing Co., (1972),
53 Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983), p. 681.
54 Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the criminal law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 68. No. 8(1968),p.1425.
55 参见 Sanford H. Kadish, the Model Penal Code's Historical Antecedents, 19 Rutgers. L.J (1988),p. 521.
56 参见 MPC § 2.02(2) (1985),
57 Dane S. Ciolino, The Mental Element of Louisiana Crimes: It Doesn’t Matter What You Think, 70 Tul. L. Rev., March (1996),p. 855.
58 Dannye Holley , The Influence of the Model Penal Code’s Culpability Provision’s on State Legislatures: A Study of Lost Opportunities, Including abolishing the Mistake of fact Doctrine, 27 Sw. U. L. Rev (1993),p.229.
59 Paul H. Robinson& Michael T. Cahill, the Accelerating Degradation of American Criminal Codes, 56 Hastings L.J (2005),p.633.
60 [德]伯恩哈德.格罗斯菲尔德著,孙世彦 姚建宗译:《比较法的力量与弱点》,清华大学出版社 2003年 10 月第一版,第 135 页。
61 血腥复仇被定义为对于杀死自己家人的凶手或其亲属实施杀害的复仇,见 Black’s Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co, (5th ed. 1979),p. 157.
62 Francis Bowes Sayer, Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol.45, No. 6 (1932),p.986.
63 Herbert L. Packer, Mens Rea and Super court, the Supreme Court Review (1962),p.107.
64 George P. Fletcher, Law, Truth, and Interpretation: A Symposium on Dennis Patterson's Law and Truth: Article: What Law Is Like, 50 SMU L. Rev (1997), p. 1599.
65 George P. Fletcher, the Fall and Rise of Criminal Theory, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p. 275.
66 本条未标明注释部分的内容主要参考 Markus Dirk Dubber, The Historical Analysis of Criminal Codes,18 Law & Hist. Rev (2000),p. 433.
67 William Hawkins, A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown (1716, 1721),转引自 David J. Seipp, the Distinction between Crime and Tort in the Early Common Law, 76 B.U. L. Rev (1996),p. 59.
68 参见 Gerhard O.W. Mueller, Crime, Law and the Scholars, Heinemann Educational (1969), p.163.
69 Richard A. Posner, the Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline: 1962-1987, 100 Harv. L. Rev (1987),p. 761.
70 参见 Richard Wasserstrom, Strict Liability in the Criminal Law, 12 Stan. L. Rev (1960),p. 731.
71 George P. Fletcher, the fall and Rise of Criminal Theory, 1 Buff. Crim. L. Rev (1998),p. 276.
72 同上。
73 Susan Estrich, Rape, 95 Yale L.J (1986),p. 1087.
74 George P. Fletcher, the fall and Rise of Criminal Theory, 1 Buff. Crim. L. Rev (1998),p. 277.
75 Dan M. Kahan, The Theory of Value Dilemma: A Critique of the Economic Analysis of Criminal Law, 1 Ohio St. J. Crim. L (2004),p. 643.
76 Ronald L. Gainer, Federal Criminal Code Reform: Past and Future, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p. 45.
77 参见 Markus Dirk Dubber, The Historical Analysis of Criminal Codes ,18 Law & Hist. Rev (2000), p.433.
78 参见 Paul H. Robinson, A Functional Analysis of Criminal Law, 88 Nw. U.L. Rev (1994), p. 857.
79 Paul H. Robinson, Rules of Conduct and Principles of Adjudication, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev. 729 (1990),
80 模范刑法典的 1.02(1)。超过三分之二的美国的州对其加以效仿。参见 Status of Substantive Penal Law Revision: Annual Report, 60 A.L.I. Proc (1983),pp. 560-63.
81 Douglas Hay, Property, Authority and the Criminal Law, in Douglas Hay et al., Albion's Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England, Penguin Books Ltd (1975),p. 17.
82 Adekemi Odujirin, The Normative Basis of Fault in Criminal Law: History and Theory, University of Toronto Press (1998), p. 74.
83 Markus Dirk Dubber, The Historical Analysis of Criminal Codes, 18 Law & Hist. Rev (2000), p. 433.
84 参见 Paul H. Robinson, Michael T. Cahill, and Usman Mohammad, the Five Worst (And Five Best) American Criminal Codes, 95 Nw. U.L. Rev (2000),p.1.
85 参见 Model Penal Code 2.12(2) (1962),
86 参见 Paul H. Robinson, Rules of Conduct and Principles of Adjudication, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev (1990),p. 729.
87 Robert H. Gault; James W. Garner; Edwin R. Keedy; John H. Wigmore, The Progress of Penal Law in the United States of America, Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 15, No.2 (1924),p. 1874.
88 参见 Paul H. Robinson and John M. Darley, The Utility of Desert, 91 Nw. U.L. Rev (1997),p. 453.
89 参见 Michael S. Moore, Prima Facie Moral Culpability, 76 B.U. L. Rev (1996), p.319. 在他看来,佛莱彻区分了错误行为和规因(accountability),并且提出可责性(culpability) 和归责(attribution)的不同是被限制在对于错误行为的责任基础上的。因此,如果对其需要负责的行为实质上正当行为的话,行为人就不是可责的。
90 Michael S. Moore, the Independent Moral Significance of Wrongdoing, 5 J. Contemp. Legal Issues (1994), p. 237.
91 参见 Gerald Leonard, Towards a Legal History of American Criminal Theory: Culture and Doctrine from Blackstone to the Model Penal Code, 6 Buff. Crim. L. R (2003),p. 691.
92 参见 Paul H. Robinson and John M. Darley Winter, The Untility of Dessert, 91 Nw. U.L. Rev (1997),p. 453.
93 Paul H. Robinson and John M. Darley, The Utility of Desert, 91 Nw. U.L. Rev (1997),p. 453.
94 参见 Guyora Binder, Punishment Theory: Moral or Political, 5 Buff. Crim. L. Rev (2002),p. 321.
95 Dan M. Kahan Binder & Smith, The Theory of Value Dilemma: A Critique of the Economic Analysis of Criminal Law, Ohio St. J. Crim. L (2004),p. 64.
96 参见 Richard G. Singer, The Resurgence of Mens Rea: I--Provocation, Emotional Disturbance, and the Model Penal Code, 27 B.C. L. Rev (1986),p.243.
97 Francis B. Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 Colum. L. Rev (1933),p.55.
98 Stephanos Bibas, Judicial Fact-Finding and Sentence-Enhancements in a World of Guilty Pleas, 110 Yale L.J (2001),p.1097.
99 George Soros Busted: Why the Markets Can't Fix Themselves, New Republic ( 2002),p.18.
100 H.L.A. Hart, Legal Responsibility and Excuses, in Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press (1968),p.28.
101 Jeffrey S. Parker, The Economic of Mens Rea, 79 Va. L. Rev (1993),p. 741.
102 David Friedman, An Economic Explanation of Punitive Damages, 40 Ala. L. Rev (1989), p.1125.
103 Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of The Criminal Law, Oct, 85 Colum. L. Re (1985),p.1193.
104 参见 Dan M. Kahan, The Theory of Value Dilemma: A Critique of the Economic Analysis of Criminal Law, 1 Ohio St. J. Crim. L (2004), p.643.
106 参见 W. LaFave& A. Scott, Criminal Law, West Publishing Co., (1972), p.12.
107 参见 Jay Sigler, A History of Double Jeopardy, 7 Am. J. Leg. Hist (1963), p.283. 对于第二点,基本上是在罪数问题当中讨论的。这里不作涉及。相关内容参考 Frank Horack, Jr., The Multiple Consequences of a Single Criminal Act, 21 Minn. L. Rev (1937),p. 805.
112 Model Penal Code (1962), 其规定了四种非自愿行为的适例:(a) 反射(a reflex or convulsion); (b)在无意识或者睡眠当中的身体运动;(c) 在催眠或者催眠的诱导情况下出现的行为;(d) 不是行为人的决定或者努力产物的身体运动,其或者是习惯性的,或者是无意识的。 尽管模范刑法典对这些例子的解释所强调的是在行为人控制范围之内的行为,但与其相关的辅助性介绍很少,并且十分模糊。参见 Deborah W. Denno December, Crime and Consciousness: Science and Involuntary Acts, 87 Minn. L. Rev (2002), p.269.
114 George P. Fletcher, Dogmas of the Model Penal Code, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p.3.
115 Rollin M. Perkins, A rationale of Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 52. No.6 (1939),p. 905.
116 Daniel L. Rotenberg, An Essay on Criminal Liability for Dutyless Omissions that Cause Results, 62 Brooklyn L. Rev (1996), p.1159.
117 Kevin W. Saunders, Voluntary Acts and the Criminal Law: Justifying Culpability Based on The Existences of Volition, 49 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 443(1988).
118 Nancy J. King and Susan R. Klein May, Essential Elements,54 Vand. L. Rev (2001),p.1467.
119 Paul H. Robinson, A Functional Analysis of Criminal Law, Spring, 88 Nw. U.L. Rev (1994),p. 857.
120 Patient, Some Remarks about the Element of Voluntariness in Offenses of Absolute Liability, Crimial L. Rev (1968), p.23.
121 Fox, Physical Disorder, Consciousness, and Criminal Liability, 63 Colum,L. Rev (1963),p. 645.
122 事实上这样的说法是不准确,起码是不完整的。但为了叙述的方便,这里不做详述。
123 J. Hall, General Principle of Criminal Law, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, (1960),p. 449.
124 Kevin W. Saunders, Voluntary Acts and the Criminal Law: Justifying Culpability Based on The Existences of Volition, winter, 49 U. Pitt. L. Rev (1988), p.443.
126 Rollin M. Perkins, A rationale of Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 52. No.6 (1939),p.905.
127 Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law 2122d ed (1986),转引自 Martin R. Gardner , The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present,1993 Utah L. Rev (1993),p.635.
128 Frank J. Remington & Orrin L. Helstad, the Mental Element in Crime-A Legislative Problem, Wis. L. Rev (1952), p.644.
129 Martin R. Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present,1993 Utah L. Rev (1993),p.635.
130 Gary V. Dubin, Mens Rea Reconsidered: A Plea for a Due Process Concept of Criminal Responsibility, 18 Stan. L. Rev (1966), p.322.
131 参见 Rollin M. Perkins, A Rationale of Mens Rea, 52 Harv. L. Rev (1939), p.905.
132 Sayre, the Present Signification of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law, Harvard Legal Essays (1934), p. 399.
133 Remington and Helstad, The Mental Element in Crime-A Legislative Problem, Wis. L. Rev (1952), p. 644..
134 Brown v. State, 23.Del. 159。转引自 Cynthia H. Finn, the Responsible Corporate Officer, Criminal Liability, and Mens Rea: Limitations on the Rco Doctrine, 46 Am. U.L. Rev (1996), p. 543.
135 [美]波尔?H?罗宾逊著,何秉松 王桂萍译:《美国刑法的结构概要》(下),载《政法论坛》(中国政法大学学报) 第 23 卷第 3 期,第 98 页以下。
136 马庆林:《法律语言学 法律语言——兼谈法律英语的特点》,载《西安外国语学院学报》2003 年9 月第 11 卷第 3 期,第 12 页。
137 参见 Daniel E. Hall, Criminal law and procedure, Thomson Delmar Learning; 4 edition (2003), p.35.
138 Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster (1998), p.1366.
139 Margaret J. Radin, Reconsidering the Rule of Law, 69 B.U. L. Rev (1989),p. 781.
141 Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p.803.
143 Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p.803.
144 Jeremy Waldron, Void for Vagueness: Vagueness in Law and Language: Some Philosophical Issues, 82 Calif. L. Rev (1994), p.509.
145 R. Dickerson, the Fundamentals of Legal, 39 (1986),转引自 Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p.803.
146 Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926),
148 John Calvin Jeffries, Jr. Legality, Vagueness, and the Construction of Penal Statutes,71 Va. L. Rev (1985),p.189.
149 参见 Packer, Mens Rea and the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Rev (1962),p.137.
150 参见 Mihajlo M. Alimovic, Conceptions of culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI (1965), p. 37.
151 参见[美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年第一版,第 195-197 页。
152 芦光 张亚玲:《英美刑法中的道德痕迹》,载《河南公安高等专科学校学报》2003 年 8 月第 4 期(总第 71 期),第 15 页。
153 储怀植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 2005 年 2 月第三版,第 4 页。
154 John Robinson, Crime, Culpability, and Excuses, 10 ND J. L. Ethics & Pub Pol'y (1996),p.1.
155 Peter Arenella, Convicting the Morally Blameless: Reassessing the Relationship Between Legal and Moral Accountability, 39 UCLA L. Rev. June (1991), p. 1511.
156 参见 Toni M. Massaro, Shame, Culture, and American Criminal Law Length, 89 Mich. L. Rev (1991), p.1880.
157 参见 N. Lacey, State Punishment, Political principles and Community Values, Routledge (1988), p. 146.
158 Arenella, Character, Choice, and Moral Agency: The Relevance of Character to Our Moral Culpability Judgments, 7 Soc. Phil. & Pol’ y 59 (1990), p.60.
159 Dressler, Reflections on Excusing Wrongdoers: Moral Theory, New Excuses, and the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J (1988), p. 671.
160 李 洁 李立丰:《美国刑法中主观罪过表现形式初探》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》 2005 年第 1 期(总第 129 期),第 99 页。
161 Richard G. Singer, John Q. La Fond, Criminal law: Examples and Explanations 6th Edition, Aspen Publishing, Ing (1995), p.53.
162 Eugene J. Chesney, The Concept of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 29, No.5 (1939),p. 627.
163 Steven L. Emanuel, Criminal Law, 中信出版社 2003 年版,p.26.
164 参见 Winfield, the Myth of Absolute Liability,42 L.Q.Rev (1926),p.37.
165 丁启明 李韧夫:《英美刑法犯罪心理若干问题论》,载《大庆高等专科学校学报》 2003 年 7 月第 3 期,第 1 页。
166 Jerome Hall, General principle of criminal law, Indianapolis the Boss-Merrill company publishers, (1947), p.142.
167 Elaine M. Chiu, The Challenge of Motive in the Criminal Law, 8 Buff. Crim. L. R (2005), p.653.
168 韦恩?拉法夫、奥斯汀?斯科特:《刑法》,第 204 页。转引自[美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 1 月第二版。
169 [美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 1 月第二版,第 228 页。
170 Jerome Hall, General principle of criminal law, Indianapolis the Boss-Merrill company publishers (1947), p.142.
171 Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part, Stevens & Sons; 2r.e. edition (1961), p.48.
172 Hitchler, Motive as an Essential Element of Crime, 35. Dick. L. Rev (1931), p. 105.
173 Jerome Hall, General principle of criminal law, Indianapolis the Boss-Merrill company publishers (1947),p.152.
174 Antony Duff, Principle and Contradiction in the Criminal Law: Motives and Criminal Liability, in Philosophy and the Criminal Law。转引自 Elaine M. Chiu, The Challenge of Motive in the Criminal Law, 8 Buff. Crim. L. R (2005), p.653.
175 Christine Sistare, Agent Motives and the Criminal Law, 13 Soc. Theory & Prac (1987), p.303.
176 [美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 1 月第二版,第 233 页。
177 Tracey L. Meares, It's a Question of Connections, 31 Val. U. L. Rev (1997), p. 579.
178 Jerome Hall, General principle of criminal law, Indianapolis the Boss-Merrill company publishers (1947), p.144.
179 Elaine M. Chiu, The Challenge of Motive in the Criminal Law, 8 Buff. Crim. L. R (2005), p.65.
180 Jerome Hall, General principle of criminal law, Indianapolis the Boss-Merrill company publishers (1947),p.160.
181 Thomas J. Gardner, Criminal law: Principles and cases, Wadsworth Publishing; 6 edition (2006), p.42.
182 George K. Gardner, Bailey v. Richardson and the Constitution of the United States, 33 B.U. L. Rev (1953),p. 176,
183 Henry M. Hart, Jr., The Aims of the Criminal Law, 23 Law & Contemp. Probs (1958),p. 401.
184 [美]胡萨克著,谢望原等译,刑法哲学,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 1 月第二版,第 226 页。
185 Martin R. Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present, Utah L. Rev (1993),p.635.
186 William E. Shipley, Annotation,Mistake or Lack of Information as to Victim's Age as Defense to Statutory Rape, 8 A.L.R.3d (1966),p.1100.
187 Cook, Act, intention and motive in the criminal law,26 Yale L.J (1917),p.645.
188 Tanya K. Hernandez, Note, Bias Crimes: Unconscious Racism in the Prosecution of "Racially Motivated Violence," 99 Yale L.J (1990),p. 845.
189 [美]乔治?P?佛莱彻著,蔡爱惠 陈巧燕 江溯 译:《刑法的基本概念》,中国政法大学出版社 2004年 8 月第一版,第 150 页。
190 Martin R. Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present,Utah L. Rev (1993),p.635.
191 John Quigley, The Common Law's Theory of Criminal Liability: a Challenge from across the Atlantic, 11 Whittier L. Rev (1989), p.479.
192 Francis B. Sayre, Criminal Attempts, 41 Harv. L. Rev (1928), p.834.
193 Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983), p.681.
194 Francis Bowes Sayer, Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol.45, No. 6 (1932),p,997.
195 参见 Martin R. Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present 1993 Utah Law Review Society, Utah L. Rev (1993),p.635.
196 Elaine M. Chiu, The Challenge of Motive in the Criminal Law, 8 Buff. Crim. L. R (2005), p.653.
197 Stephen, General View of the Criminal Law of England, p.71.转引自 Walter Wheeler Cook, ct, Intention, and Motive in Criminal law, The Yale Law Journal, Vol.26, No.8 (1917), p. 645.
198 [美]胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 1 月第二版,第 220 页。
199 [美]胡萨克著,谢望原等译,《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 1 月第二版。第 58 页。
200 Daniel E. Hall, Criminal law and procedure, Thomson Delmar Learning; 4 edition (2003),p.43.
201 Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, LexisNexis; 4 edition (2006),p.109.
202 St Steven L. Emanuel, Criminal Law, 中信出版社 2003 年版,p.13.
203 Donald A. Dripps, The Constitutional Status of the Reasonable Doubt Rule, 75 Cal. L. Rev (1987), p.1674.
204 Martin R. Gardner , The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present,1993 Utah L. Rev (1993),p.635.
205 Daniel E. Hall, Criminal law and procedure, Thomson Delmar Learning; 4 edition (2003), p.334.
206 Guido Calabresi, A Common Law for the Age of Statutes 38 (1982),转引自 Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev (2005),p.949.
207 参见 William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Philip P. Frickey, Cases and Materials on Legislation: Statutes and the Creation of Public Policy (1988),p569.
208 Patricia M. Wald, The Sizzling Sleeper: The Use of Legislative History in Construing Statutes in the 1988-89 Term of the United States Supreme Court, 39 Am. U.L. Rev (1990),p. 277.
209 参见 Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica: Treatise on Man, in 19 Great Books of the Western World 463-64 (R. M. Hutchins ed., 1952), 转引自 Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev (2005),p.949.
210 参见 St. Thomas Aquinas, On Law and Justice: Excerpts from Summa Theologica 1022-23 (Leslie Adams, Jr. ed., 1988), 转引自 Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev (2005)p. 949.
211 Jeremy Bentham, A General View of a Complete Code of Laws, in 3 Works of Jeremy Bentham 191 (John Bowring ed., 1843), 转引自 Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev (2005),p.949.
212 Thomas A. Mauet, Trial Techniques, Aspen Publishers; 6th edition (2002),p.486.
213 Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev (2005),p.949.
214 Richard T. Bowser, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Court and the Law, 19 Campbell L. Rev (1997), p.212.
215 Michael S. Moore, Philosophy of Language and Legal Interpretation: Article: A Natural Law Theory of Interpretation, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev (1985), p. 279.
216 Cass R. Sunstein, Interpreting Statutes in the Regulatory State, 103 Harv L. Rev (1989),p.405.
217 Henry P. Monaghan, Our Perfect Constitution, 56 NYU L Rev (1981), p.335.
218 David A. Strauss Summer, Common Law Constitutional Interpretation 63 U. Chi. L. Rev (1996),p.877.
219 参见本文第一章第二节。
220 这样的观点概括来说就是认为社会科学使用的是不同于自然科学的类型化概念,参见 Cover, The Supreme Court, 1982 Term -- Foreword: Nomos and Narrative, 97 HARV. L. REV (1983),p.4.
221 Levinson, Law as Literature, 60 TEX. L. REV (1982),p. 373.
222 David A. Strauss,Common Law Constitutional Interpretation 63 U. Chi. L. Rev (1996),p. 877.
223 Williams,More on the Paradigm Case Argument, 39 Austl. J. Phil (1961),p. 276.
224 Michael S. Moore, Philosophy of Language and Legal Interpretation: Article: A Natural Law Theory of Interpretation, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev. January (1985),p. 279.
225 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 156 页。
226 Michael S. Moore, Philosophy of Language and Legal Interpretation: Article: A Natural Law Theory of Interpretation,, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev (1985),p. 279.
227 引同上。
228 参见 Lori L. Outzs, A Principled Use of Congressional Floor Speeches in Statutory Interpretation, 28 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs (1995), p.279.
230 如在 Blanchard v. Bergeron 案中, 489 U.S. 87, 91, 95 (1989),在法官意见的第一部分,法院就使用一个参议院委员会的报告来认定争议的问题,并且在后面使用参众两院的报告来对于国会的意图加以明确。转引自 Lori L. Outzs, A Principled Use of Congressional Floor Speeches in Statutory Interpretation, 28 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs (1995), p.297.
231 Note, A Re-evaluation of the Use of Legislative History in the Federal Courts, 52 Colum. L. Rev (1952), p.125.
232 参见 George A. Costello, Average Voting Members and Other "Benign Fictions": The Relative Reliability of Committee Reports, Floor Debates, and Other Sources of Legislative History, Duke L.J (1990), p.39.
233 Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev (2005),p.949.
234 参见 Schauer, An Essay on Constitutional Language, 29 Ucla, L. Rev (1982), p.797.
235 United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U.S. 398, 403 (1999),
236 Darrlk. Brown, The Jury’s Role In Administering Justice in the United States: Judicial instructions, Defendant Culpability, and Jury Interpretation of Law, Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 21 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev (2002), p.25.
237 参见 George P. Fletcher, the fall and Rise of Criminal Theory, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998), p.275.
238 限于篇幅,这里对于美国刑事陪审团的简介仅仅涉及其对于法律和事实判断相关的部分,而对于其他的方面并没有太过涉及。另,对于美国陪审团的介绍,除明确标明出处的部分,主要参考Albert W. Alschuler and Andrew G. Deiss, A Brief History of the Criminal Jury in the United States. 61 U. Chi. L. Rev (1994),p. 867.
239 U.S. Const. amend. VI.
240 Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 156 (1980),转引自 Kimberly A. Mottley, David Abrami, and Darryl K. Brown, The Jury’s Role in Administering Justice in The United States: A Over View of the American Criminal Jury , 21 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev (2002), p.99.
241 Leonard W. Levy, Bill of Rights, in Leonard W. Levy, ed, Essays on the Making of the Constitution 258, 269 (Oxford, 2d ed 1987), 转引自 Albert W. Alschuler and Andrew G. Deiss, A Brief History of the Criminal Jury in the United States. 61 U. Chi. L. Rev (1994), p. 867.
242 Richard Solari, National Judicial Reporting Program, US Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, (1992),
243 Patrick A. Langan and John M. Dawson, Felony Sentences in State Courts, 1988, 参见 US Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, (1990)
244 US Const, Art III, § 2.
245 US Const, Amend VI.
246 John H. Langbein, On the Myth of Written Constitutions: The Disappearance of Criminal Jury Trial, 15 Harv J L & Pub Pol (1992),
247 Patton v United States, 281 US 276, 298-99 (1930),
248 John C. B. Davis, The Massachusetts Justice: A Treatise upon the Powers and Duties of Justices of the Peace,Warren Lazell (1847),p.119.
249 New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, 1990 Crime and Justice Annual Report 162,参见 Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistical Services, (1991),
250 Brady v United States, 397 US 742, 753 (1970),
251 Albert W. Alschuler, Plea Bargaining and Its History, 79 Colum L Rev (1979), p.1.
252 Harold M. Hyman and Catherine M. Tarrant, Aspects of American Trial Jury History, in Rita James Simon, ed, The Jury System in America: A Critical Overview,Sage Publications(1975),p.21.
253 Bruce Buursma, LA Child Abuse Case Ends in Acquittals, Chi Trib C1 (1990),
254 James B. Thayer, "Law and Fact" in Jury Trials, 4 Harv L Rev (1890),p.147.
255 John M. Murrin, Magistrates, Sinners, and a Precarious Liberty: Trial by Jury in Seventeenth-Century New England, in David D. Hall, John M. Murrin, and Thad W. Tate, eds, Saints and Revolutionaries: Essays on Early American History 152 (Norton, 1984),转引自 Albert W. Alschuler and Andrew G. Deiss, A Brief History of the Criminal Jury in the United States. 61 U. Chi. L. Rev (1994),p, 867.
256 参见 Richard E. Ellis, the Jeffersonian Crisis: Courts and Politics in the Young Republic, Oxford (1971), p. 115.
259 参见 L. Kinvin Wroth and Hiller B. Zobel, eds, 1 Legal Papers of John Adams xli, Belknap (1965), pp.48-89.
261 Ann Hopkins, Mens Rea and the Right to Trial by Jury, 76 Calif. L. Rev (MarchA1988), p. 391.
262 156 US 51 (1895),
264 参见 Mortimer R. Kadish and Sanford H. Kadish, Discretion to Disobey: A Study of Lawful Departures from Legal Rules,Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press (1973),p.50.
265 William E. Nelson, Americanization of the Common Law: The Impact of Legal Change on Massachusetts Society, Harvard Press (1975),p. 1760.
266 参见 Michael S. Moore, Philosophy of Language and Legal Interpretation: Article: A Natural Law Theory of Interpretation, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev (1985),p. 279
267 Cohen, Field Theory and Judicial Logic, 59 YALE L.J (1950),p. 238.
268 Fuller, Positivism and Fidelity to Law -- A Reply to Professor Hart, 71 HARV. L. REV. 630 (1958), 转引自 Williams, Language and the Law (pt.V), 62 LAW Q. REV (1946),p. 387.
270 Green v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 490 U.S. 504, 528 (1989)
271 William N. Eskridge,Jr., Dynamic Statutory Interpretation, 135 U. Pa. L. Rev (1987),p. 1479.
272 Richard T. Bowser, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law, 19 Campbell L. Rev (1997),p.209.
273 文本主义在这里被定义为使用不同的工具,包括字典定义以及解释规则,来试图对于包括在成文法当中的单字或者术语赋予被其认定是客观的意义。引自 Lori L. Outzs, A Principled Use of Congressional Floor Speeches in Statutory Interpretation, 28 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs (1995),p.297.
274 参见 Arthur W. Murphy, Old Maxims Never Die: The "Plain-Meaning Rule" and Statutory Interpretation in the "Modern" Federal Courts, 75 Colum. L. Rev (1975),p. 1299.
275 Richard T. Bowser, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law, 19 Campbell L. Rev (1997),p. 209.
276 K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 325 (1988),
277 Richard A. Posner, The Federal Courts: Crisis and Reform 286-87 (1985),转引自 Richard T. Bowser, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law, 19 Campbell L. Rev (1997),p.209.
278 参见 Paul Campos, That Obscure Object of Desire: Hermeneutics and the Autonomous Legal Text, 77 Minn. L. Rev (1993),p. 1065.
279 Ronald Dworkin, How to Read the Civil Rights Act, N.Y. Review, Dec. 20, (1979),pp. 38-39.
280 参见 Reed Dickerson, Statutory Interpretation: A Peek into the Mind and Will of a Legislature, 50 Ind. L.J (1975),p.208.
281 Stephen Breyer,On the Uses of Legislative History in Interpreting Statutes, 65 S. Cal. L. Rev (1992),p 845.
282 Lori L. Outzs, A Principled Use of Congressional Floor Speeches in Statutory Interpretation, 28 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. (1995),p. 297. 根据该学者的调查,在这五十三起案件的十八起当中,法院参照了立法历史来帮助其对于成文法的解读。
283 参见 Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev (2005),p. 949.
284 Jorge L. Carro & Andrew W. Brann, The U.S. Supreme Court and the Use of Legislative Histories: A Statistical Analysis, 22 Jurimetrics J (1982), p.294.
285 Kenneth A. Shepsle, Congress is a "They," Not an "It": Legislative Intent as Oxymoron, 12 Int'l Rev. L. & Econ (1992),p.239.
286 参见 Orrin Hatch, Legislative History: Tool of Construction or Destruction, 11 Harv. J.l. & PUB. POL'Y (1988),p.43.
287 参见 Kenneth W. Starr, Observations about the Use of Legislative History, DUKE L.J (1987),p.371.
288 参见 Arthur W. Murphy, Old Maxims Never Die: The "Plain-Meaning Rule" and Statutory Interpretation in the "Modern" Federal Courts, 75 Colum. L. Rev (1975),p. 1299.
289 Posner, Legislation and Its Interpretation: A Primer, 68 NEB. L. REV (1989),p.431.
290 Peter J. Henning, Supreme Court Review: Foreword: Statutory in Interpretation And The Federalization of Criminal law, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1996),p.1167.
291 Richard G. Singer, Foreword to Symposium, the 25th Anniversary of the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J (1988),p.519.
293 George P. Fletcher, Dogmas of the Model Penal Code, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p.3.
294 参见 George P. Fletcher, the fall and Rise of Criminal Theory, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p.275.
295 参见 Charles McClain, Criminal Law Reform: Historical Development in the United States, in 2 Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice 501 (Sanford H. Kadish ed., 1983),转引自 Sanford H. Kadish, Fifty Years of Criminal Law: An Opinionated Review, 87 Calif. L. Rev (1999),p.943.
296 Sanford H. Kadish, Codifiers of Criminal Law: Wechsler's Predecessors, 78 Colum. L. Rev (1978),p. 1098.
297 Dale E. Bennett, the Louisiana Criminal Code: A Comparison with Prior Louisiana Criminal Law, 5 La. L. Rev (1942),p.6.
298 Herbert Wechsler, the Challenge of a Model Penal Code, 65 Harv. L. Rev (1952),p. 1097.
299 Herbert Wechsler & Jerome Michael, A Rationale of the Law of Homicide I, 37 Colum. L. Rev (1937),p. 701.
300 William E. Mikell, the Proposed Criminal Code of Pennsylvania, 71 U. Pa. L. Rev (1923),p.99.
301 参见 Sanford H. Kadish, Fifty Years of Criminal Law: An Opinionated Review, California Law Review July, Vol. 87 (1999), 根据该教授的观点,模范刑法典的成功绝非偶然,美国刑法学界将这些原因作以划分,认为很多原因都可以用来解释刑法典的成功。主要原因是模范刑法典本身十分具有说服力,而且体现了一种原则化的实用主义(principled pragmatism)。这也是其可以成为美国立法机构在二十世纪后半期立法模板的一个主要原因,次要原因是因为战后重建,乐观的公众意识,经济复苏,或许是因为种族冲突,反战浪潮分散了公众,立法以及媒体对于刑法典的注意力,福特基金会(Ford Foundation)对于刑法领域的资助,美国律师基金会(the American Bar Foundation)对于刑事司法的报告等。
302 Dannye Holley, The Influence of The Model Penal Code’s Culpability Provisions on State Legislatures: A study of Lost Opportunity, Including Abolishing the Mistake of Fact Doctrine, 27 Sw. U. L. Rev(1997),p. 229.
303 美国法学会(the American law institute),是于 1923 年由一些杰出的法官,律师以及法学教师所成的,是一个致力于完善以及明晰现行法律的永久性组织。在其成立之初,就十分关注实体刑法方面存在的问题。在对于这个问题的重述之后出现的第一个提案很快就发现了问题所在,作为研究对象的成文法过于庞杂,而这种庞杂仅仅通过重述这样的方式是不能有效解决的。很多人都认为应该寻求对于长期拖欠的对于法律改革的指引,而不是对于即存法律的描述或者肯定。因此,在 1931年提出了呼吁设定模范法典的第二个提案。然而,这样的一种努力需要十分细致的实证分析,而在经济大萧条的年代也耗费颇巨,故尽管得到罗斯福总统强有力的支持,仍然流产了。1950 年这种努力又重新得以开始。从与犯罪以及刑法的理解与实务相关的各个领域当中抽选出来的人员所组成的咨询委员会得以成立,1952 年开始了法典的设计以及起草工作。在随后的十年当中召开了很多次的咨询委员会议,每次大多持续三天左右的时间,在会议期间,基本的政策问题得以争论并加以解决。与会者提出各自的研究成果以及草案被提交上来被加以讨论和修改,所有这些争论的结果被集合成一个最终的版本。从 1953 年到 1962 年这十年期间总共讨论了 31 个草案。在会议讨论修改通过之后,整个材料加上相关的评论被按照一定的顺序送交法学会,后面附加了于 1961 年呈交上来的针对刑罚和改正措施的最终草案,形成了官方的 1962 年草案。法学会所进行的评价当中考虑了之前不同利益集团所提出的不同草案版本,在修正的过程中都充分考虑了这些观点的作用。并不是所有参与到这个复杂过程当中的人都对于这个法典当中的主要观点持赞成态度,更别说某些细节了。但可以比较肯定地认为还是达成了很大程度的共识的。但必须指出的是,在全国范围内达成刑法的统一并不是法学会的目的所在。因为一般认为不同州的环境以及观念的不同势必会在其刑事实体法当中反映出来。这种模式的提出无非是刺激以及帮助对于各自现在实行的法律进行系统的反思已确保其能够反应我们对于各自司法区的成熟的看法和观点,并且可以为其审视自身所面临的问题提供新的评价和解决办法。但,这并不是说美国法学会没有野心使得这部法律模板得到适用,起码是某种参照。应该承认,模范刑法典即使在没有总体上的修正的情况下,仍然在很多具体问题上仍能提供有利的联系。以上内容参见 Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the criminal law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 68. No. 8(Dec., 1968),美国法学会花费了十年来争论和起草一部模范刑法典。二十八个起草者和二十八位咨询委员起草了十八份在八次年会当中被用来争论的报告。二十年之后,七位报告人和二十八位咨询委员完成了六卷官方的评论。赫尔博特·维斯勒(Herbert Wechsler)是其主报告人;路易斯·舒瓦茨(Louis B. Schwartz)是副报告人。这项工作持续了五十年的时间,在法学同仁的致力之下,1962 年报告人提出了最终版本。法典做出了很多贡献。这样的一种伟大的起草努力又仅仅是在 1962 年模范刑法典被制定之后接近三分之二个州对于其刑法典重新规定的行动的起点。在每个这样的情形当中,一个委员会,或者众多立法委员会,或者二者,花费了大量的时间和经历来争论和修改 1962 的标准版本。例如,在加州,一个改革委员会于 1963 年开始用了六年的时间草拟出了三个公开的征求意见稿。参见 Arthur H. Sherry, Criminal Law Revision in California, 4 J.L. Reform (1971),p. 441.
304 Herbert L. Packer, the Model Penal Code and Beyond, 63 Colum. L. Rev (1963),p. 594.
305 参见 Ronald L. Gainer, Federal Criminal Code Reform: Past and Future, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p.4.
306 George P. Fletcher, Dogmas of the Model Penal Code: 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p.3.
307 参见 Michael T. Cahill et al., the Five Worst (and Five Best) American Criminal Codes, 95 Nw. U. L. Rev (2000),p. 3.
308 法典改革委员会于 1965 年创立,由此,联邦法典改革的改革就大面积展开。以模范刑法典作为主要的参照,一个规模庞大的委员会的成员提出并且讨论了一个研究版本和一个最后的联邦刑法典草案。 而这个提案催生了参议院相关委员会在接下来的六年当中的五十一次听证会,产生出了一个十八卷的超过一万页的材料。 在 1973 年, 参议员提出了 2 个议案,听证会的材料超过了 3000页,但是没有立法的行动。 在下一届国会当中还提出了另外的一个新的提案,但是围绕这个提案的争论没有使得起进入到表决阶段。 在进一步的修正和妥协之后,经过八天的议会辩论,参议员
通过了 1978 年的 criminal code reform bill 。 但是整个国会都没有采取行动。参见 Paul H. Robinson, Are Criminal Codes Irrelevant? November, 68 S. Cal. L. Rev (1994),p.159.
309 参见 Paul H. Robinson, Rules of Conduct and Principles of Adjudication, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev (1990),p. 729.
310 参见 Herbert L. Packer, the Model Penal Code and Beyond, 63 Column. L. Rev (1963),p.594.
311 Paul H. Robinson, A Brief History of Distinctions in Criminal Culpability, 31 HASTINGS L.J, (1980),p. 815.
312 参见 Markus Dirk Dubber, Penal Panopticon: The Idea of a Modern Model Penal Code, 4 Buff. Crim. L. R (2000),p.53.
313 Douglas Husak, Is the Criminal Law Important?, 1 Ohio St. J. Crim. L (2003),p.261.
314 Paul H. Robinson & Michael T. Cahill, the Accelerating Degradation of American Criminal Codes, Hastings Law Journal, March, 56 Hastings L.J.(2005),p.633.
315 George P. Fletcher, the fall and Rise of Criminal Theory, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p. 275.
316 Peter W. Low, the Model Penal Code, The Common Law, and Mistakes of Fact: Recklessness, Negligence, or Strict Liability? 19 Rutgers L.J (1988),p.539.
317 参见 Sanford H. Kadish, Fifty Years of Criminal Law: An Opinionated Review July, 87 Calif. L. Rev (1999),p.943.
318 Packer, the Model Penal Code and Beyond, 63 COLUM. L. REV (1963),p.549.
319 Robinson, A Brief History of Distinctions in Criminal Culpability, 31 HASTINGS L.J (1980),p. 815.
320 Martin R. Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present, Utah L. Rev (1993),p. 635.
321 Ronald L. Gainer, The Culpability Provisions of the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J (1988),p. 575.
322 Miguel Angel Mendez, A Sisyphean Task: The Common Law Approach to Mens Rea, U.C. Davis Law Review (1995),p.353.
323 George P. Fletcher, Mistake in the Model Penal Code: A False Problem, 19 Rutgers L.J (1988),p. 649.
324 国家的联邦刑法改革咨询委员会认定了当今法当中所使用的 78 种不同的术语。参见 Feinberg, Toward a New Approach to Proving Culpability: Mens Rea and the Proposed Federal Criminal Code, 18 AM. CRIM. L. REV (1980),p. 123.
325 起草者解释:仅仅需要四个概念来描述最低的要求并且设定通常所需要进行厘定的区分。模范刑法典对于犯意术语的经典表述在各具体州的规定并不是被一以贯之的,我们在各州刑法典当中所发现的是与模范刑法典不同的表述。例如爱德华州法典规定的是任意地(willfully ),过失(neglect ) ,道德败坏地 (corruptly ),恶意地(malice )和明知地 (knowingly );印地安娜州法典规定的是故意地(intentionally ),明知地(knowingly ),和轻率地(recklessly );堪萨斯州规定的是意欲地(willful ) 和任意(wanton);肯塔基州法典使用故意地(intentionally ),明知地(knowingly ), 任意地(wantonly )以及轻率地 (recklessly);洛杉矶州规定的是特定犯意(specific intent ),概括意图(general intent )和犯罪过失 (criminal negligence);明尼苏达州规定的是明知(know )和故意地(intentionally); 蒙大拿州规定的是轻率(recklessness ) 的对于危险的有意不顾为过失,而对于通常被称之为过失的具有可责性的疏忽大意不追究刑事责任;内华达州法典规定的是明知地(knowingly ),恶意地(maliciously)和过失地 (negligently); 北达克他州规定有意地(willfully);南达克他州规定恶意(malice),意图(intent ),了解 (knowledge),轻率(recklessness)和过失(neglect); 华盛顿州除了模范刑法典的区分之外,仍然保持了恶意(malice)和任意(willfulness)。参见 lexis 数据库中各州刑法文本。以及 Feinberg, Toward a New Approach to Proving Culpability: Mens Rea and the Proposed Federal Criminal Code, 18 AM. CRIM. L. REV (1980),p. 123.
326 Ronald L. Gainer, Federal Criminal Code Reform: Past and Future, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p. 45.
327 参见 Martin R. Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present, Utah L. Rev (1993),p. 635..
328 Peter W. Low, the Model Penal Code, The Common Law, and Mistakes of Fact: Recklessness, Negligence, or Strict Liability? 19 Rutgers L.J (1988),p. 544.
329 Paul H. Robinson and Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983), p. 681.
330 参见 Dannye Holley, The Influence of the Model Penal Code’s Culpability Provision’s on State Legislatures: A Study of Lost Opportunities, Including abolishing the Mistake of fact Doctrine, Sw. U. L. Rev (1993),p. 229.
331 参见 Markus Dirk Dubber, the Historical Analysis of Criminal Codes, 18 Law & Hist. Rev(2000),p.433.
332 Sanford H. Kadish, "Codifiers of the Criminal Law: Wechsler's Predecessors," Columbia Law Review (1978),p. 78
333 参见 Richard G. Singer, The Resurgence of Mens Rea: I--Provocation, Emotional Disturbance, andthe Model Penal Code, 27 B.C. L. Rev (1986),p.243.
334 Martin R. Gardner, the Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Presen, Utah L. Rev (1993),p. 635.
335 Richard G. Singer and John Q. Lafond 著,王秀梅等注:criminal law, 2nd.,中国方正出版社 2003年 9 月影印第一版,第 67 页。
336 参见 Paul H. Robinson, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond April, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983),p. 681.
338 参见 Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Mattew Bender, Matthew Bender & Co; 2nd edition (June 1995), p.111.
341 Model Penal Code § 2.05 (Proposed Official Draft 1962),
344 参见 Paul H. Robinson, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond April, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983),p. 681.
345 参见 Ronald L. Gainer, The Culpability Provisions of the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J (1988), p. 575.
347 Sanford H. Kadish, Fifty Years of Criminal Law: An Opinionated Review, 87 Cal. L. Rev (1999),p. 943.
348 参见 Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 STAN. L. REV (1983),p. 681.
349 参见 Paul H. Robinson, A Brief History of Distinctions in Criminal Culpability, 31 HASTINGS L.J (1980),p. 815.
350 刘仁文老师主持翻译的美国刑法典将 purpose 翻译为蓄意,论者认为直译为意图较为合适。具体原因见后。
351 Paul H. Robinson & Jane Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983),p. 681.
352 Mark Kelman, Interpretive Construction in the Substantive Criminal Law, 33 Stan. L. Rev (1981),p. 591.
353 Sanford H. Kadish, Fifty Years of Criminal Law: An Opinionated Review, 87 Calif. L. Rev. (1999),p. 943.
354 对于模范刑法典犯意规定的评价,见后章。
355 Kenneth W. Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U.L. Rev (1992),p. 463.
356 Negligence and the General Problem of Criminal Responsibility, the Yale Law Journal, Vol. 81, No 5 (1972),p. 949.
357 Kenneth W. Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U.L. Rev (1992),p. 463
358 David M. Treiman, Recklessness and the Model Penal Code, 9 AM. J. CRIM. L.(1981),p. 281.
359 Herbert Wechsler, On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 339, Crime and The American Penal (1962),p.24.
360 Hall, Negligent Behavior Should Be Excluded from Penal Lability, 63 Colum. L. Rev (1963),p. 632.
362 Mihajlo M. Alimovic, Conceptions of culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI (1965), p.40.
365 Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the criminal law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 68. No (1968),p. 8.
366 Herbert Wechsler, On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 339, Crime and The American Penal (1962),p.31.
367 参见 Jerome Hall, Negligent Behavior Should be Eliminated from Penal Liability, 63, Colum. L. Rev (1963), P. 632.
368 Herbert Wechsler, On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 339, Crime and The American Penal (1962),p.24.
369 Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the criminal law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 68. No. 8 (1968), p.1425.
370 George P. Fletche, Dogmas of the Model Penal Code, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p. 3.
371 参见 Paul H. Robinson and Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983),p. 681.
372 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes Spring, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p. 731.
373 Model Penal Code, Section 2.02(2)(a)(i)
374 Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631, 641(1947),
375 参见 Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the criminal law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 68. No. 8 (1968), p.1059.
376 Herbert Wechsler, On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 339, Crime and The American Penal (1962),p.25.
377 Kenneth W. Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U.L. Rev (1992),p. 463.
378 Robert Batey, Judicial Exploitation of Mens Rea Conclusion, At Common Law and Under The Model Penal Code, 18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev (2001),p. 341.
379 Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the criminal law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 68. No. 8(Dec., 1968),p.1060.
380 Edwin H. Byrd, III, Comment, Reflections on Willful, Wanton, Reckless and Gross Negligence, 48 LA. L. REV (1988),p. 1383.
381 John M. Fischer, Introduction: Responsibility and Freedom, in Moral Responsibility, Cambridge. University Press (1986),p. 9.
382 Matthew Jones, Overcoming the Myth of Free Will in Criminal Law: The True Impact of the Genetic Revolution,52 Duke L.J (2003), p. 1031.
383 Joel Feinberg, The Expressive Function of Punishment, Philosophy of Law: Crimes and Punishments, Little Brown Press (1994),p.89.
384 Richard Lowell Nygaard, Free Will, Determinism, Penology and the Human Genome: Where's a New Leibniz When We Really Need Him? 3 U. Chi. L. Sch. Roundtable (1996),p.417.
385 Matthew Jones, Overcoming the Myth of Free Will in Criminal Law: The True Impact of the Genetic Revolution, 52 Duke L.J (2003),p. 1031.
386 Joel R. Cornwell, the Confusion of Causes and Reasons in Forensic Psychology: Deconstructing Mens Rea and Other Mental Events, 33 U. Rich. L. Rev (1999),p.107.
387 Jack Katz, Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil (1988),转引自 V.F. Nourse, Hearts and Minds: Understanding the New Culpability, 6 Buff. Crim. L. R (2002),p.361.
388 John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding 467, Books for Libraries Press 1969),转引自 Adam Candeub, Consciousness & Culpability, 54 Ala. L. Rev (2002),p.114.
389 Arenella, Character, Choice, and Moral Agency: The Relevance of Character to Our Moral Culpability Judgments, 7 SOC. PHIL. & POL'Y (1990),p.59.
390 Peter Arenella, Convicting the Morally Blameless: Reassessing the Relationship between Legal and Moral Accountability. 39 UCLA L. Rev (1992), p. 1511.
391 John Robinson, Crime, Culpability, and Excuses, 10 ND J. L. Ethics & Pub Pol'y 1 (1997),p. 1996.
392 Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972),
393 Richard C. Bold, The Construction of Responsibility in the Criminal Law, 140 U. Pa. L. Rev (1992),p. 2245.
394 Mark Kelman, Interpretive Construction in the Substantive Criminal Law, 33 Stan. L. Rev (1981),p. 591.
395 参见 Meir Dan-Cohen, Responsibility and the Boundaries of the Self, 105 Harv. L. Rev (1992),p. 959.
396 Ann Hopkins, Mens Rea and the Right to Trial by Jury, 76 Calif. L. Rev (1988),p.391.
397 Marjorie Weinzweig, Discriminatory Impact and Intent under the Equal Protection Clause: The Supreme Court and the Mind-Body Problem, 1 LAW & INEQ. J (1983),p. 277.
398 参见 Paul H. Robinson, Criminal Law: Criminal Law Scholarship: Three Illusions January, 2 Theoretical Inq. L (2001),p. 287.
399 Dennis Patterson, Wittgenstein and the Code: A Theory of Good Faith Performance and Enforcement under Article Nine, 137 U. PA. L. REV (1988), p.335.
400 Miguel, Angelmendez, A Sisyphean Task: The Common Law Approach to Mens Rea, 28 U.C. Davis L. Rev (1995), p.407.
401 参见 Paul H. Robinson, Michael T. Cahill, and Usman Mohammad, American Criminal Codes, 95 Nw. U.L. Rev (2000),p.1.
402 Packer, Mens Rea and the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Rev. 137(1962),p.107.
403 Miguel Angel Mendez, A Sisyphean Task: The Common Law Approach To Mens Rea, 28 U.C. Davis L. Rev (1995),p.407.
404 Mihajlo M. Alimovic, culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI (1965), p.1076.
405 Ronald L. Gainer, The Culpability Provisions of the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J (1988),p. 575.
406 V.F. Nourse, Hearts and Minds: Understanding the New Culpability, 6 Buff. Crim. L. R (2002),p.361.
407 Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983),p.683.
408 Model Penal Code 1.13(9) (Official Draft 1985),
409 Martin T. Lefevour, Requres Mens Rea to the Physcal Characteistics of the Weapon, 85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1988), p.1136.
410 Paul H. Robinson, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev(1983),p. 68.
411 Paul H. Robinson, Rethinking Federal Criminal Law: Reforming the Federal Criminal Code: A Top Ten List, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R (1997),p.225.
412 Model Penal Code § 220.3 (规定在寻衅滋事罪当中)。
413 Model Penal Code § 250.7 (阻碍高速公路交通罪)。
414 Model Penal Code § 213.1(1)(a) (强奸犯罪的定义)。
415 Model Penal Code § 5.03(1)(a) (共谋犯罪的定义)。
416 参见 Kenneth W. Simons, Model Penal Code Second: Good or Bad Idea?: Should the Model Penal Code's Mens Rea Provisions Be Amended? 1 Ohio St. J. Crim. L (2003),p. 179.
417 Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, Don't Abandon the Model Penal Code Yet! Thinking Through Simons's Rethinking, 6 Buff. Crim. L. R (2002),p. 185.
418 George P. Fletche, Dogmas of the Model Penal Code, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p. 3.
419 V.F. Nourse, Hearts and Minds: Understanding the New Culpability, Buffalo Criminal Law Review, (2002),p.361.
420 Kenneth W. Simons, Culpability and Retributive Theory: The Problem of Criminal Negligence, J. Contemp. Legal Issues (1994),p. 365.
421 参见 Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, Opaque Recklessness, 91 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2001), p. 597.
422 参见 Kenneth W. Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U.L. Rev (1992),p. 463,
423 Paul H. Robinson & Michael T. Cahil, the Accelerating Degradation of American Criminal Codes, 56 Hastings L.J (2005), p. 633.
424 Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 252 (1952),转引自 Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p. 803.
425 Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 500 (1951),转引自 Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 COLUM. L. REV (1933),p.55.
426 参见 Patrick M. O'Neil, the Moral Blindness of the Positivistic Legal Hermeneutic and the Non-Proximate Mens Rea In The Law Of Criminal Negligence, 41 Am. J. Juris (1996),p.289.
427 Emilio S. Binavince, the Ethical Foundation of Criminal Liability, 33 Fordham L. Rev (1964),p.1.
428 Staples v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1793, 1803 (1994),转引自 Alun Griffith, Comment: People v. Ryan : A Trap for the Unwary,61 Brooklyn L. Rev (1995),p.1011.
429 参见 Alan Saltzman, Strict Criminal Liability and the United States Constitution: Substantive Criminal Law Due Process, 24 Wayne L. Rev (1978),p. 1571.
431 Herbert Wechsler, On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 339 (1962),p.1059.
433 Compare United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 280-81 (1943),United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 406 n.6 (1980),转引自 Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Liability Without Fault: A Disquieting Trend 68 Iowa L. Rev (1983),p,1067.
434 Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 COLUM. L. REV (1933),p.55.
435 对于二者的区分,有学者提出其在很大程度上取决于一种群体性的认识,但又有学者置疑,认为像美国这样的多元社会当中,包括价值在内的社会意识是多元且具有很大分歧的。具体参见 Hart, Social Solidarity and the Enforcement of Morality, 35 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1967),p.8.
436 参见 Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Liability Without Fault: A Disquieting Trend 68 Iowa L. Rev (1983),p. 1067.
437 Alun Griffith, Comment: People v. Ryan : A Trap for the Unwary, 61 Brooklyn L. Rev (1995),p. 1011.
438 参见 Douglas N. Husak, Varieties of Strict Liability, 8 Canadian J.L. & Jurisprudence (1995) ,p. 189(讨论了七种不同的严格责任并且认为很明显还存在其他的类型)。
439 石文英:《从归责的历史发展看严格责任》,载《焦作工学院学报(社会科学版)》2002 年 6 月第3 卷 第 2 期,第 31 页。
440 闫显明 冯建军:《英美刑法中的严格责任制度及其借鉴意义》,载《武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2001 年 8 月第 14 卷第 4 期,第 329 页。
441 行为人如果实施了法律禁止的行为, 或处于法律规定的状态中, 或导致了法律否定的结果, 司法机关无须证明行为人的主观心理状态, 即可使其负刑事责任。参见骆梅芬:《英美法系刑事法律中严格责任与绝对责任之辨析》,载《中山大学学报(社会科学版)》1999 年第 5 期,第 114 页。
442 有学者主张绝对责任就是法律许可对某些缺乏犯罪犯意的行为追究刑事责任。因此绝对责任就是无罪过责任。参见闫显明 冯建军:《英美刑法中的严格责任制度及其借鉴意义》,载《武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2001 年 8 月第 14 卷第 4 期,第 330 页以下。而还有学者主张二者是不同的,其区别主要体现在严格责任和绝对责任又是反映着对犯意要求的不同程度的两个词, 它们是有区别的。1. 从适用范围来看 2. 从举证责任来看。参见骆梅芬:《英美法系刑事法律中严格责任与绝对责任之辨析》,载《中山大学学报(社会科学版)》1999 年第 5 期,第 114 页以下。
443 康均心 董邦俊:《罪过责任之思考———兼评严格责任之冲突》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》2000 年第 5 期(总第 103 期),第 25 页。
444 参见付霞:《试论英美刑法中严格责任之应然归宿》,载《黑龙江省政法干部管理学院学报》2003 年第 5 期,第 99 页。
445 闫显明 冯建军:《英美刑法中的严格责任制度及其借鉴意义》,载《武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2001 年 8 月第 14 卷第 4 期,第 329 页。
446 与此相关的问题详见 Kenneth W. Simons, Criminal Law: When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just? 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997),1075.
447 参见 Michael S. Moore, Prima Facie Moral Culpability, 76 B.U. L. Rev (1996), p.319.
448 Kenneth W. Simons, Criminal Law: When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just? 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997), p. 1075.
449 参见 Ingeborg Paulus, Strict Liability: Its Place in Public Welfare Offenses, 20 Crim. L.Q (1977-78),p.
445 其认为十九世纪英国为了保证食品供应而承认严格责任是必须的,提出了某些情况下严格责任的正当性。
450 Model Penal Code 2.05 (1985),
451 付霞:《试论英美刑法中严格责任之应然归宿》,载《黑龙江省政法干部管理学院学报》2003 年第 5 期,第 99 页以下。
452 Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Liability without Fault: A Disquieting Trend, 68 Iowa L. Rev (1983),p. 1067.
453 参见 Ann Hopkins, Mens Rea and the Right to Trial by Jury. 76 Calif. L. Rev (1988), p.391.
454 Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 COLUM. L. REV (1933), p. 55.
455 参见 Alan C. Michaels, Constitutional Innocence, 112 Harv. L. Rev (1999), p.828.
456 Kent Greenawalt, "Uncontrollable" Actions and the Eighth Amendment: Implications of Powell v. Texas, 69 Colum. L. Rev (1969) ,p. 927, 977 .其认为严格责任在任何可以被判处监禁的犯罪上适用都是违宪的;John Calvin Jeffries, Jr. & Paul B. Stephan III, Defenses, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law, 88 Yale L.J (1979),p. 1325,其提出作为一项宪法原则,至少在某些非成文犯罪当中,刑事责任应当限制在那些行为人悖离了一个理性化的守法公民在当时情境下应当为的行为模式的情况。
457 参见 Richard Singer & Douglas Husak, Of Innocence and Innocents: The Supreme Court and Mens Rea Since Herbert Packer, 3 Buff. Crim. L. Rev (1999),提出法院认为在公共利益犯罪当中严格责任是合宪的,在别的方面也没有从宪法的角度对严格责任加以否认,而可能的否认根据出自均衡性原则,转引自 Alan C. Michaels, Constitutional Innocence, 112 Harv. L. Rev (1999),p.828.
458 参见 Allen, Criminal Law and the Modern Consciousness: Some Observations on Blameworthiness, 44 TENN. L. REV (1977),p. 735.
459 闫显明 冯建军:《英美刑法中的严格责任制度及其借鉴意义》,载《武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2001 年 8 月第 14 卷第 4 期,第 329 页以下。
460 参见 Barry Capp, A Little Knowledge Can Be a Dangerous Thing - State of New Jersey v. Robertson & Mens Rea in the Freshwater Wetlands, Protection Act of 1987, 15 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (1998),p. 655.
461 参见 Jeffrey S. Parker, The Economic of Mens Rea, 79 Va. L. Rev (1993),p.741.
462 Francis B. Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 Colum. L. Rev. 55 (1933),有学者将其称之为纯粹的严格责任,而在这样的情况下犯罪被起诉是没有建构在被告的犯意要素的基础之上的。从总体上而言,这些犯罪就是所谓的公益犯罪或者行政犯罪。转引自 Alun Griffith, Comment: People v. Ryan : A Trap for the Unwar,61 Brooklyn L. Rev (1995),p. 1011.
463 Jeremy Horder, A Critique of the Correspondence Principle in Criminal Law, Crim. L. Rev (1995),p.759.
464 参见 Kenneth W. Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U.L. Rev (1992),p. 463.
465 参见 Kenneth W. Simons, Criminal Law: When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just? 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997),p. 1075.
466 参见 Mark Kelman, Interpretive Construction in the Substantive Criminal Law, 33 Stan. L. Rev(1981),p. 591.
467 John Shepard Wiley Jr, Not Guilty By Reason Of Blamlessness: Culpability In Federal Criminal In Interpreation, 85 Va. L. Rev (1999),p. 1021.
468 参见 Peter W. Low, The Model Penal Code, the Common Law, and Mistakes of Fact: Recklessness, Negligence, or Strict Liability?, 19 Rutg. L. J (1988),p. 539.
469 参见 Kenneth W. Simons, Criminal Law: When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just? 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997),p. 1075.
470 参见 Lawrence Crocker, Justice in Criminal Liability: Decriminalizing Harmless Attempts, 53 Ohio St. L.J (1992),p. 1057。模范刑法典并没有要求针对量刑要素的可责性,参见 Model Penal Code 223.1, cmt (c) (1980),
471 上述观点所反映的是对于这个问题权威的观点,包括模范刑法典起草者在内的很多学者都持这样一种观点。参见 Mueller, On Common Law Mens Rea, 42, Minn. L. Rev (1958),p. 1043.
472 在上述四种罪责形式当中,作为罪责形式最为薄弱的就是过失。因为行为人被假设是没有留意,同时因为其对于适用于自己的法律没有认识,因此刑法不能对其加以威胁。对于没有充分认识的行为人,教育或者矫正而不是刑罚才视为是合适的对策。但我们认为,这样的观点过于简单化了。对于虽然没有留意,但产生了不合适的危险的情况,行为人需要额外的动机加以谨慎,运用自己的经验来防止可能的结果的发生,而对于这样的行为加以提出会导致对于判决和裁判的了解。在这个意义上,至少这种动机可以作为一种控制的手段。当然立法者可以根据这种假设基于一系列情况来进行立法,如果我们简单地认为其无效就显得十分的教条。因此,我们认为过失,正如我们这里所定义的那样,不能被完全否认作为罪责根据,从而否定了刑罚的目的。转引自 Herbert L. Packer, Mens Rea and Super court, the Supreme Court review, Vol.1962 (1962),p. 107.
473 Kenneth W. Simons, Culpability and Retributive Theory: The Problem of Criminal Negligence, 5 J. Contemp. Legal Issues (1994),p. 365.其认为过失可以被描述为几种不同类型的过错或者错误行为,而其中的某些该当刑事处罚。 Steven S. Nemerson, Note, Criminal Liability Without Fault: A Philosophical Perspective, 75 Colum. L. Rev (1975),p. 1517,其认为适当谨慎意味着一个理性谨慎的人在类似或者相同的情况下会尽到的注意层级,而 Model Penal Code 2.02(2)(d) (1985)规定,行为人的行为是过失的,当其应该认识到实体要素存在的实质且非正当的危险,这样的危险的本质和程度必须达到如果行为人没有对其加以认识的话,其就构成了对于一个理性人应该认识到的注意标准的违反, 转引自 John Shepard Wiley Jr, Not Guilty By Reason Of Blamlessness: Culpability In Federal Criminal In Interpretation, 85 Va. L. Rev (1999),p. 1021.
474 Collings, Negligence Murder, 49, Calif. L. Rev. (1961),p. 254.
475 参见 Wasserstrom, Strict Liability in Criminal Law, 12, Stan. L. Rev (1960),p. 731.
477 参见 Kenneth W. Simons, Criminal Law: When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just? 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997), p.1075
478 有些学者认为,对于重罪谋杀的报应性的反对意见有些言过其实了,因为大多数重罪谋杀的确反映了针对死亡的某些可责性。在最近进行的社会公众外行针对犯罪的相对严重性认知的实际调查当中,保罗·罗宾逊教授(Paul Robinson)和约翰·达力(John Darley)发现在重罪的实施过程当中导致死亡总体上被认为和轻率性地杀人类同。在公众的心中,我们应该具有的是重罪过失杀人原则(felony-manslaughter),而不是重罪谋杀原则(felony-murder)。.参见 Paul H. Robinson & John M. Darley, Justice Liability and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law, Boulder:Westview Press(1995)p. 178.
479 Richard Posner, an Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, 85 Colum. L. Rev (1985),p.1193.
480 参见 Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part, Stevens & Sons (2d ed. 1961), p.21.
481 参见康均心 董邦俊:《罪过责任之思考———兼评严格责任之冲突》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》2000 年第 5 期(总第 103 期),第 25 页以下。
482 参见 Norman Abrams, Criminal Liability of Corporate Officers for Strict Liability Offenses - A Comment on Dotterweich and Park, 28 UCLA L. Rev (1981),p. 463.
483 Fox, Physical Disorder, Consciousness, and Criminal Liability, 63 COLUM. L. REV (1963),p. 645.
484 参见 Peter W. Low, The Model Penal Code, the Common Law, and Mistakes of Fact: Recklessness, Negligence, or Strict Liability?, 19 RUTGERS L.J (1988),p. 539.
485 Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions: The Middle ground Between Criminal and Civil Law. 101 Yale L.J(1992), p.1795.
486 Larry Alexander, Negligence, Crime, and Tort: Comments On Hurd And Simons,76 B.U.L. Rev (1996),p.301.
487 Kenneth W. Simons, Criminal Law: When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just? 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997),p. 1075.
488 124 N.W. 221 (Minn. 1910),
489 参见 Alvin K. Klevorick, Symposium on Law and Eeonomics: Legal Theory and the Economic Analysis of Torts and Crimes. 85 Colum. L. Rev (1985),p.905.
490 Larry Alexander, Comment: Negligence, Crime, and Tort: Comments On Hurd And Simons,76 B.U.L. Rev (1996),p. 301.
491 参见 Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions: The Middle ground Between Criminal and Civil Law, 101 Yale L.J (1992),p.1049.
492 有美国学者认为第一个重罪谋杀规则不是在中世纪的英国,而是在十九世纪的美国制定的。他们不是基于普通法的管辖而是通过立法和司法解读。参见 Guyora Binder, The Origins of American Felony Murder Rules October, 57 Stan. L. Rev (2004),p.59.
493 72 Eng. Rep. 458 (K.B. 1535),转引自 Norval Morris, The Felon's Responsibility for the Lethal Acts of Others, 105 U. PA. L. REV (1956),p.50.
494 73 Eng. Rep. 279 (K.B. 1536), 转引自 Note, Felony Murder as a First Degree Offense: An Anachronism Retained, 66 Yale L.J (1957),p. 427.
495 参见 Herbert Wechsler, Codification of Criminal Law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, 68 COLUM. L. REV (1968),p. 1425.
496 参见 Note, Recent Extensions of Felony-Murder Rule, 31 IND. L.J. 534, 534 n.3 (1956)转引自 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule-Murder Rule:A Study of The Forces That Shape our Criminal Law, 51 Wash & Lee L. Rev (1994),p.1429.
497 参见 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule-Murder Rule:A Study of The Forces That Shape our Criminal Law, 51 Wash & Lee L. Rev (1994),p.1429.
498 参见 Jo Anne C. Adlerstein, Felony-Murder in the New Criminal Codes, 4 AM. J. CRIM. L (1976) p. 249.(提出杀人,通奸,纵火,强奸,抢劫,夜盗,越狱等少数犯罪才是普通法意义上的重罪)
499 参见 Homicide Act of 1957, 5 & 6 Eliz. 2, ch. 11, § 1 (Eng.),转引自 George P. Fletcher, Reflections on Felony Murder, 12 SW. U. L. REV (1980-1981),p. 413.
500 David Lanham, Felony Murder -- Ancient and Modern, 7 CRIM. L.J (1983),p. 90.
501 参见 M. Susan Doyle, Note, People v. Patterson: California's Second Degree Felony-Murder Doctrine at "The Brink of Logical Absurdity", 24 LOY. L.A. L. REV (1990),p. 195.
502 SHAW. REV. STAT. § § 707-701, 707-701.5 (Supp. 1992),转引自 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule-Murder Rule:A Study of The Forces That Shape our Criminal Law, 51 Wash & Lee L. Rev (1994),p.1429.
503 参见 Martin J. McMahon, Annotation, Application of Felony Murder Doctrine Where Person Killed was Co-Felon, 89 A.L.R.4th (1991),p. 683.
504 Robert G. Lawson, Criminal Law Revision in Kentucky: Part I - Homicide and Assault, 58 Ky. L.J (1970),p. 242.
505 Bernard E. Gegan, Criminal Homicide in the Revised New York Penal Law, 12 N.Y.L.F (1966),p. 565.
506 Paul H. Robinson, Criminal Law 726 (1997) 转引自 Guyora Binder, The Origins of American Felony Murder Rules October, 57 Stan. L. Rev (2004),p.59.
507 参见 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule: A Study of the Forces That Shape Our Criminal Law, 51 Wash. & Lee L. Rev (1994),p.1443.
508 Francis B. Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 COLUM. L. REV (1933),p.55.
509 Erwin S. Barbre, Annotation, What Felonies Are Inherently or Foreseeably Dangerous to Human Life for Purposes of Felony-Murder Doctrine, 50 A.L.R.3d (1973),p. 397.
510 Guyora Binder, Felony Murder and Mens Rea Default Rules: A Study in Statutory Interpretation,4 Buff. Crim. L. R (2000),p. 399.
511 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule: A Study of the Forces That Shape Our Criminal Law, 51 Wash. & Lee L. Rev (1994),p. 1429.
512 Guyora Binder, Felony Murder and Mens Rea Default Rules: A Study in Statutory Interpretation,4 Buff. Crim. L. R (2000),p.399.
513 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule: A Study of the Forces That Shape Our Criminal Law, 51 Wash. & Lee L. Rev (1994),p. 1429.
514 Sanford H. Kadish & Stephen J. Schulhofer, Criminal Law and Its Processes 479 (6th ed. 1995),转引自 Guyora Binder, Felony Murder and Mens Rea Default Rules: A Study in Statutory Interpretation,4 Buff. Crim. L. R (2000), p.399.
515 参见 Guyora Binder,The Origins of American Felony Murder Rules,57 Stan. L. Rev (2004), p. 59.
516 Modern Penal Code 210.1(1) (如果行为人意图,明知,轻率或者过失导致他人的死亡,其就犯有杀人罪),
517 Modern Penal Code 210.1(2) (杀人罪包括谋杀,过失杀人),
518 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule: A Study of the Forces That Shape Our Criminal Law, 51 Wash. & Lee L. Rev (1994),p. 1429.
520 美国刑法中作为传统普通法犯罪存在的重婚罪,诱拐儿童脱离父母罪等与法定强奸具有很大的类似性,这里仅仅以法定强奸作为代表加以论述。正如有的学者所指出的那样,“在美国,严格刑事责任,在十九世纪开始被接受的程度之内,几乎专属地被用来规定惩罚道德犯罪,特别是那些和酒以及总体上可以使未成年人堕落的物品。另外,这个国家在和性行为相关的案件当中适用严格责任,最为值得一提的就是重婚罪。以及被称之为法定强奸的犯罪”。转引自 Richard Singer, Strict Criminal Liability: Alabama State Courts Lead the Way into the Twenty-First Century, 46 Ala. L. Rev (1994),p.47.
521 石文英:《从归责的历史发展看严格责任》,载《焦作工学院学报(社会科学版)》2002 年 6 月第3 卷第 2 期,第 31 页。
522 犯罪当中不要求证据证明犯意要素的情况,犯罪被认定为所谓的严格责任"strict liability 或者绝对责任"absolute liability." 。 无论什么原因,或许仅仅是懈怠,立法者经常忽略真实犯罪当中的犯意要素。 结果就是,法院或许可以宣称成文法违宪,或许对其加以适用,而法院简单地适用一个犯意要素而要求起诉方对其加以证明,正如其他的犯罪要素一样。而后面的作法,即解读一种犯意要素(通常是犯罪过失), 是模范刑法典所建议的作法。 对于严格责任犯罪最好的定义就是不存在犯意要素,但是允许对此的抗辩。 而对于绝对责任最好的定义就是不仅不需要犯意要素,而且也不允许对此的抗辩。参见 Jeremy M. Miller, Mens Rea Quagmire: The Conscience or Consciousness of the Criminal Law? 29 W. St. U.L. Rev (2001), p.21.
523 私通罪(The crime of fornication)就是通过增加和未婚的伴侣发生性行为这样一个额外要素来使这样的故意行为可以被犯罪化的途径。在 1991 年,私通仍然在 13 个州及哥伦比亚特区被认为是犯罪。参见 Note, Constitutional Barriers to Civil and Criminal Restrictions on Pre-and Extramarital Sex, 104 Harv. L. Rev (1991)p. 1660.
524 Francis Wharton, a Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 436-37 (2d ed. 1852), 2003,参见 Gerald Leonard, Towards a Legal History of American Criminal Theory: Culture and Doctrine from Blackstone to the Model Penal Code, 6 Buff. Crim. L. R (2003),p. 691.
525 8 Iowa 447 (1859), 在本案中,被告根据制定法被指控以卖淫为目的将不满十五岁的女孩迷走而脱离其法定监护人。判决之后,被告上诉,认为法官拒绝承认其合理的确信被告已经超过了十五岁这样一个事实,并且认为其所犯的错误类似于那种误将他人为自己的妻子而与之发生性行为的丈夫。然而,法院指出,这种情况和发生错误的丈夫之间并不具有相似性,因为这种假设情况下丈夫并不具有法律或者道德上的犯意存在。而被告,在另一方面,不顾被告的年龄,仍然具有犯意,因为其目的在于让这个女孩卖淫。在该州这样的诱骗行为如果发生在女孩子超过了十五岁以后话就不算犯罪,但这并没有妨碍法院将诱拐女孩子从事卖淫行为作为具有犯意,起码是错误的意愿来看待。而从这开始法院发现即使这样非指控性质的错误犯意都可以用来支持对于一个可指控犯罪的被告,例如对于不满十五岁的女人的诱拐行为。从这个观点来看法院仅仅援引了 Joel Prentiss Bishop 的对于刑法的观点, 其本身并没有引用任何案例来说用同样的一个普通法上的原则,即可转换的错误的,非指控性的犯。转引自 John L. Diamond, The Myth of Morality and Fault in Criminal Law Doctrine, 34 Am. Crim. L. Rev (1996), p.111.
526 参见 Gerhard O.W. Mueller, On Common Law Mens Rea, 42 Minn. L. Rev (1958),p. 1043,但其这样作的方式并不是宣称对于犯罪的要素宣布严格责任。实际上,尽管爱荷华州的刑法已经法典化,但其并没有将犯意作为一个概念而附加到犯罪的任何一个要素当中,但对于普通法而言这样作是一个传统,认为其从犯罪的总体上面来看是较为啰嗦的溲≡袢衔敢庾魑桓稣宥杂诜缸锎嬖冢?并且坚持被告在传统的普通法的术语的意义上具有犯意。这并不是说成文法要排挤掉普通法,犯意只有在成文法明确规定的情况下才存在,但在这部法典当中所规定的犯意和普通法评论者所要求的一样。也就是说,在危害结果发生的情况下,法院可以将某种错误的意愿转化为犯意。
527 44 Iowa 45 (1876),参见参见 Gerald Leonard, Towards a Legal History of American Criminal Theory: Culture and Doctrine from Blackstone to the Model Penal Code, 6 Buff. Crim. L. R (2003),p.691.
528 同上。
529 Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. 845 (1878),转引自 James B. Brady, Strict Liability Offenses: A Justification, 8 Crim. L. Bull (1972),p.217.
530 46 P. 915, 916 (1896),参见 Kenneth W. Simons, When is Strict Criminal Liability Just?, 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997),p.1075.
531 145 N.E. 289, 290 (Ill. 1924), ; Richard A. Wasserstrom, Strict Liability in the Criminal Law, 12 Stan. L. Rev (1960),p. 731.
532 432 N.E.2d 463, 464-65 (Mass. 1982)转引自 Colin Campbell, Annotation, Mistake or Lack of Information as to Victim's Age as Defense to Statutory Rape, 46 A.L.R. 5th (1997),p.499.
533 514 A.2d 724, 727 (Conn. 1986),转引自 Colin Campbell, Annotation, Mistake or Lack of Information as to Victim's Age as Defense to Statutory Rape, 46 A.L.R. 5th (1997),p.501.
534 Miller v. State 79 So. 314 (1918),具体参照 Richard G. Singer, The Resurgence of Mens Rea: III--The Rise and Fall of Strict Criminal Liability, 30 B.C. L. Rev. 337 (1989),
535 Jerome Hall, Interrelations of Criminal Law and Torts: II, 43 Colum. L. Rev (1943),p. 967.
536 James J. Hippard, Sr., the Unconstitutionality of Criminal Liability without Fault: An Argument for a Constitutional Doctrine of Mens Rea, 10 Hous. L. Rev (1973),p. 1039.
537 Alan C. Michaels, "Rationales" of Criminal Law Then and Now: For a Judgmental Descriptivism, 100 Colum. L. Rev (2000),p. 54.
538 Kenneth W. Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U.L. Rev (1992),p.463.
539 Michael Davis, Strict Liability: Deserved Punishment for Faultless Conduct, 33 WAYNE L. REV (1987),p.1363.
540 Peter W. Low, The Model Penal Code, the Common Law, and Mistakes of Fact: Recklessness, Negligence, or Strict Liability?, 19 RUTGERS L.J (1988),p.539
541 Gerald Leonard, Towards a Legal History of American Criminal Theory: Culture and Doctrine from Blackstone to the Model Penal Code, Buffalo Criminal Law Review,6 Buff. Crim. L. R (2003),p.691
542 因为法定强奸的被告人可能不管受害者年龄而在基督教法庭因为其从事的私通行为受审,根据年龄将法定强奸解读为严格责任犯罪的根据是这样的一个假设,即在英国刑事成文法制定的时候,受害女子的年龄是对于被告对于自己行为需要承担刑事责任的实体要素。但是对于这个犯罪的要素并没有所谓正确的观点,相反,受害人的年龄更为合适地应该被视为针对司法区或者犯罪的量刑层级的要素。假设法定强奸当中的女孩已满 16 岁。在这个案件当中,被告仍然可以被判有罪:私通罪。然而,其不能在当代的法院当中被判决,相反,这样的审判将会在宗教法庭上来进行。在 1828年,该犯罪最初确定的时候,宗教法院具有对于私通犯罪的管辖权。参见Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p. 803.
543 转引自 McMurray, California Jurisprudence, 13 CAL. L. REV (1925), p. 445.
544 Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p. 803.
545 参见 Herbert L. Packer, Mens Rea and Super court, the Supreme Court review, Vol.1962.(1962),p. 107.
546 John L. Diamond, The Myth of Morality and Fault in Criminal Law Doctrine, 34 Am. Crim. L. Rev (1996),p.111.
547 Richard Singer, Strict Criminal Liability: Alabama State Courts Lead the Way into the Twenty-First Century, 46 Ala. L. Rev (1994),p.47.
548 Jerome Hall, Interrelations of Criminal Law and Torts: I, 43 Colum. L. Rev (1943),p. 753.
549 Richard G. Singer, The Resurgence of Mens Rea: III--The Rise and Fall of Strict Criminal Liability, 30 B.C. L. Rev (1989),p.337.
550 Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Liability without Fault: a Disquieting Trend, 68 Iowa L. Rev (1983),p. 1067.
551 Jeremy M. Miller, Mens Rea Quagmire: The Conscience or Consciousness of the Criminal Law? 29 W. St. U.L. Rev (2001), p.21.
552 参见 Kit Kinports, Rape and Force: The Forgotten Mens Rea, 4 Buff. Crim. L. R. 755 (2001),p. 755.
553 就绝对责任是否可以作为有效命题存在是有争议的。有美国学者认为不存在所谓绝对的责任,他们认为我们应该强调没有对于犯罪加以执行的绝对责任。无论责任来源是什么,责任不是绝对的。参见 Winfield, The Myth of Absolute Liability, 42 LAW Q. REV (1926) ,p. 37 但笔者认为根据本文所提出的绝对责任概念,应该说起码从逻辑上是可以成立的。
554参见 Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983),p.681.其承认对于犯意而言,总体观点已经由一个比较模糊的有关邪恶的概括而转化到一种较为确定的心理状态。
555 正如有的学者所介绍的那样,普通法和较早的法典通常将犯罪规定为仅仅需要一种心理状态。根据犯罪分析模式(offense analysis)可以提出所谓的故意犯罪(intentional offenses),轻率犯罪(reckless offenses)和过失犯罪(negligent offenses)。模范刑法典规定的总体的罪责规定,相反,认为每种单一的犯罪对于其每一种客观要素而言可能需要不同的罪责犯意。转引自 Alan C. Michaels, Constitutional Innocence, 112 Harv. L. Rev (1999),p.828.
556 参见 Frank J. Remington & Orrin L. Helstad, The Mental Element in Crime-A Legislative Problem, Wis. L. Rev (1952),p. 644.其提出某些法庭仅仅需要犯意去证明重罪谋杀当中的重罪。
557 15 M. & W. 404 (Exch. 1846),转引自 Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p. 803.
558 Cynthia H. Finn, The Responsible Corporate Officer, Criminal Liability, And Mens Rea Limitations on The Rco Doctrine 46 Am. U.L. Rev (2004),p.543.
559 Francis B. Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 Colum. L. Rev (1933),p.55.
560 J.M. Kaye, The Early History of Murder and Manslaughter - Part I, 83 Law Q. Rev (1967),p. 365, 380.
561 Michael.M. O'Hear, Sentencing the Green –Collar Offender: Punishment, Culpability, and Environmental Crime, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2004), p.133.
562 参见 United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp, 402 U.S. 558 (1971))
563 参见 Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 432-33 (1985)
564 参见 United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp, 402 U.S. 558 (1971),
565 参见 Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 611-12 (1994),
566 被某些巡回法院作为公益犯罪对待的随附情状水法,即 CWA section 309(c)规定的日罚金高达50,000 美金,监禁的时限最高为 3 年,而对于再犯,日罚金最高为 100,000 美金,最高刑期为六年。转引自 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes,20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p. 731.
567 Susan F. Mandiberg, The Dilemma of Mental State in Federal Regulatory Crimes: The Environmental Example, 25 Envtl. (1995), p.1165.
568 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes,20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p.731.
569 参见 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule-Murder Rule:A Study of The Forces That Shape our Criminal Law, 51 Wash & Lee L. Rev (1994),p.1429.
570 Randolph N. Jonakait, The Mens Rea for the Crime of Providing Material Resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization Fall, 6 Baylor L. Rev(2004),p.861.
571 J.M. Kaye, The Early History of Murder and Manslaughter - Part I, 83 Law Q. Rev (1967),p.380.
572 转引自 Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p.803.
573 David Lanham, Felony Murder - Ancient and Modern, 7 Crim. L.J (1983),p.90.
574 Cynthia H. Finn, The Responsible Corporate Officer, Criminal Liability, And Mens Rea Limitations on The Rco Doctrine,46 Am. U.L. Rev (2004),p.543.
575 Susan F. Mandiberg, The Dilemma of Mental State in Federal Regulatory Crimes: The Environmental Example, 25 Envtl. L. (1995),p.1165.
576 Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 433 (1985),转引自 Joseph E. Cole, Environmental Criminal Liability: What Federal Officials Know (or should Know) can Hurt Them,54 A.F. L. Rev.(2004),p.1.
577 471 U.S. 419 (1985),
578 参见 Brigid Harington, A Proposed Narrowing Of The Clean Water Acts Criminal Negligence Provisions: Its Only Human?, 32 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev (2005),p. 643,
579 Morissette v United States, 342 US 246, 253-55 (1952), 转引自 David A. Gordon, Protecting Public Welfare: Mens Rea Under Section 3008(d)(2)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 1997 U Chi Legal F (1997),p.439.
580 258 US 250, 254 (1922),转引自 Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis In Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983),p.681.
581 Richard A. Wasserstrom, Strict Liability in the Criminal Law, 12 Stan. L. Rev (1960),p.731.
582 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes Spring, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p.731.
583 Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(5)(A) (1977); 亦参见 Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(c)(3) (2000)等法。转引自 Lawrence Crocker, The Upper Limit of Just Punishment, 41 Emory L.J (1992),p. 1059.
584 Herbert L. Packer, Mens Rea and Super court, The supreme court review, Vol.1962. (1962), p. 107.
585 Michael Moore, Placing Blame: A General Theory of the Criminal Law 247 (1997)转引自 Michael.M. O'Hear, Sentencing the Green –Collar Offender: Punishment, Culpability, and Environmental Crime, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology Fall (2004), p.133.
586 Bruce R. Bryan, The Battle Between Mens Rea And The Public Welfare: United States V. Laughlin Finds A Middle Ground, 6 Fordham Envtl. Law J (1995), p.157.
587 42 U.S.C. 6928(d) (1988 & Supp. V 1993) (emphasis added),转引自 Bruce R. Bryan, The Battle Between Mens Rea And The Public Welfare: United States V. Laughlin Finds A Middle Ground, 6 Fordham Envtl. Law J (1995),p.157.
588 Ann K. Pollack, Note, The Role of Injunctive Relief and Settlements in Superfund Enforcement, 68 Cornell L. Rev (1983),p.709.
589 Manly Parks, the Public Welfare Rationale: Defining Mens Rea in RCRA, 18 Wm. & Mary J. Envtl. L (1993),p.219.
590 Richard G. Singer, the Resurgence of Mens Rea: III-The Rise and fall of Strict Criminal Liability, 30 B.C. L. Rev (1989),p. 337.
591 Robert W. Adler & Charles Lord, Environmental Crimes: Raising the Stakes, 59 Geo. Wash. L. Rev (1991),p. 781.
592 Bruce R. Bryan, The Battle Between Mens Rea And The Public Welfare: United States V. Laughlin Finds A Middle Ground, 6 Fordham Envtl. Law J (1995),p.157.
593 参见 Michael.M. O'Hear, Sentencing The Green –Collar Offender: Punishment, Culpability, and Environmental Crime, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2004),p.133.
594 引同上。
595 参见 Brigid Harington, A Proposed Narrowing Of The Clean Water Acts Criminal Negligence Provisions: Its Only Human?, 32 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev (2005), p.643.
596 David A. Gordon, Protecting Public Welfare: Mens Rea Under Section 3008(d)(2)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,1997 U Chi Legal F (1997),p.439.
597 Stuart P. Green, Why It's A Crime to Tear the Tag Off a Mattress: Overcriminalization and the Moral Content of Regulatory Offenses, 46 Emory L.J (1997),p.1533.
598 参见 Michael.M. O'Hear, Sentencing the Green –Collar Offender: Punishment, Culpability, and Environmental Crime, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2004), p.133.
599 参见 Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(c) (2000),转引自 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p.731.
600 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p.731.
601 Morissette v United States, 342 US 246, 253-55 (1952),转引自 David A. Gordon, Protecting Public Welfare: Mens Rea Under Section 3008(d)(2)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,1997 U Chi Legal F (1997),p.439.
602 Rivers and Harbors (Refuse) Act, 33 U.S.C. 407 (2000),转引自 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) ofthe Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p. 731.
603 328 F. Supp. 354 (N.D. Ind. 1970),转引自 Brigid Harington, A Proposed Narrowing Of The Clean Water Acts Criminal Negligence Provisions: Its Only Human?, 32 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. (2005),p.643.
604 498 F.2d 619 (1st Cir. 1974),转引自 Brigid Harington, A Proposed Narrowing Of The Clean Water Acts Criminal Negligence Provisions: Its Only Human?, 32 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. (2005),p.643.
605 33 U.S.C. 1319(c) (1972), amended by 33 U.S.C. 1319(c) (2000),转引自 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p. 731.
606 参见 Stephen B. Chapman, Are Obnoxious Wastes More like Machineguns or Hand Grenades?: Mens Rea Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act After Staples v. United States,43 Kan. L. Rev (1995),p.1117.
607 Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d 1275. 转引自 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p. 731.
608 United States v. Sinskey, 119 F.3d 712 (8th Cir. 1997), Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p. 731
609 United States v. Wilson, 133 F.3d 251 (4th Cir. 1998),引同上。
610 有意"willful"被最高法院在 United States v. Ratzlaf 案解读为有意识的从事坏的行为,而这样的行为基于行为人对于其非法性的认识。转引自 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L.Rev (2003),p. 731
611 United States v. Hanousek, 176 F.3d 1116 528 U.S. 1102 (2000), Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p. 731
612 David A. Gordon, Protecting Public Welfare: Mens Rea Under Section 3008(d)(2)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,1997 U Chi Legal F, (1997),p.439.
613 参见 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p.731.
614 Model Penal Code 2.02(4),
615 该法院注意到因为对于许可的解读是一个法律问题,为了支持这样的一种结论,其援引了Hemlani v. Guerrero, 902 F.2d 1412 (9th Cir. 1990),转引自 Richard G. Cohn-Lee, Mens Rea And Permit Interpretation Under The Clean Water Act: United States v. Weitzenhoff, 24 Envtl. L (1994),p.1351.
616 United States v. International Minerals Corp., 402 U.S. 558 (1971),转引自 M. Diane Barber, Fair Warning: The Deterioration of Scienter under Environmental Criminal Statutes, 26 Loy. L.A. L. Rev (1992),p.105.
617 Brigid Harington, A Proposed Narrowing Of The Clean Water Acts Criminal Negligence Provisions: Its Only Human?, 32 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev (2005),p. 643. 617 498 F.2d 619 (1st Cir. 1974),同上
618 26 U.S.C sections 5801-5872 (1989),转引自 Stephen B. Chapman, Are Obnoxious Wastes More like Machineguns or Hand Grenades?: Mens Rea Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act After Staples v. United States,43 Kan. L. Rev (1995),p1117.
619 David Hardy, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act: A Historical and Legal Perspective, 17 Cumb. L. Rev (1987),p. 585.
620 参见 Stephen B. Chapman, Are Obnoxious Wastes More like Machineguns or Hand Grenades?: Mens Rea Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act After Staples v. United States,43 Kan. L. Rev. (1995),p.1117.
621 401 U.S. 601.转引自 Martin T. Lefevour, 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) Requires Mens Reas as to the Physical Characteristics Of The Weapon Staples v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994),85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1136 (1995),
622 Section 5861(d)规定任何持有未经适当登记的火器的人将会被处以最高刑为 10 年的犯罪。而根据该法,手榴弹根据该法是火器。26 U.S.C. sections 5845(a)(8), 5845(f)(1)(B) (1989),转引自 David A. Gordon, Protecting Public Welfare: Mens Rea Under Section 3008(d)(2)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 1997 U Chi Legal F (1997),p.439.
623 698 F.2d 981 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 821 (1983),
624 例如,在 United States v. Ross 案中 ,第七巡回法院就沿用先例认为 5861(d) 的规定并没有要求犯意。第十巡回法院采用了形似的逻辑。在 United States v. Mittleider 案中,第十巡回法院不要求证据证明被告明知其持有的武器是成文法规定的火器。转引自 Stephen B. Chapman, Are Obnoxious Wastes More like Machineguns or Hand Grenades?: Mens Rea Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act After Staples v. United States,43 Kan. L. Rev (1995),p.1117. 625 在 United States v. Anderson 案中,被告因为违反 5861(d)被逮捕。其持有两只自动武器和消音器。第五巡回法院推翻了判决,因为唯一陪审团要求提供的证据就是被告从总体的意义上明知其持有的是火器。 法院担心陪审团会对于无辜的被告加以判决。根据对于陪审团的指导意见,那些对于其所持有的武器内部特征没有了解的被告会因为持有没有外在根据证明其属于成文法规定的火器的武器而被判决。法院推理认为国会明确表明的意图并不是对于持有手枪的人加以监禁,这些人无辜且理性地认为其所持有的武器是合法的,因为其并不知道其被法律规定为全自动武器。因此,法院认为如果要根据 5861(d)加以判决的话,政府必须证明被告明知其所持有的武器是成文法所规定的火器。转引自 Stephen B. Chapman, Are Obnoxious Wastes More like Machineguns or Hand Grenades?: Mens Rea Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act After Staples v. United States,43 Kan. L. Rev (1995),p.1119.
626 参见 Martin T. Lefevour, 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) Requires Mens Reas as to the Physical Characteristics Of The Weapon Staples v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994),85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1995),p.1136.
627 Stephen B. Chapman, Are Obnoxious Wastes More like Machineguns or Hand Grenades?: Mens Rea Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act After Staples v. United States,43 Kan. L. Rev. (1995),p.1117.
628 Richard K. Sueyoshi, G. Staples v. United States: Supreme Court Determines the Mens Rea Required to Convict an Individual for Possession of an Unregistered Machinegun 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994), 21 J. Contemp. L (1995),p.112.
629 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994),转引自 Martin T. Lefevour, 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) Requires Mens Reas as to the Physical Characteristics Of The Weapon Staples v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994),85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1995),p.1136.
630 [美]乔治·P·弗莱彻著:《刑法的基本概念》,蔡爱惠等译,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 8 月第一版,第 171 页。
631 参见 Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Mattew Bender 2nd edition (1995), p.111
632 储怀植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 2005 年 2 月第三版,第 105 页。
633 Edwin R. Keedy, Criminal Attempts at Common Law, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 102, No. 4. (Feb., 1954), p. 464.
634 John S. Strahorn, Jr. The Effect of Impossibility on Criminal Attempts, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 78, No. 8 (Jun., 1930),p.962.
635 Arnold N. Enker, Mens Rea and Criminal Attempt, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol.2.No.4 (1977), p. 845.
636 Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Matthew Bender & Co; 2nd edition (June 1995), p.111.
637 转引自乔治·P·弗莱彻著:《刑法的基本概念》,蔡爱惠等译,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 8月第一版,第 171 页。
638 Model Penal Code 5.01(1)(c)。
639 参见储怀植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 2005 年 2 月第三版,第 103 页。
640 参见赵秉志主编:《英美刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社 2004 年 11 月第一版,第 91 页。
641 参见储怀植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 2005 年 2 月第三版第 106-7 页。
642 引同上。
643 Arnold N. Enker, Mens Rea and Criminal Attempt, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol.2.No.4 (1977), p.879.
644 Holmes, the common law(1881)54.转引自 Francis Bowes Sayre, Criminal Attempts, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 41, No. 7 (1928) , p821.
645 引同上。
646参见 J. H. Beale, Jr. Criminal Attempts, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 7 (1903) , p507.
647 赵秉志主编:《英美刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社 2004 年 11 月第一版,第 92 页。
648 Arnold N. Enker, Mens Rea and Criminal Attempt, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol.2.No.4 (1977), p879.
649 Schulofer, harm and punishment: A critical of emphasis on the result of conduct in the criminal law, 122 U. Pa. L.Rev (1974),p. 1497.
650 参见戴斯勒的论说。其提出 D 袭击了 V,意图致其重伤。如果 D 无意杀了 V, D 犯了谋杀罪(murder)而致其重伤的故意就构成了该罪成立的充分的主观条件。如果 V 侥幸逃脱,那么 D 不承担谋杀未遂的责任,因为其需要比杀人更高的罪责犯意。参见 Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Matthew Bender & Co; 2nd edition (1995),p.342.
651 Smith, the element of chance in criminal liability,12 crim.L.R (1971),p.73.
652 如有学者所举的例子,假如驾驶者明知自己汽车的刹车失灵,但仍然驾驶。这样的行为或许构成轻率制造危险这样的成文法的犯罪。但如果我们可以在其进入到驾驶室当中,发动汽车发生出发的一刹那将其制止,其行为是否构成了轻率制造危险的未遂呢?转引自 John M. Brumbaugh, criminal law and approach to the study of law, the foundation press.(1986), p.760
653 Arnold N. Enker, Mens Rea and Criminal Attempt, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol.2.No.4 (1977) , p879.
654 有学者反对这样的一种分析模式,而持这样一种观点的学者一般都怀疑在不同的要素之间可以做出这样的区分。参见 Douglas Husak, Attempts and the Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Liability: R.A. Duff, Criminal Attempts. 8 Crim. L.F (1997),p.293。论者之前就承认不可能对于一个研究对象进行截然的切割,但理论,或者通行的理论注定是暧昧且拟制的。这里不对此作太多纠缠。
660 Mitchell Keiter, With Malice Toward All: The Increased Lethality of Violence Reshapes Transferred Intent and Attempted Murder Law, 38 U.S.F. L. Rev (2004),p.261.
661 Leo Katz, Ill-Gotten Gains: Evasion, Blackmail, Fraud, and Kindard Puzzles of the Law (1996),转引自 Larry Alexander, Insufficient Concern: A Unified Conception of Criminal Culpability, 88 Calif. L. Rev. (2000),p.931.
663 参见 Model Penal Code 5.01 cmt. 2 (1985)。如某人的意图是摧毁某一建筑,明知有人在建筑当中而且可能会被爆炸所杀害,然而后来证明炸弹失效。那么即使建筑物当中的居民死亡并不是其意图,他能否构成谋杀未遂的罪名呢?参见 Model Penal Code 5.01 cmt. 2 (1985),
665 Mitchell Keiter, With Malice toward All: the Increased Lethality of Violence Reshapes Transferred Intent and Attempted Murder Law 38 U.S.F. L. Rev (2004), p.261.
666 参见 Alan C. Michaels, Acceptance: The Missing Mental States, 71 S. Cal. L. Rev (1998),p. 953.
667 Keith Culver, the Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 11 Can. J.L. & Juris (1998),p.441.
668 Wayne R. LaFave,Criminal law,St. Paul, Minn. : West Group, 2000,p.513. ,转引自 Arnold N. Enker, Mens Rea and Criminal Attempt, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol.2.No.4. (1977), p.845.
670 在十三世纪,根据 Bracton 的观点,存在两种对于重犯的控诉方式,一种就是求助私力,其基本上是通过私力争斗来解决,而其他的一种是求助后来被称之为大陪审团的公力解决机构。但由于对于虚假告诉的惩罚力度不足,特别是出现了利用不需承担刑事责任的未满十二周岁的儿童进行滥诉的情况。转引自 Francis B. Sayre, Criminal Conspiracy, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 4 (1922),p427.
671 参见 Philip E. Johnson, The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy, 61 Cal. L. Rev (1973),p. 1137,该学者在本文当中呼吁取消对于这个原则。
672 Abraham S. Goldstein, Conspiracy To Defraud the United States, 68 Yale L.J (1959),p. 405.
673 Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law 573 & n.66 (3d ed. 2000),转引自 Neal Kumar Katyal, Architecture as Crime Control, 111 Yale L.J (2002),p. 1039.
674 Neal Kumar Katyal, Deterrence's Difficulty, 95 Mich. L. Rev (1997),p. 2385.
675 Kathy Diene and Teisha C. Johnson, Federal Criminal Conspiracy, 42 Am. Crim. L. Rev (2005),p. 46.
676 Philip E. Johnson, The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy, 61 Cal. L. Rev (1973),p. 1137.
677 Gary R. Ostos-Irwin, Wisconsin’s Party to a Crime Statute: The Mens Rea Element under the Abiding and Abetting Subsection, and the aiding and Abetting –Choate conspiracy Distinction. Wis. L. Rev (1984),p. 769.
678 Pinkerton, Developments in the Law: Criminal Conspiracy, 72 HARV. L. REV (1959),p. 922.
679 Herbert Wechsler; William Kenneth Jones; Harold L. Korn Institute: Attempt, Solicitation, and Conspiracy: The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of the American Law, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 6 (1961) p1030.
680 参见 Neal Kumar Katyal, Conspiracy Theory, 112 Yale L.J (2003),p.1037.
681 参见 United States v. Ferrarini, 219 F.3d 145, 155 (2d Cir. 2000) ,转引自 Kathy Diene and Teisha C. Johnson, Federal Criminal Conspiracy, 42 Am. Crim. L. Rev (2005),p. 46.
682 参见 Gary R. Ostos-Irwin, Wisconsin’s Party to a Crime Statute: The Mens Rea Element under the Abiding and Abetting Subsection, and the aiding and Abetting –Choate conspiracy Distinction. 1984 Wis. L. Rev (1984),p.769.
684 P.H.Winfield, The History of Conspiracy and Abuse of Legal Procedure, 35 Harv. L. Rev (1921),p.353.
685 Herbert Wechsler; William Kenneth Jones; Harold L. Korn Institute: Attempt, Solicitation, and Conspiracy: The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of the American Law Columbia Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 6 (1961) , p.1030.
686 G. H. L. Fridman, Mens Rea in Conspiracy, the Modern Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 3 (1956) , p284.
687 参见 Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Matthew Bender & Co; 2nd edition (1995),p.143.
688 有些学者担心如果坚持明知或者了解的犯意标准,势必导致包括零售业在内的美国商业活动因为担心被追究共谋的刑事责任而避免其所认为的危险情况的交易,从而影响经济的正常运行。在people v. lauria 案当中,法院认定检方必须证明行为人的犯意要素是故意的,仅有明知是不够的。这样可以最大限度地鼓励商业的自由,鼓励商业上追求自己的最大利益,而不是要求行为人承担防止自己的商品被用于犯罪行为的额外义务。参见 Richard G..Singer and John A. Lafond, 王秀梅等注,Criminal law 中国方正出版社,2003 年 9 月第一版。第 95 页。
689 Larry Alexzander, Kimberly D. Kessler, Mens Rea in Inchoate Crimes,87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997),p. 1138.
690 参见 Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 499-500(1951),转引自 Herbert Wechsler; William Kenneth Jones; Harold L. Korn Institute: Attempt, Solicitation, and Conspiracy: The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of the American Law, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 6 (1961) p. 957.
691 Scales v. United States, 81 sup. Ct. 1469(1951),转引自 Conspiracy. Criminal Liability. Specific Intent as an Element of the Crime, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 1 (1924) p. 110 .
692 United States v. Oleson, 310 F.3d 1085, 1089 (8th Cir. 2002),该司法区认为如果要对共谋犯罪加以认定的话,检方必须证明被告明知地参与了共谋行为; United States v. Albarran, 233 F.3d 972, 976 (7th Cir. 2000),该司法区要求检方必须证明合意的存在以及被告对于合意的明知性参与; United States v. Womack, 191 F.3d 879, 884 (8th Cir. 1999)该司法区认为为了证明共谋的存在,检方必须排除合理怀疑地证明被告明知共谋的主要目标等。转引自 Kathy Diene and Teisha C. Johnson, Federal Criminal Conspiracy, 42 Am. Crim. L. Rev (2005),p.46.
693 参见 Kevin W. Saunders, Voluntary Acts and the Criminal Law: Justifying Culpability Based on The Existences of Volition, winter, 49 U. Pitt. L. Rev (1988),p.443.
694 参见乔治?弗莱彻著:《刑法的基本概念》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 8 月第一版,第 258 页。
695 参见 Richard G..Singer and John A. Lafond, 王秀梅等注,Criminal law 中国方正出版社,2003 年9 月第一版。第 283 页。
696 Herbert Wechsler; William Kenneth Jones; Harold L. Korn, Institute: Attempt, Solicitation, and Conspiracy: The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of the American Law,Columbia Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 6 (1961) , p1030.
697 Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Matthew Bender & Co; 2nd edition (1995), p.143.
698 63. N.Y. 88 (1875),转引自 Herbert Wechsler; William Kenneth Jones; Harold L. Korn, Institute: Attempt, Solicitation, and Conspiracy: The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of the American Law, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 6. (1961), p1030.
699 但这里所暗含的前提就是非道德性与非法性是可以加以分野的。事实上,就这个问题,美国还有学者认为二者之间实际上是等同的,如美国学者斯蒂芬(Stephen)认为,在很多案件当中共谋的定义是合意从事非法行为,但是其意味的不仅仅是从事个人所从事的时候本身构成犯罪的行为,非法这个词意味着和非道德很紧密的含义,并且至少等同于非道德以及对于公众的伤害。也符合模范刑法典的规定。参见 Albert J. Harno, Intent in Criminal Conspiracy, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 89, No. 5 (1941), p. 624.
700 Albert J. Harno, Intent in Criminal Conspiracy, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 89, No. 5 (1941), p. 624.
701 参见 Larry Alexander, Kimberly D Kessler, Mens Rea and Inchoate Crimes,87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997),p.1138.
702 D Kessler, Developments in the Law: Criminal Conspiracy, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 72, No. 5 (1959), p1008.
704 Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of The Federal Judiciary’s Retreat From Sandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev (1989),p. 367.
705 刑法,和其他的学科一样,现在已经成为一种交叉学科,在其中不同的学科领域被综合从而形成对于特定现象的更好解释。例如,刑法就越来越受到诸如精神病学(Psychiatry)和辩论科学(Forensic science)。其也经常成为心理学和社会学所经产研究的领域。但从实然的角度而言,在沿用西方刑法传统的国家当中,犯罪定义基本上仍然沿用行为要素(Actus reas)和心态要素(Mens rea)的二元建构模式。转引自 M. Varn Chandola and Anoop Chandola, A Cognitive Framework for Mens Rea and Actus Reas: The Application of Contactics Theory to Criminal Law, 35 Tulsa L.J (2000),p.383.
706 雷·笛卡尔(Rene Descartes, 1596-1650),法国哲学家和数学家,其也是当代哲学的奠基人之一。在 17 世纪的前半部分,其认识到需要突破以伽利略为首提出的万能机械论,从而挽救人类的目的,观念,价值和渴望。参见 Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of The Federal Judiciary’s Retreat From Sandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev (1989),p.367.
707 引同上。
708 参见 Michael S. Moore, Causation and the Excuses, 73 Cal. L. Rev (1985),p. 1091.
709 参见 Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of The Federal Judicary’s Retreat From Sandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev (1989),p. 367.
710 引同上。
711 M. Varn Chandola and Anoop Chandola, A Cognitive Framework for Mens Rea and Actus Reas: The Application of Contactics Theory to Criminal Law, 35 Tulsa L.J (2000),p.383.
712 而在并不涉及重要权利剥夺的民事案件当中,起诉方通常需要根据压倒性的证据来证明其案件当中的要素,参见 Pamela S. Karlan, Discriminatory Purpose and Mens Rea: The Tortured Argument of Invidious Intent, 93 Yale L.J (1983),p.111.
713 参见 Kevin L. Keeler, Comment: Direct Evidence of State of Mind: A Philosophical Analysis of How Facts in Evidence Support Conclusions regarding Mental State, 1985 Wis. L. Rev (1985),p. 435.
714 参见 Michael S. Moore, Prima Facie Moral Culpability, 76 B.U. L. Rev (1996),p. 319.
715 Dannye Holley, Culpability Evaluations in the State Supreme Courts from 1977 to 1999: A "Model" Assessment, 34 Akron L. Rev (2001), p. 401.
716 J. Wigmore, The Science of Judicial Proof, § § 101-21 (3d ed. 1937), 转引自 Joachim Hruschka, Imputation, B.Y.U. L. Rev (1986),p. 669.
717 Kevin L. Keeler, Comment: Direct Evidence of State of Mind: A Philosophical Analysis of How Facts in Evidence Support Conclusions regarding Mental State, 1985 Wis. L. Rev (1985),p. 435.
718 这样的一种观念最早是由十九世纪的英国哲学家 John Stuart Mill 提出来的,参见 Kevin L. Keeler, Comment: Direct Evidence of State of Mind: A Philosophical Analysis of How Facts in Evidence Support Conclusions regarding Mental State, 1985 Wis. L. Rev. 435 (1985) ,p. 1985.
719 参见 Michael S. Moore, Choice, Character, and Excuse, Soc. Phil. and Pol'y, Spring (1990),p. 29.
720 Numbers 35:16-22 (New International Version),其中规定事先恶意可以从故意使用致命性武器的活动当中推定出来。转引自 Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of The Federal Judicary’s Retreat From Sandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev (1989),p. 367.
721 J. Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at The Common Law 326 (1898),转引自 Crimes: Evidence: Presumption of Malice from Use of a Deadly Weapon, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 24, No. 4 (1926),p 415.
722 参见 Wayne R. Lafave & Austin W. Scott, Criminal Law 613-14 (2d ed. 1986),转引自 BruceLedewitz, Mr. Carroll's Mental State or What is Meant by Intent Presumption, 38 Am. Crim. L. Rev (2001),p. 71.
723 Walter E. Oberer, The Deadly Weapon Doctrine--Common Law Origin, 75 HARV. L. REV (1962),p. 1565.
724 Laughlin, In Support of the Thayer Theory of Presumptions, 52 MICH. L. REV (1953),p. 195.
725 Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of The Federal Judiciary’s Retreat From Sandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev. (1989),p. 367.
726 参见 John Calvin Jeffries, Jr.; Paul B. Stephan, III, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 88, No. 7 (Jun., 1979), pp. 1325-1407
727 Riggins v. State, 174 S.E.2d 908, 910 (Ga. 1970)本案中,法官认为要求被告承担压倒性的证明精神耗弱的证据的这样的一种指导意见是适当的,而这样的指导意见推定行为人具有健全的心智,行为被推定为自由意志的结果,而行为人推定对于其行为的自然且可能的结果具有意图,在这样的情况下法院认为推定并不是结论性性的,是可辩驳的,并且并没有将证明义务转移给被告。转引自 Bruce L. Ackerman, The Conclusive Presumption Shuffle, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 125, No. 4 (1977),p. 761.
728 Chamberlain, Presumptions as First Aid to the District Attorney, 14 A.B.A.J (1928),p. 287.
729 对于概念范畴的分类是无穷尽的,除了下面所要相信论述的两类区分之外,还存在所谓表面证据成立的推定(prima facie presumption),结论性推定(conclusive presumption)以及对于事实的推定三种类型区分(presumption of fact)。限于篇幅这里对此不做细考。参见 John M.M. Greabe, Spelling Guilt out of a Record? Harmless-Error Review of Conclusive Mandatory Presumptions and Elemental Misdescriptions, 74 B.U.L. Rev (1994),p. 819.
730 对于刑法当中推定的经典分析模式出现在 County Court of Ulster v. Allen,案中,其将推定区分为如下的两种,即义务性或者强制性推定,以及被允许的推定。参见 Bruce Ledewitz, Mr. Carroll's Mental State or What is Meant by Intent, 38 Am. Crim. L. Rev ( 2001),p.71.
731 John M.M. Greabe, Spelling Guilt out of a Record? Harmless-Error Review of Conclusive Mandatory Presumptions and Elemental Misdescriptions, 74 B.U.L. Rev (1994),p. 819.
732 Leslie J. Harris, Criminal Law: Constitutional Limits on Criminal Presumptions as an Expression of Changing Concepts of Fundamental Fairness, 77 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1986),p. 308.
733 John M.M. Greabe, Spelling Guilt out of a Record? Harmless-Error Review of Conclusive Mandatory Presumptions and Elemental Misdescriptions, 74 B.U.L. Rev (1994)p. 819.
734 Charles V. Laughlin, In Support of the Thayer Theory of Presumptions, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 2 (1953) , p230.
735 Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of The Federal Judiciary’s Retreat FromSandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev (1989),p. 367.
736 John M.M. Greabe, Spelling Guilt out of a Record? Harmless-Error Review of Conclusive Mandatory Presumptions and Elemental Misdescriptions, 74 B.U.L. Rev (1994),p. 819.
737 Rollin M. Perkins, A rationale of Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 52. No.6 (1939),p. 928.
739 442 U.S. 510 (1979),
740 Schmolesky, County Court of Ulster v. Allen and Sandstrom v. Montana: The Supreme Court Lends an Ear but Turns Its Face, 33 RUTGERS L. REV (1981),p. 261.
741 从史源上来看,具有分水岭意义的 Sandstrom 案中出现的理念可以追溯到之前在关于犯意问题具有里程碑作用的 Morissette v. United States 案(342 U.S. 246 (1952),当中,法院的判决当中的一部分就涉及对于陪审团的指导意见当中关于结论性推定的宪法性的问题。在 Morissette 案当中,最高法院认为被告的重罪犯意可以通过被告自身的行为加以推断。 而法院将这样的推定视为结论性的,这种不能推翻的结论性的推断的实际效果可以视为有效地取消犯意作为犯罪的组成部分。法院解释如果当意图是被指控犯罪的组成部分,其存在就成为必须被提交到陪审团考虑的事实问题。无论证据有多明晰,无论法官对于犯意的推定如何的多具有争议,意图从来没有被认为是法律问题,而是必须提交给陪审团。因此,如果对于犯意进行强制性推定的话,实质上导致的是剥夺被告受陪审团审判的权力,以及剥夺相关事实受检验的权利。特别需要指出的是,在本案当中,法院认为即使被许可的对于犯意的推定都会导致错误地不审而判。再审法院认定审理法院错误地认定唯一的犯意问题是是否被告意图占有财物,法院的解释是尽管被告承认有意识地占有财物,但这样的事实本身并不是陪审团发现犯罪意图的充分根据。参见 Saltzburg, Burdens of Persuasion in Criminal Cases: Harmonizing the Views of the Justices, 20 AM. CRIM. L. REV (1983),p. 393.
742 Leslie J. Harris, Criminal Law: Constitutional Limits on Criminal Presumptions as an Expression of Changing Concepts of Fundamental Fairness, 77 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1986),p. 308.
744 Richard G. Singer, John, Q. Lafond 等著,王秀梅等译: Criminal law,中国方正出版社 2003 年 9 月第一版,第 58 页。
746 Hall, Daniel, Criminal law and procedure , 3rd ed. Albany, N.Y. : West Legal Studies , (2000), p.61.
748 Leslie J. Harris, Constitutional Limits on Criminal Presumptions as an Expression of Changing Concepts of Fundamental Fairness, 77 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1986),p. 308.
749 Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Matthew Bender & Co; 2nd edition (1995), P.98.
750 Bruce Ledewitz, Mr. Carroll's Mental State or What is Meant by Intent,38 Am. Crim. L. Rev (2001),p. 71.
751 参见美国模范刑法典§1.12(5),
752 如果 A 根据事先恶意打击了 B 但是错误地打击了 C 并导致了 C 的死亡,那么尽管其并没有针对 C 的恶意,其行为仍然构成谋杀,法律将恶意转移到了受伤害的人身上,参见 Matthew Hale, History of the Pleas of the Crown, 466 (1736),转引自 Leellen Coacher and Captain Libby Gallo, Criminal Liability: Transferred and Concurrent Intent,44 A.F. L. Rev (1998),p. 227.
753 Douglas N. Husak, Transferred Intent, 10 ND J. L. Ethics & Pub Pol'y (1996),p. 65.
754 Elizabeth F. Harris, 1995-1996: Recent Decisions: The Maryland Court of Appeals, 56 Md. L. Rev (1997),p.744.
755 参见 Mitchell Keiter, With Malice Toward All: The Increased Lethality of Violence Reshapes Transferred Intent and Attempted Murder Law Winter, 38 U.S.F. L. Rev (2004),p.261.
756 如有学者认为其在定义为有缺陷的,是对是古代法的较为奇怪的残余,在理论上的不连贯的,是太过严苛的,参见 Anthony M. Dillof, Transferred Intent: An Inquiry into the Nature of Criminal Culpability,1 Buff. Crim. L. R. (1998),p. 501;Wilfred J. Ritz, Felony Murder, Transferred Intent, and the Palsgraf Doctrine in the Criminal Law, 68 Wash. & Lee L. Rev (1969),p. 169;William L. Prosser, Transferred Intent, 45 Tex. L. Rev (1967),p. 650.
757 参见 Kimberly D. Kessler, Comment, The Role of Luck in the Criminal Law, 142 U. Pa. L. Rev (1994),p. 2183.
758 Anthony M. Dillof, Transferred Intent: An Inquiry into the Nature of Criminal Culpability,1 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p. 501.
759 参见 Mitchell Keiter, With Malice Toward All: The Increased Lethality of Violence Reshapes Transferred Intent and Attempted Murder Law, 38 U.S.F. L. Rev ( 2004),p, 261.在该文当中,其提出转移故意发生的情况包括 a.意图和非意图的受害人都死亡;b.非意图的受害人死亡,意图的受害人生还;c.意图受害人和非意图受害人都生还的情况,d.意图受害人死亡,非意图受害人生还等四种可能的情况。
760 Model Penal Code § 1.07(1),
761 Leellen Coacher and Captain Libby Gallo, Criminal Liability: Transferred and Concurrent Intent,44 A.F. L. Rev (1998), p. 227.
762 Ford v. State, 625 A.2d 984 (Md. 1993),转引自 Elizabeth F. Harris, 1995-1996: Recent Decisions: The Maryland Court of Appeals. 56 Md. L. Rev (1997),p. 744.
763 State v. Wilson, 546 A.2d 1041 (Md. 1988),转引自 Mitchell Keiter, With Malice toward All: The Increased Lethality of Violence Reshapes Transferred Intent and Attempted Murder Law, 38 U.S.F. L. Rev(2004),p. 261.
764 Leellen Coacher and Captain Libby Gallo, Criminal Liability: Transferred and Concurrent Intent,44 A.F. L. Rev (1998),p. 227.
765 Elizabeth F. Harris, 1995-1996: Recent Decisions: The Maryland Court of Appeals, 56 Md. L. Rev (1997),p.744.
766 Douglas N. Husak Transferred Intent, 10 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y (1996),p.65.
767 People v. Washington, 547 N.W.2d 661, 662 (Mich. 1996),转引自 Elizabeth F. Harris, 1995-1996: Recent Decisions: The Maryland Court of Appeals, 56 Md. L. Rev (1997),p. 744.
768 最初的时候,英国法曾经否认了解和有意无视之间存在对应关系,在 Regina v. Sleep,169 Eng. Rep. 1296 (Cr. Cas. Res. 1861)案第一次否认了解和有意无视之间存在对应关系,而这样的一种理念一直持续到 1875 年判决的 Bosley v. Davies, 1 Q.B.D. 84 (1875)案。参见 Edwards, The Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 MOD. L. REV (1954),p. 294.
769 169 Eng. Rep. 1296 (Cr. Cas. Res. 1861),
770 Jonathan L. Marcus, Economic Competitiveness and The Law: Note: Model Penal Code Section 2.02(7) and Willful Blindness.June, 102 Yale L.J (1993),p. 2231.
771 74 Cal. 306, 16 P. 1 (1887),转引自 Irap. Robbins, The Ostrich Instruction: Delibreate Ignorance As A Criminal Mens Rea, , 81 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1990),p. 191.
772 Douglas N. Husak & Crig A Callender, Willful Ignorance, Knowledege, and the Equal Culpability thesis: A study of The Deeper Significance of The Principle of Legality. 1994 Wis. L. Rev (1994),p. 29.
773 参见 Frans J. von Kaenel, Willful Blindness: A Permissible Substitute for Actual Knowledge Under the Money Laun-dering Control Act?, 71 Wash. U. L. Q (1993),p. 1189.
774 Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, § 401(a)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1988)规定任何人明知或者故意地制造,销售,处置或者持有管制物质为非法。而 Section 1002(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) (1988)规定进口任何受管制的物品进入到美国关境之内为非法,该部分要求了解到该物质是受到控制的。基本上来看,该法禁止明知地运输受控制的物品,以及明知地以销售为目的持有这样的物质。
775 Comment, Willful Blindness as a Substitute for Criminal Knowledge, 63 IOWA L. REV (1977),p. 466.
776 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1976),转引自 Douglas N. Husak & Crig A Callender, Willful Ignorance, Knowledege, and the Equal Culpability thesis: A study of The Deeper Significance of The Principle of Legality. 1994 Wis. L. Rev (1994),p. 29.
778 Rollin M. Perkins, "Knowledge" as a Mens Rea Requirement, 29 HASTINGS L.J (1978),p. 953.
779 395 U.S. 6 (1969),
780 396 U.S. 398 (1970),
781 转引自 Irap. Robbins, The Ostrich Instruction: Delibreate Ignorance As A Criminal Mens Rea, 81 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1990),p, 191.
782 Joseph Hutchison, Counsel to the United States Attorney, Remarks to the Environmental Law Class,Quinnipiac College School of Law (1999),p. 14.
783 Jane F. Barett & Veronica M. Clarke, Perspectives on the Knowledge Requirement of Section 6928(d) of RCRA after United States v. Dee, 59 Geo. Wash. L. Rev (1991),p. 862.
784 Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part, Stevens & Sons; 2r.e. edition (2d ed. 1961),p, 21.
785 其他的表述还包括默许(Connivance),有意避免(Conscious avoidance),有意睁一只眼,闭一只眼 (Willful shutting of the eyes),有意无视(Deliberate ignorance), 蓄意无视(Studied ignorance)等等,参见 Douglas N. Husak & Crig A Callender, Willful Ignorance, Knowledege, and the Equal Culpability thesis: A study of The Deeper Significance of The Principle of Legality. Wis. L. Rev. (1994),p. 29,一位学者曾考证过刑法当中围绕这个概念存在过十四种不同的概念名称,参见 Robin Charlow, Willful Ignorance and Criminal Culpability, 70 TEX. L. REV (1992),p. 1351.
786 Kristen L. Chestnut, United States v. Alvarado: Reflections on a Jewell, 19 GOLDEN GATE U. L. REV (1989),p, 47.
787 Douglas N. Husak & Crig A Callender, Willful Ignorance, Knowledege, and the Equal Culpability thesis: A study of The Deeper Significance of The Principle of Legality. 1994 Wis. L. Rev (1994),p, 29.
788 法学研究中建构某种没有日常词汇对应的专业技术性辞藻必然是用来服务其所意图满足的特定目的,而最能满足其设定目的概念就是最好的概念。参见 Michael A. Bishop, The Possibility of Conceptual Clarity in Philosophy, 29 AM. PHIL. Q (1992),p. 267.
789 David Luban, Contrived Ignorance, 87 Geo. L.J (1999), p. 957.
790 参见 Irap. Robbins, The Ostrich Instruction: Delibreate Ignorance As A Criminal Mens Rea, 81 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1990),p. 191.
791 J. LI. J. Edwards, The Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 MOD. L. REV (1954),p. 294.
792 174 U.S. 728 (1899),转引自 Jonathan L. Marcus, Economic Competiveness and the Law: NOTE: Model Penal Code Section 2.02(7) and Willful Blindness. 102 Yale L.J ( 1993),p, 2231.
795 David Luban, Contrived Ignorance, 87 Geo. L.J (1999),p. 957.
796 Model Penal Code. § 2.02(7),
797 Jonathan L. Marcus, Economic Competiveness and the Law: NOTE: Model Penal Code Section 2.02(7) and Willful Blindness. 102 Yale L.J ( 1993),p.2231.
798 参见 Douglas N. Husak & Crig A Callender, Willful Ignorance, Knowledege, and the Equal Culpability thesis: A study of The Deeper Significance of The Principle of Legality. 1994 Wis. L. Rev. (1994),p.29.
799 Frans J. von Kaenel, Willful Blindness: A Permissible Substitute for Actual Knowledge Under the Money Laun-dering Control Act?, 71 Wash. U. L. Q (1993),p.1189.
800 一个评论者就提出通过将对于事实的了解定义为对于事实高度盖然性的认知来解决这个问题。参见 David Luban, Contrived Ignorance, 87 Geo. L.J (1999)p.957.
801 对此,存在不同的解释,有人认为高度可能性和确信规定的是不同时间点的检验,也有学者提出二者所代表的性质不同,前者代表客观标准,后者代表主观标准。具体参见 Jonathan L. Marcus, Economic Competitivessness and The Law: NOTE: Model Penal Code Section 2.02(7) and Willful Blindness., 102 Yale L.J (1993),p.2231.
802 Douglas N. Husak & Craig A. Callender, Willful Ignorance, Knowledge, and the "Equal Culpability" Thesis: A Study of the Deeper Significance of the Principle of Legality, WIS. L. REV (1994),p. 29.
803 [苏] 斯?勒?齐扶斯著,李浩培译:《美国刑法的反动本质》,法律出版社 1955 年 12 月第一版,第 5 页。
804 杨寿堪 王成兵著:《实用主义在中国》,首都师范大学出版社 2002 年 12 月第一版,第 5 页。
805 Susan Haack, On Legal Pragmatism: Where Does "The Path Of the Law” Lead US? 50 Am. J. Juris (2005),p.71.
806 Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law? 63 S. Cal. L. Rev (1990), p.1653.
807 Arthur S. Link, American Epoch: A history of The United States since 1890s, New York:Knopf (1962), p.17.
808 Anthony E. Cook, the Death of God in American Pragmatism and Realism: Resurrecting the Value of Love in Contemporary Jurisprudence. 82 Geo. L.J (1994), p. 1431.
809 杨寿堪 王成兵著:《实用主义在中国》,首都师范大学出版社 2002 年 12 月第一版,第 2-3 页。
811 关于美国实用主义的基本理念和特点,将在后文详述,这里不作细述。
812 [苏] 斯?勒?齐扶斯著,李浩培译:《美国刑法的反动本质》,法律出版社 1955 年 12 月第一版,第 33 页。
813 Herbert L. Packer, the Model Penal Code and Beyond, 63 Colum. L. Rev (1963),p. 594.
814 参见刘仁文等译:《美国刑法典及其评注》,法律出版社 2005 年第一版,第 7 页。
815 姚云旺:《美国怀俄明州刑法述评——以比较法为视角》,载《安徽警官职业学院学报》2005 年第二期,第 94 页。
816 黄明东:《试析实用主义思想对美国教育立法的影响》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》 2003 年第 6 期(总第 122 期),第 16 页。
817 William S. Fields, Assessing the Performance of the Burger Court: The Ascent of Pragmatism, 129 Mil. L. Rev (1990),p.211.
818 Brian Z. Tamanaha, Pragmatism in U.S. Legal Theory: It’s Application to Normative Jurisprmative Jurisprudences, Socio legal Studies, and the Fact-Value Distinction, 41 Am. J. Juris (1996), p 315.
819 [美]杜威著,胡适译:《杜威五大演讲》,安徽教育出版社 1999 年 9 月第一版,第 85 页。
820 杨寿堪 王成兵著:《实用主义在中国》,首都师范大学出版社 2002 年 12 月第一版,第 21 页。
821 参见 Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law? 63 S. Cal. L. Rev (September, 1990), p.1658.
822 参见 Brian Z. Tamanaha, Pragmatism in U.S. Legal Theory: Its Application to Normative Jurisprmative Jurisprudences, Socio legal Studies, and the Fact-Value Distinction, 41 Am. J. Juris (1996), p 315.
823 G. Minda, Postmodern Legal Movements: Law and Jurisprudence at Century's End. New York: New York University Press (1995),p.124.
824 参见 Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law? 63 S. Cal. L. Rev (1990), p.1664.
825 Catharine Pierce Wells, Why Pragmatism Works For Me, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev (2000), p. 347.
826 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 76页。
827 Ruth Anna Putman, Justice in Content, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev (1990),p.1797.
828 M. Minow and E. Spelman, "In Context," 63 S. Cal. L. Rev(1990), p. 1597
829 参见 Brian Z. Tamanaha, Pragmatism in U.S. Legal Theory: Its Application to Normative Jurisprmative Jurisprudences, Socio legal Studies, and the Fact-Value Distinction, 41 Am. J. Juris (1996), p.320.
830 Thomas C. Grey, Holmes and Legal Pragmatism, 41 Stan. L. Rev (April, 1989), p.787.
831 [美]威廉·詹姆士著,庞景仁译:《彻底的经验主义》,上海人民出版社 1965 年版,第 2 页。
832 Catharine Pierce Wells, Why Pragmatism Works For Me, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev (2000), p. 347.
833 Joseph W. Singer, Should Lawyers Care About Philosophy? 1989 Duke L.J(1989), p.1757.
834 [美]约翰?杜威著,傅统先译:《确定性的寻求》,上海世纪出版集团 2005 年 9 月第一版,第 20 页。
835 Thomas F. Cotter, Legal Pragmatism and the Law and Economics Movement, 84 Geo. L.J (1996),p.2071.
836 参见储怀植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 2005 年第三版,第 7 页。
837 引同上。
838 Ruth Anna Putman, Justice in Context, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev (1990), p. 1797.
839 储怀植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 2005 年第三版,第 7 页。
840 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 88页。
841 Thomas F. Cotter, Legal Pragmatism and the Law and Economics Movement, 84 Geo. L.J (1996), p.2081.
842 Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law? 63 S. Cal. L. Rev (1990), p.1658.
843 [苏] 斯?勒?齐扶斯著,李浩培译:《美国刑法的反动本质》,法律出版社 1955 年 12 月第一版,第 7 页。
844 参见杨寿堪 王成兵著:《实用主义在中国》,首都师范大学 2002 年 12 月第一版,第 138-141 页。
845 参见 Daniel A. Farber, Legal Pragmatism and the Constitution, 72 Minn. L. Rev (1988), p.1342-1347.
846 Brian Z. Tamanaha, Pragmatism in U.S. Legal Theory: Its Application to Normative Jurisprmative Jurisprudences, Socio legal Studies, and the Fact-Value Distinction, 41 Am. J. Juris (1996), p 326.
847 Catharine Pierce Wells, Why Pragmatism Works for Me, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev (2000), p, 347.
848 杨寿堪 王成兵著:《实用主义在中国》,首都师范大学 2002 年 12 月第一版,第 148 页。
849 转引自孙有中著:《美国精神的象征——杜威社会思想研究》,上海人民出版社 2002 年第一版,第 251 页。
850 引同上,第 253 页。
851 Susan Hack, On Legal Pragmatism: Where Does "The Path Of The Law" Lead Us? 50 Am. J. Juris (2005), p.77.
852 [苏]列宁著,中共中央马恩列斯著作编译局译:《哲学笔记》,人民出版社 1974 年第三版,第 305页,转引自杨寿堪 王成兵著:《实用主义在中国》,首都师范大学 2002 年 12 月第一版,第 215 页。
853 邓正来著:《中国法学向何处去———建构“中国法律理想图景”时代的论纲》,商务印书馆 2006年第一版,第 51 页。
854 张之沧:《“实用主义真理观”辨析》,载《求是学刊》2004 年 5 月第 31 卷第 3 期,第 25 页。
855 叶志坚:《实用主义基本理论倾向、阶级属性、社会作用之辨析》,载《中共福建省委党校学报》2002 年第 10 期,第 49 页。
856 参见[美]玛卓莉·米勒著,李红 韩东晖译:《中美文化发展中的实用主义主题》,载《自然辩证法研究》1999 年第 15 卷第 4 期,第 9 页以下。
857 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 36页。
858 参见司汉武 崔巧玲:《工具、价值与实用主义——兼论实用主义与马克思主义的实践观分野》,载《延安大学学报(社会科学版)》2000 年 6 月第 22 卷第 2 期,第 20 页。
859 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 29 页。
860 引同上,第 30 页。
861 引同上,第 31 页。
862 柏元海:《实事求是与詹姆士实用主义比较分析》,载《暨南学报(哲学社会科学)》1999 年 9 月第 21 卷第 5 期,第 51 页。
863 何向东 吕进:《论实用主义的“真理论”》,载《哲学研究》2007 年第 2 期,第 90 页。
864 Ruth Anna Putman, Justice in Content, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev(September, 1990),p.1803.
865 当然,这仅仅是论者个人的观点,我国学界基本上将实用主义归于主观唯心主义之列。
866 范进学:《“法学”是什么?———比较法视域中的“法学”含义诠释》,载《法学论坛》2006 年7 月第 21 卷第 4 期,第 32 页。
867 如我国有学者将刑法的特征总结为“哲学性、事实性和规范性”,参见赵秉志 魏昌东:《中国刑法哲学的产生和发展》,载《法制与社会发展(双月刊)》2005 年第 2 期(总第 62 期),第 3 页以下,论者认为,这样的观点当中的事实性特征其实所指的就是法律文本的客观存在这一“静态特征”。而其坚持的规范性和哲学性特征则是混淆了刑法与刑法学不同话语的典型表征。
868 如有学者提出,“刑法学属于规范科学,研究刑法的规范及其应用”,参见张明楷:《刑法学研究中的十关系论》,载《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2006 年 3 月第 24 卷第 2 期,第 3 页以下。
869 如有学者提出,“从研究对象和研究范围来说,法学是人学;从思维方式来说,法学是权利义务之学;从学术使命来说,法学是求真求善求美之学。这三种解释从三个方面揭示了法学的三重规定性,不仅具有认识论意义,也就有方法论意义”参见黄文艺:《法学释义》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》 2000 年 5 月号,第 61 页。
870 [德]伯恩哈德·格罗斯菲尔德,孙世彦译:《比较法的基本问题》,载《法制与社会发展》2002年第 4 期,第 106 页。
871 引同上。
872 参见沈宗灵主编:《法理学》,北京大学出版社 2000 年版,第 24 页。
873 刘水林:《法学方法论研究》,载《法学研究》2001 年第 3 期。
874 参见《现代汉语词典》(修订本),商务印书馆 1998 年版,第 353 页。
875 严 平:《走向解释学的真理—伽达默尔哲学述评》,东方出版社 1998 年版,第 18 页。
876 许发民:《论刑法应然性研究的“合法性”———兼论刑法学研究范围及其方法》,载《法律科学(西北政法学院学报)》 2003 年第 5 期,第 98 页以下。
877 鲁 珂:《比较法的现代性歧途》,载《比较法研究》2003 年第 5 期,第 93 页。
878 薛佐文:《比较法应当是一种法的研究方法》,载《贵州民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》2005年第 3 期(总第 91 期),第 51 页。
879 参见黄文艺:《比较法:批判与重构》,载《法制与社会发展》2001 年第 1 期,第 13 页。
880 参见刘静仑:《比较法的方法论探析》,载《河北学刊》2000 年第 6 期,第 108 页。
881 参见黄文艺:《比较法:批判与重构》,载《法制与社会发展》2001 年第 1 期,第 13 页以下。
882 华 枫:《从美好的幻想到理性的追求—评米健“从比较法到共同法”一文质疑新共同法说》,载《比较法研究》2003 年第 2 期,第 118 页。
883 参见沈宗灵:《比较法学的方法论》,载《法制与社会发展》1996 年第 3 期,第 8 页。
884 张旭 卓黎黎:《构建刑法学研究方法体系》,载《河北法学》2006 年第 24 卷第 3 期,第 144页。
885 王作富 田宏杰:《中国刑法学研究应当注意的几个基本问题》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期,第 6 页。
886 刘艳红:《重构我国刑法学研究的“方法群”》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期,第 16 页。
887 马克昌:《改进中国刑法学研究之我见》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期,第 3 页。
888 高铭暄:《九五”以来刑法学研究状况及发展趋势》,载《政治与法律》 2000 年第 0 期,第 10页。
889 如曾粤兴教授曾著有《刑法学方法的一般理论》一书,相关评价可参考于志刚 蒋涤非:《方法的反思与更新——刑法学方法的一般理论》,载《甘肃政法学院学报》2006 年 7 月总第 87 期,第136 页以下。
890 张明楷著:《刑法学》(上),法律出版社 1997 年版,第 2 页以下。
891 其指出,“从体系到内容突破既存的刑法理论,完成从注释刑法学到理论刑法学的转变,这就是我们的结论。”参见陈兴良著:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 1991 年版,前言第 1 页。
892 “在《刑法哲学》一书的前言中,我曾经提出刑法学要从刑法解释学向刑法哲学转变的命题。现在看来‘转变’一词不尽妥当与贴切,而应当是‘提升’。”其认为“如果用‘提升’一词,就能够以一种公正的与科学的态度处理刑法哲学与刑法解释学的关系:两者不是互相取代,而是互相促进。”参见陈兴良主编:《刑事法判解》(第 1 卷) ,法律出版社 1991 年版,卷首语第 2 页。
893 引同上。
894 刘艳红:《走向实质解释的刑法学———刑法方法论的发端、发展与发达》,载《中国法学》2006 年第 5 期,第 170 页。
895 参见刘艳红:《走向实质解释的刑法学———刑法方法论的发端、发展与发达》,载《中国法学》2006 年第 5 期,第 170 页。
897 刘水林:《法学方法论的哲学基础》,载《西南民族大学学报?人文社科版》2004 年第 4 期,第200 页。
898 目前,我国刑法学界已经开始有学者关注“一般人”或者“国民认同”这种实用主义检验标准。参见周光权:《论刑法的公众认同》,载《中国法学》2003 年第 1 期,第 116 页。
899 齐文远:《刑法学人学术品格的重塑》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期,第 31 页。
900 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 28 页。
901 参见张旭 张磊:《刑法学发展报告》,载《当代法学》2005 年 7 月号,第 62 页。
902 张智辉:《刑法改革的价值取向》,载《中国法学》2002 年第 6 期,第 98 页。
903 蒋熙辉:《权利发展与刑法改革》,载《法制与社会发展》 2005 年第 5 期,第 16 页。
904 赵秉志:《全球化时代中国刑法改革中的人权保障》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》 2006 年第 1期,第 5 页。
905 卢建平:《国际人权公约视角下的中国刑法改革建议》,载《华东政法学院学报》2006 年 5 期,第 132 页。
906 周光权:《刑法理论应在对抗、论争中求发展》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期,第 14 页。
908 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 34页。
909 引同上。
910 邓正来 邹立君:《“理想图景”、“世界结构”与“定义中国”———与邓正来谈<中国法学向何处去>》,载《河北法学》2006 年 12 月第 24 卷第 12 期,第 176 页。
911 周光权:《刑法学的西方经验与中国现实》,载《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2006 年 3 月第24 卷第 2 期,第 20 页。
913 王世洲:《刑法方法理论的若干基本问题》,载《法学研究》2005 年第 5 期,第 70 页。
914 张 旭 卓黎黎:《构建刑法学研究方法体系》,载《河北法学》2006 年 3 月第 24 卷第 3 期,第 144 页。
915 Thomas C. Grey, Holmes and Legal Pragmatism. 41 Stan. L. Rev (1989), p.787.
916 Ruth Anna Putnam, Justice in Context, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev(1990), p.1797.
917 柏元海:《实事求是与詹姆士实用主义比较分析》,载《暨南学报(哲学社会科学)》1999 年 9 月第 21 卷第 5 期,第 51 页。
918 于志刚 蒋涤非:《方法的反思与更新———<刑法学方法的一般理论>读后》,载《甘肃政法学院学报》2006 年 7 月总第 87 期,第 136 页。
919 参见储槐植:《提倡折衷——法学研究范式检讨》,载《浙江社会科学》2005 年第三期,第 87页。
920 参见邱兴隆:《折衷刑的理性反思》,载《法学评论》1999 年第 3 期,第 22 页。
921 系统的介绍,参见曾粤兴著:《刑法学方法的一般理论》,人民出版社 2005 年第一版。
922 例如有学者就直接提出,综合的方法才是最好的刑法方法。参见王世洲:《刑法方法理论的若干基本问题》,载《法学研究》2005 年第 5 期,第 70 页以下。
923 相关著述实在太多,无法一一列举。
924 周光权:《刑法学的西方经验与中国现实》,载《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2006 年 3 月第24 卷第 2 期,第 20 页。
925 曾粤兴:《刑法学方法的一般理论》,人民出版社 2005 年第一版,转引自于志刚 蒋涤非:《方法的反思与更新———<刑法学方法的一般理论>读后》,载《甘肃政法学院学报》2006 年 7 月总第87 期,第 136 页。
927 李海东教授指出:刑法本身是多余和伪善的, 而其作用是一方面为了在宣传与标榜上有美化国家权力,另一方面束缚国家机器面对犯罪的反应速度与灵敏度。参见李海东:《刑法原理入门( 犯罪论基础) 》,法律出版社 1998 年版,第 3 - 4 页。
928 有人认为实体正义是刑法的最高价值,其使得刑法不仅具有工具价值,而且具有目的价值。参见陈兴良:《法治国的刑法文化——21 世纪刑法学研究展望》,载《人民检察》1999 年 11 期,第10 页。
929 参见储槐植:《提倡折衷——法学研究范式检讨》,载《浙江社会科学》2005 年第三期,第 87页。
930 陈兴良:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 1991 年第一版,前言。
931 张明楷:《刑法学》(上),法律出版社 1997 年第一版,第 3 页。
932 陈兴良:《刑事法判解》(第 1 卷),法律出版社 1991 年版,卷首语。
933 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 31页。
934 刘艳红:《重构我国刑法学研究的“方法群”》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期,第 16 页。
935 表现为若干专门的学术专著以及大量的学术文章,这里不一一列举。
936 刘晓莉:《刑法解释的主体》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》2003 年 3 月第 2 期,第 47 页。
937 当然,其规定的合理性如何这里暂不做讨论。
938 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 61页。
939 包括被某些学者称之为“刑法解释行政主体”的其他部委。相关论述参照林维:《刑法解释中的行政解释因素研究》,载《中国法学》2006 年第 5 期,第 135 页以下。
940 林维:《刑法解释中的行政解释因素研究》,载《中国法学》2006 年第 5 期,第 135 页。
941 参见李洁:《中国有权刑法司法解释模式评判》,载《当代法学》2004 年 1 月第 18 卷第 1 期,第 81 页。
1.储槐植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 1996 年第二版。
2.陈兴良著:《刑事法判解》(第 1 卷),法律出版社 1991 年第一版。
3.陈兴良著:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 1991 年第一版。
4.陈兴良著:《刑法的价值构造》,中国人民大学出版社 1998 年第一版。
5.邓正来著:《中国法学向何处去——建构“中国法律理想图景”时代的论纲》,商务印书馆 2006 年第一版。
6.李海东著:《刑法原理入门( 犯罪论基础) 》,法律出版社 1998 年第一版。
7.孙有中著:《美国精神的象征——杜威社会思想研究》,上海人民出版社 2002 年第一版。
8.杨寿堪,王成兵著:《实用主义在中国》,首都师范大学出版社 2002 年12 月第一版。
9.曾粤兴著:《刑法学方法的一般理论》,人民出版社 2005 年第一版。
10.张明楷著:《刑法学》(上),法律出版社 1997 年第一版。
11.张明楷著:《刑法的基本立场》,中国法制出版社 2002 年 3 月第一版。
12.周光权著:《法治视野中的刑法客观主义》,清华大学出版社 2002 年第一版。
13.赵秉志主编:《英美刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社 2004 年 11 月第一版。
14.刘仁文等译:《美国模范刑法典及其评注》,法律出版社 2005 年第一版。
15.[德]伯恩哈德?格罗斯菲尔德著,孙世彦 姚建宗 译:《比较法的力量与弱点》,清华大学出版社 2003 年 10 月第一版。
16.[美]阿瑟?库恩著,陈朝壁 译著:《英美法原理》,法律出版社 2002 年12 月第一版。
17.[美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年第一版。
18.[美]乔治?P?佛莱彻著,蔡爱惠 陈巧燕 江溯 译:《刑法的基本概念》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 8 月第一版。
19.[美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979年 8 月第一版。
20.[美]威廉?詹姆士著,庞景仁译:《彻底的经验主义》,上海人民出版社1965 年第一版。
21.[美]约翰?杜威著,傅统先译:《确定性的寻求》,上海世纪出版集团2005 年 9 月第一版。
22.[美] 约翰?杜威著,胡适译:《杜威五大演讲》,安徽教育出版社 1999年 9 月第一版。
23.[苏] 斯?勒?齐扶斯著,李浩培译:《美国刑法的反动本质》,法律出版社 1955 年 12 月第一版。
1. Adekemi Odujirin, the Normative Basis of Fault in Criminal Law: History and Theory, University of Toronto Press, (1998).
2. Arthur S. Link, American Epoch: A history of The United States since 1890s, New York:Knopf. (1962).
3. Black’s Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co, 5th ed. (1979).
4. Daniel E. Hall, Criminal law and procedure, Thomson Delmar Learning; 4 edition (2003).
5. Douglas Hay, Property, Authority and the Criminal Law, in Douglas Hay et al.,Albion's Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century, England, Penguin Books Ltd (1975).
6. Farnsworth, an Introduction to the Legal System of the United States. 3rd Ed. New York: Oceana. (1996).
7. Franz Alexander & Hugo Staub, the Criminal, the Judge, and the Public: A Psychological Analysis, Translated by Gregory Zilboorg, the Macmillan co. (1931).
8. Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part 21, 48, Stevens & Sons; 2re edition (1961).
9. G Williams, The mental element in crime, Uerusalem and Oxford. (1965).
10. Gerhard O.W. Mueller, Crime, Law and the Scholars, Heineman ,Educational (1969).
11. G. Minda, Postmodern Legal Movements: Law and Jurisprudence at Century's End. New York: New York University Press (1995).
12. H.L.A. Hart, Legal Responsibility and Excuses, in Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press (1968).
13. John M. Fischer, Introduction: Responsibility and Freedom, in Moral Responsibility 9, 41, Cambridge. University Press (1986).
14. John D. Greenwood, Introduction to the Future of the Folk Psychology, Cambridge University Press (1991).
15. Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Matthew Bender & Co; 2ndedition (1995).
16. J. Hall, General Principle of Criminal Law, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company (1960).
17. Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law (2nd Ed.), Simon Schuster, Inc. (1985).
18. Mortimer R. Kadish and Sanford H. Kadish, Discretion to Disobey: A Study of Lawful Departures from Legal Rules, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press (1973).
19. Oliver Wendell Holmes, The common law, Dover Publications, Inc. New Yolk (1991).
20. Paul H. Robinson, Structure and Function in Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1997).
21. R.A. Duff & David Garland, Introduction: Thinking About Punishment, in A Reader on Punishment 1, 8-10 (R.A. Duff & David Garland eds., Oxford University Press, USA (1995).
22. Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, Foundation Press (2004).
23. Richard G. Singer, John Q. La Fond, Criminal law: Examples and Explanations 6th Edition, Aspen Publishing, ING. (1995).
24. Rita James Simon, Ed, the Jury System in America: A Critical Overview, Sage Publications (1975).
25. Steven L. Emanuel, Criminal Law, 中信出版社 2003 年第一版。
26. Thomas J. Gardner, Criminal law: Principles and cases, Wadsworth Publishing; 6 edition (2006).
27. W. LaFave& A. Scott, Criminal Law, West Publishing Co. (1972).
28. John M. Brumbaugh, Criminal law and approach to the study of law, thefoundation press (1986).
29. N. Lacey, State Punishment, Political principles and Community Values, Routledge (1988).
1. 柏元海:《实事求是与詹姆士实用主义比较分析》,载《暨南学报(哲学社会科学)》1999 年 9 月第 21 卷第 5 期。
2. 陈兴良:《法治国的刑法文化——21 世纪刑法学研究展望》,载《人民检察》1999 年 11 期。
3. 储槐植:《提倡折衷——法学研究方法检讨》,载《浙江社会科学》2005年第三期。
4.丁启明 李韧夫:《英美刑法犯罪心理若干问题论》,载《大庆高等专科学校学报》2003 年 7 月 第 3 期。
5.邓正来 邹立君:《“理想图景”、“世界结构”与“定义中国”———与邓正来谈<中国法学向何处去>》,载《河北法学》2006 年 12 月第 24 卷第 12 期。
6.付霞:《试论英美刑法中严格责任之应然归宿》,载《黑龙江省政法干部管理学院学报》2003 年第 5 期。
7.范进学:《“法学”是什么?———比较法视域中的“法学”含义诠释》,载《法学论坛》2006 年 7 月第 21 卷第 4 期。
8.高铭暄:《九五”以来刑法学研究状况及发展趋势》,载《政治与法律》 2000 年第 5 期。
9.华 枫:《从美好的幻想到理性的追求—评米健“从比较法到共同法”一文质疑新共同法说》,载《比较法研究》2003 年第 2 期。
10. 何向东 吕进:《论实用主义的“真理论”》,载《哲学研究》2007 年第 2 期
11. 黄文艺:《比较法:批判与重构》,载《法制与社会发展》2001 年第 1期。
12. 黄文艺:《法学释义》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》 2000 年 5 月号。
13. 黄明东:《试析实用主义思想对美国教育立法的影响》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》 2003 年第 6 期(总第 122 期)。
14. 康均心 董邦俊:《罪过责任之思考———兼评严格责任之冲突》,载 《法学评论(双月刊)》2000 年第 5 期(总第 103 期)。
10.林维:《刑法解释中的行政解释因素研究》,载《中国法学》2006 年第 5 期。
11.李洁:《中国有权刑法司法解释模式评判》,载《当代法学》2004 年 1月第 18 卷第 1 期。
12.李 洁 李立丰:《美国刑法中主观罪过表现形式初探》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》2005 年第 1 期(总第 129 期)。
13.芦光 张亚玲:《英美刑法中的道德痕迹》,载《河南公安高等专科学校学报》2003 年 8 月第 4 期(总第 71 期)。
14.刘静仑:《比较法的方法论探析》,载《河北学刊》2000 年第 6 期。
15.刘水林:《法学方法论的哲学基础》,载《西南民族大学学报?人文社科版》2004 年第 4 期。
16.刘水林:《法学方法论研究》,载《法学研究》2001 年第 3 期
17.刘南平:《法学博士论文的骨髓和皮囊》,载《中外法学》 2000 年第一期。
18.刘晓莉:《刑法解释的主体》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》2003 年 3月第 2 期。
19.刘艳红:《重构我国刑法学研究的“方法群”》,载《法商研究》2003年第 3 期。
20.刘艳红:《走向实质解释的刑法学——刑法方法论的发端、发展与发达》,载《中国法学》2006 年第 5 期。
21.卢建平:《国际人权公约视角下的中国刑法改革建议》,载《华东政法学院学报》2006 年 5 期。
22.骆梅芬:《英美法系刑事法律中严格责任与绝对责任之辨析》,载《中山大学学报(社会科学版)》1999 年第 5 期。
23.鲁 珂:《比较法的现代性歧途》,载《比较法研究》2003 年第 5 期
24.马庆林:《法律语言学 法律语言——兼谈法律英语的特点》,载《西安外国语学院学报》2003 年 9 月第 11 卷,第 3 期。
25.马克昌:《改进中国刑法学研究之我见》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3期。
26.齐文远:《刑法学人学术品格的重塑》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期。
27.秦前红 刘新英:《霍姆斯刑法思想评析》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》2000 年第 5 期(总第 103 期)。
28.邱兴隆:《折衷刑的理性反思》,载《法学评论》1999 年第 3 期。
29.石文英:《从归责的历史发展看严格责任》,载《焦作工学院学报(社会科学版)》2002 年 6 月第 3 卷 第 2 期。
30.沈宗灵:《比较法学的方法论》,载《法制与社会发展》1996 年第 3 期。
31.司汉武 崔巧玲:《工具、价值与实用主义——兼论实用主义与马克思主义的实践观分野》,载《延安大学学报(社会科学版)》2000 年 6 月第 22 卷第 2 期。
32.王世洲:《刑法方法理论的若干基本问题》,载《法学研究》2005 年第 5 期。
33.王作富 田宏杰:《中国刑法学研究应当注意的几个基本问题》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期。
34.许发民:《论刑法应然性研究的“合法性”———兼论刑法学研究范围及其方法》,载《法律科学(西北政法学院学报)》 2003 年第 5 期。
35.薛佐文:《比较法应当是一种法的研究方法》,载《贵州民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》2005 年第 3 期(总第 91 期)。
36.曾尔恕 郭琛:《本土法和外国法:美国的经验》,载《政法论坛》2000年第 2 期。
37.闫显明 冯建军:《英美刑法中的严格责任制度及其借鉴意义》,载《武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2001 年 8 月第 14 卷第 4 期。
38.叶志坚:《实用主义基本理论倾向、阶级属性、社会作用之辨析》,载《中共福建省委党校学报》2002 年第 10 期。
39.姚云旺:《美国怀俄明州刑法述评——以比较法为视角》,载《安徽警官职业学院学报》2005 年第二期。
40.于志刚 蒋涤非:《方法的反思与更新——<刑法学方法的一般理论>读后》,载《甘肃政法学院学报》2006 年 7 月总第 87 期
41.郑祝君:《英美法时代性背景下的制度变迁》载《法商研究》2002 年第 2 期。
42.周光权:《刑法学的西方经验与中国现实》,载《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2006 年 3 月第 24 卷第 2 期。
43.周光权:《刑法理论应在对抗、论争中求发展》,载《法商研究》2003年第 3 期。
44.周光权:《论刑法的公众认同》,载《中国法学》2003 年第 1 期。
45.张 旭 卓黎黎:《构建刑法学研究方法体系》,载《河北法学》2006年 3 月第 24 卷第 3 期。
46.张旭 张磊:《刑法学发展报告》,载《当代法学》2005 年 7 月号。
47.张智辉:《刑法改革的价值取向》,载《中国法学》2002 年第 6 期。
48.张明楷:《学术之盛需要学派之争》,载《环球法律评论》2005 年第一期。
49.张明楷:《刑法学研究中的十关系论》,载《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2006 年 3 月第 24 卷第 2 期。
50.张之沧:《“实用主义真理观”辨析》,载《求是学刊》2004 年 5 月第
31 卷第 3 期。
51.赵秉志:《全球化时代中国刑法改革中的人权保障》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》 2006 年第 1 期。
52.赵秉志 魏昌东:《中国刑法哲学的产生和发展》,载《法制与社会发展(双月刊)》2005 年第 2 期。
53.[美]波尔?H?罗宾逊,何秉松 王桂萍译:《美国刑法的结构概要》(下),载《政法论坛》(中国政法大学学报) 第 23 卷第 3 期。
54.[美]玛卓莉?米勒,李红 韩东晖译:《中美文化发展中的实用主义主题》,载《自然辩证法研究》1999 年第 15 卷第 4 期。
55.[德]伯恩哈德?格罗斯菲尔德,孙世彦译:《比较法的基本问题》,载《法制与社会发展》2002 年第 4 期。
1.Abraham S. Goldstein, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, 68 Yale L.J. (1959).
2.Adam Candeub, Consciousness & Culpability, 54 Ala. L. Rev (2002).
3.Albert W. Alschuler and Andrew G. Deiss, a Brief History of the CriminalJury in the United States. 61 U. Chi. L. Rev (1994).
4.Albert J. Harno, Intent in Criminal Conspiracy, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 89, No. 5. (1941).
5.Alan Saltzman, Strict Criminal Liability and the United States Constitution: Substantive Criminal Law Due Process, 24 Wayne L. Rev. (1978).
6.Alun Griffith, Comment: People v. Ryan: a Trap for the Unwary, 61 Brooklyn L. Rev (1995).
7.Alan C. Michaels, Constitutional Innocence, 112 Harv. L. Rev (1999).
8.Alan C. Michaels, "Rationales" of Criminal Law Then and Now: For a Judgmental Descriptivism, 100 Colum. L. Rev. (2000).
9.Allen, Criminal Law and the Modern Consciousness: Some Observations on Blameworthiness, 44 TENN. L. REV. (1977).
10.Allen, Structuring Jury Decision-making in criminal cases: A unified constitutional approach to evidential devices, 94 Harv. L. Rev. (1980).
11.Alvin K. Klevorick, Symposium on Law and Eeonomics: Legal Theory and the Economic Analysis of Torts and Crimes. 85 Colum. L. Rev (1985).
12.Ann Hopkins, Mens Rea and the Right to Trial by Jury, 76 Calif. L. Rev., (1988)
13.Ann K. Pollack, Note, the Role of Injunctive Relief and Settlements in Superfund Enforcement, 68 Cornell L. Rev. (1983).
14.Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003).
15.Andrew E. Lelling, Comment, Eliminative Materialism, Neuroscience & the Criminal Law, 141 U. Pa. L. Rev. (1993).
16.Anthony M. Dillof Transferred Intent: An Inquiry into the Nature of Criminal Culpability, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R. (1998).
17.Anthony E. Cook, the Death of God in American Pragmatism and Realism: Resurrecting the Value of Love in Contemporary Jurisprudence. 82 Geo. L.J. (1994), p. 1431.
18.Arthur W. Murphy, Old Maxims Never Die: The "Plain-Meaning Rule" and Statutory Interpretation in the "Modern" Federal Courts, 75 Colum. L. Rev. (1975).
19.Arnold N. Enker, Mens rea and Criminal Attempt, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol.2.No.4. (1977)
20.Arenella, Character, Choice, and Moral Agency: The Relevance of Character to Our Moral Culpability Judgments, 7 Soc. Phil. & Pol’y (1990).
21.Asford & Risinger, Presumptions, Assumptions, and Due Process in Criminal Cases: A Theoretical Overview, 79 YALE L.J. (1969).
22.Barry Capp, A Little Knowledge Can Be a Dangerous Thing - State of New Jersey v. Robertson & Mens Rea in the Freshwater Wetlands, Protection Act of 1987, 15 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (1998).
23. Bernard E. Gegan, Criminal Homicide in the Revised New York Penal Law, 12 N.Y.L.F. (1966).
24.Brian Z. Tamanaha, Pragmatism in U.S. Legal Theory: It’s Application to Normative Jurisprmative Jurisprudences, Socio legal Studies, and the Fact-Value Distinction, 41 Am. J. Juris. (1996).
25.Bickel and Wellington, the legislative propose and judicial process, 71. Har. L. Rev. (1957).
26.Brian Z. Tamanaha, Pragmatism in U.S. Legal Theory: It’s Application to Normative Jurisprmative Jurisprudences, Socio legal Studies, and the Fact-Value Distinction, 41 Am. J. Juris. (1996).
27.Brigid Harington, a Proposed narrowing Of the Clean Water Acts Criminal Negligence Provisions: It’s only human? 32 B.C. Envtl. Off. L. Rev. (2005).
28.Bruce Ledewitz, Mr. Carroll's Mental State or What is Meant by Intent Presumption, 38 Am. Crim. L. Rev (2001).
29.Bruce L. Ackerman, the Conclusive Presumption Shuffle, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 125, No. 4. (Apr., 1977).
30.Cass R. Sunstein, Interpreting Statutes in the Regulatory State, 103 Harv L. Rev (1989).
31.Catharine Pierce Wells, Why Pragmatism Works For Me, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev (2000).
32.Christine L. Chinni, who’s Head is in the Sand? Problems with the Use of the Ostrich Instruction in Conspiracy Cases, 13 W. NEW ENG. L. REV. (1991).
33.Christine Sistare, Agent Motives and the Criminal Law, 13 Soc. Theory & Prac. (1987).
34.Chamberlain, Presumptions as First Aid to the District Attorney, 14 A.B.A.J. (1928).
35.Claire Finkelstein, the Inefficiency of Mens Rea, 88 Calif. L. Rev. May (2000).
36.Collings, Negligence Murder, 49, Calif. L. Rev. (1961).
37.Colin Campbell, Annotation, Mistake or Lack of Information as to Victim'sAge as Defense to Statutory Rape, 46 A.L.R. 5th (1997).
38.Cover, the Supreme Court, 1982 Term -- Foreword: Nomos and Narrative, 97 HARV. L. REV. (1983).
39.Cook, Act, intention and motive in the criminal law, 26 Yale L.J. (1917).
40.Cynthia H. Finn, the Responsible Corporate Officer, Criminal Liability, and Mens Rea: Limitations on the Rco Doctrine, 46 Am. U.L. Rev. (1996).
41.Dan M. Kahan, The Theory of Value Dilemma: A Critique of the Economic Analysis of Criminal Law, 1 Ohio St. J. Crim. L (2004).
42.Dane S. Ciolino, The Mental Element of Louisiana Crimes: It Doesn’t Matter What You Think, 70 Tul. L. Rev (1996).
43.Dannye Holley, Culpability Evaluations in the State Supreme Courts from 1977 to 1999: A "Model" Assessment, 34 Akron L. Rev. (2001).
44.Dannye Holley, The Influence of the Model Penal Code’s Culpability Provision’s on State Legislatures: A Study of Lost Opportunities, Including abolishing the Mistake of fact Doctrine, 1997, 27 Sw. U. L. Rev. (1993).
45.Daniel L. Rotenberg, an Essay on Criminal Liability for Dutyless Omissions that Cause Results, 62 Brooklyn L. Rev (1996).
46.David Lanham, Felony Murder -- Ancient and Modern, 7 CRIM. L.J. (1983).
47.David A. Gordon, Protecting Public Welfare: Mens Rea Under Section 3008(d) (2) (A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, U Chi Legal (1997).
48.David J. Seipp, the Distinction between Crime and Tort in the Early Common Law, 76 B.U. L. Rev. (1996).
49.David Friedman, an Economic Explanation of Punitive Damages, 40 Ala. L.Rev. (1989).
50.David Hardy, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act: A Historical and Legal Perspective, 17 Cumb. L. Rev. (1987).
51.David A. Strauss, Common Law Constitutional Interpretation, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev (1996).
52.David Luban, Contrived Ignorance, 87 Geo. L.J (1999).
53.Darrlk. Brown, The Jury’s Role In Administering Justice in the United States: Judicial instructions, Defendant Culpability, and Jury Interpretation of Law, Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 21 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. (2002)
54.Dale E. Bennett, the Louisiana Criminal Code: A Comparison with Prior Louisiana Criminal Law, 5 La. L. Rev. (1942).
55.Dennis Patterson, Wittgenstein and the Code: A Theory of Good Faith Performance and Enforcement under Article Nine, 137 U. PA. L. REV. (1988).
56.Deborah W. Denno December, Crime and Consciousness: Science and Involuntary Acts, 87 Minn. L. Rev. (2002)
57. Donald A. Dripps, the Constitutional Status of the Reasonable Doubt Rule, 75 Cal. L. Rev. (1987).
58.Douglas N. Husak, Varieties of Strict Liability, 8 Canadian J.L. & Jurisprudence (1995).
59.Douglas N. Husak Transferred Intent, 10 ND J. L. Ethics & Pub Pol'y (1996).
60.Douglas N. Husak & Crig a Callender, Willful Ignorance, Knowledege, and the Equal Culpability thesis: A study of The Deeper Significance of thePrinciple of Legality. 1994 Wis. L. Rev (1994).
61.Dressler, Reflections on Excusing Wrongdoers: Moral Theory, New Excuses, and the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J. (1988).
62.Edwin R. Keedy, Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law, 22 Harv. L. Rev. (1908).
63.Edwin H. Byrd, III, Comment, Reflections on Willful, Wanton, Reckless and Gross Negligence, 48 LA. L. REV. (1988).
64.Edwin R. Keedy, Criminal Attempts at Common Law, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 102, No. 4. (Feb., 1954).
65.Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev. (2005).
66.Edwards, the Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 MOD. L. REV. (1954).
67.Elaine M. Chiu, the Challenge of Motive in the Criminal Law, 8 Buff. Crim. L. R. (2005).
68.Elizabeth F. Harris, 1995-1996: Recent Decisions: The Maryland Court of Appeals. 56 Md. L. Rev (1997).
69.Emilio S. Binavince, the Ethical Foundation of Criminal Liability, 33 Fordham L. Rev. (1964).
70.Erwin S. Barbre, Annotation, What Felonies Are Inherently or Foreseeably Dangerous to Human Life for Purposes of Felony-Murder Doctrine, 50 A.L.R.3d (1973).
71.Eugene J. Chesney, The Concept of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology(1931-1951), Vol. 29, No.5 (1939).
72.Frans J. von Kaenel, Willful Blindness: A Permissible Substitute for ActualKnowledge under the Money Laun-dering Control Act? 71 Wash. U. L. Q., (1993).
73.Francis B. Sayer, Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol.45, No. 6 (1932).
74.Francis B. Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 Colum. L. Rev. (1933).
75.Francis B. Sayre, Criminal Attempts, 41 Harv. L. Rev. (1928).
76.Francis B. Sayre, Criminal Conspiracy, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 4. (1922).
77.Frank Horack, Jr., the Multiple Consequences of a Single Criminal Act, 21 Minn. L. Rev. (1937).
78.Frank J. Remington & Orrin L. Helstad, the Mental Element in Crime--A Legislative Problem, 34 Wis. L. Rev. (1952).
79.Frederick M. Lawrence, Civil Rights and Criminal Law: the Mens Rea of Federal Civil Rights Crimes, 67 Tul. L. Rev. (1993).
80.Feinberg, Toward a New Approach to Proving Culpability: Mens Rea and the Proposed Federal Criminal Code, 18 AM. CRIM. L. REV. (1980).
81 . Fox, Physical Disorder, Consciousness, and Criminal Liability, 63 COLUM. L. REV. (1963).
82.Gary V. Dubin, Mens Rea Reconsidered: A Plea for a Due Process Concept of Criminal Responsibility, 18 Stan. L. Rev. (1966).
83.George P. Fletcher, Law, Truth, and Interpretation: A Symposium on Dennis Gerald Leonard, Towards a Legal History of American Criminal Theory: Culture and Doctrine from Blackstone to the Model Penal Code, 6 Buff. Crim. L. R. (2003).
84.George P. Fletcher, the fall and Rise of Criminal Theory, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R. (1998).
85.George P. Fletcher, Dogmas of the Model Penal Code: 2 Buff. Crim. L. R. (1998).
86.Guyora Binder, Punishment Theory: Moral or Political, 5 Buff. Crim. L. Rev. (2002).
87.Guyora Binder, the Origins of American Felony Murder Rules, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 59 (2004).
88.Guyora Binder, Felony Murder and Mens Rea Default Rules: A Study in Statutory Interpretation, 4 Buff. Crim. L. R. (2000).
89.Graham, Presumptions -- More Than You Ever Wanted to Know and Yet Were Too Disinterested to Ask, 17 CRIM. L. BULL. (1981).
90.Gary R. Ostos-Irwin, Wisconsin’s Party to a Crime Statute: The Mens Rea Element under the Abiding and Abetting Subsection, and the aiding and Abetting –Choate conspiracy Distinction. Wis. L. Rev. 769 (1984).
91.George A. Costello, Average Voting Members and Other "Benign Fictions": The Relative Reliability of Committee Reports, Floor Debates, and Other Sources of Legislative History, Duke L.J. (1990).
92.George Soros Busted: Why the Markets Can't Fix Themselves, New Republic, Sept. 18 (2002).
93.George K. Gardner, Bailey v. Richardson and the Constitution of the United States, 33 B.U. L. Rev. (1953).
94.G. H. L. Fridman, Mens Rea in Conspiracy, the Modern Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1956).
95.George P. Fletcher, Mistake in the Model Penal Code: A False False Problem, 19 Rutgers L.J. (1988).
96.Hart, The time chart of the justices, 73. Har. L.R.. (1959).
97.Hart, Social Solidarity and the Enforcement of Morality, 35 U. CHI. L. REV. (1967).
98.Hall, Negligent Behavior Should Be Excluded from Penal Lability, 63 Colum. L. Rev. (1963).
99.Henry P. Monaghan, Our Perfect Constitution, 56 NYU L Rev (1981).
100.Herbert L. Packer, Mens Rea and Super court, the Supreme Court review, Vol. (1962).
101.Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the criminal law in the United States: The model penal code, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 68. No. 8(Dec., 1968).
102.Herbert Wechsler, the Challenge of a Model Penal Code, 65 Harv. L. Rev. (1952).
103.Herbert Wechsler & Jerome Michael, a Rationale of the Law of Homicide I, 37 Colum. L. Rev. (1937).
104.Herbert Wechsler, On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 339, Crime and The American Penal (1962).
105.Herbert Wechsler; William Kenneth Jones; Harold L. Korn, Institute: Attempt, Solicitation, and Conspiracy: The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of the American Law, Columbia Law Review, And Vol. 61, No. 6. (1961).
103.Herbert L. Packer, the Model Penal Code and Beyond, 63 Colum. L. Rev. (1963).
104.Herbert L. Packer Aims of the Criminal Law Revisited: A Plea for a New Look at "Substantive Due Process", 44 S. Cal. L. Rev. (1971)
105 . Huaiming Wang, Chinese and American Criminal Law: Some Comparison, The Journal of Criminal law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol.46, No.6. (1956).
106.Hitcher, Motive as an Essential Element of Crime, 35. Dick. L. Rev. 105.108. (1931).
107.Irap. Robbins, the Ostrich Instruction: Delibreate Ignorance as a Criminal Mens Rea, 81 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1990).
108.J.M. Kaye, the Early History of Murder and Manslaughter - Part I, 83 Law Q. Rev. (1967).
109.J. H. Beale, Jr.Criminal Attempts, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 7. (May, 1903).
110.James B. Thayer, "Law and Fact" in Jury Trials, 4 Harv L Rev. (1890).
111.James J. Tomkovicz, the Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule-Murder Rule: A Study of the Forces That Shape our Criminal Law, 51 Wash & Lee L. Rev. (1994).
112.James J. Hippard, Sr., the Unconstitutionality of Criminal Liability without Fault: An Argument for a Constitutional Doctrine of Mens Rea, 10 Hous. L. Rev. (1973).
113.Jay Sigler, a History of Double Jeopardy, 7 Am. J. Leg. Hist. (1963).
114.Jerome Hall, Negligent Behavior Should be Eliminated from Penal Liability, 63, Colum. L. Rev. (1963).
115.Jerome Hall, Interrelations of Criminal Law and Torts: II, 43 Colum. L. Rev. (1943).
116.Jane F. Barett & Veronica M. Clarke, Perspectives on the Knowledge Requirement of Section 6928(d) of RCRA after United States v. Dee, 59Geo. Wash. L. Rev. (1991).
117.Jeremy Waldron, Void for Vagueness: Vagueness in Law and Language: Some Philosophical Issues, 82 Calif. L. Rev (1994).
118.Jeremy M. Miller, Mens Rea Quagmire: The Conscience or Consciousness of the Criminal Law? 29 W. St. U.L. Rev (2001).
119.Jeffrey S. Parker, The Economic of Mens Rea, 79 Va. L. Rev. 741, May (1993).
120.Jo Anne C. Adlerstein, Felony-Murder in the New Criminal Codes, 4 IS. J. CRIM. L. (1976).
121.John Calvin Jeffries, Jr. Legality, Vagueness, and the Construction of Penal Statutes, 71 Va. L. Rev (1985).
122.John T. Parry, Culpability, Mistake, and Official Interpretations of Law, 25 Am. J. Crim. L. (1997).
123.John Robinson, Crime, Culpability, and Excuses, 10 ND J. L. Ethics & Pub Pol’y (1996).
124.John L. Diamond, the Myth of Morality and Fault in Criminal Law Doctrine, 34 Am. Crim. L. Rev. (1996).
125.Joel R. Cornwell, the Confusion of Causes and Reasons in Forensic Psychology: Deconstructing Mens Rea and Other Mental Events, Georgia State University Law Review, 33 U. Rich. L. Rev (1999).
126.John Shepard Wiley Jr, Not Guilty By Reason Of Blamelessness: Culpability in Federal Criminal in Interpretation, 85 Va. L. Rev(1999).
127.John Quigley, the Common Law's Theory of Criminal Liability: A Challenge from Across the Atlantic, 11 Whittier L. Rev. (1989).
128 . John H. Langbein, On the Myth of Written Constitutions: TheDisappearance of Criminal Jury Trial, 15 Harv J L & Pub Pol (1992).
129.John S. Strahorn, Jr. The Effect of Impossibility on Criminal Attempts, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 78, No. 8. (1930).
130.John M.M. Greabe, Spelling Guilt out of a Record? Harmless-Error Review of Conclusive Mandatory Presumptions and Elemental Misdescriptions, 74 B.U.L. Rev (1994).
131.John Calvin Jeffries, Jr. & Paul B. Stephan III, Defenses, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law, 88 Yale L.J. (1979).
132.Jorge L. Carro & Andrew W. Brann, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Use of Legislative Histories: A Statistical Analysis, 22 Jurimetrics J. (1982).
133.Jonathan L. Marcus, Economic Competitiveness and The Law: Note: Model Penal Code Section 2.02(7) and Willful Blindness. June, 102 Yale L.J. (1993).
134.Joseph E. Cole, Environmental Criminal Liability: What Federal Officials Know (or should Know) can Hurt Them, 54 A.F. L. Rev. (2004).
135.Joseph Hutchison, Counsel to the United States Attorney, Remarks to the Environmental Law Class, Quinnipiac College School of Law (1999).
136.Joseph W. Singer, Should Lawyers Care About Philosophy? 1989 Duke L.J. (1989).
137.Joachim Hruschka, Imputation, B.Y.U. L. Rev. (1986).
138.Kathy Diene and Teisha C. Johnson, Federal Criminal Conspiracy, 42 Am. Crim. L. Rev (2005).
139.Kevin W. Saunders, Voluntary Acts and the Criminal Law: Justifying Culpability Based on The Existences of Volition, winter, 49 U. Pitt. L.Rev. (1988).
140.Kenneth A. Shepsle, Congress is a "They," Not an "It": Legislative Intent as Oxymoron, 12 Int'l Rev. L. & Econ. (1992)
141.Kenneth W. Starr, Observations About the Use of Legislative History, DUKE L.J. (1987).
142.Kenneth W. Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U.L. Rev (1992).
143.Kenneth W. Simons, Model Penal Code Second: Good or Bad Idea? Should the Model Penal Code's Mens Rea Provisions Be Amended? 1 Ohio St. J. Crim. L (2003).
144.Kenneth W. Simons, Culpability and Retributive Theory: The Problem of Criminal Negligence, J. Contemp. Legal Issues (1994).
145.Kenneth W. Simons, Criminal Law: When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just? 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997).
146.Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions: The Middle ground Between Criminal and Civil Law. 101 Yale L.J (1992).
147.Kent Greenawalt, "Uncontrollable" Actions and the Eighth Amendment: Implications of Powell v. Texas, 69 Colum. L. Rev. (1969).
148. Keith Culver, the Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 11 Can. J.L. & Juris (1998).
149.Kevin L. Keeler, Comment: Direct Evidence of State of Mind: A Philosophical Analysis of How Facts in Evidence Support Conclusions regarding Mental State, 1985 Wis. L. Rev (1985).
150.Kimberly A. Mottley, David Abrami, and Darryl K. Brown, The Jury’s Role in Administering Justice in The United States: A Over View of the American Criminal Jury , 21 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. (2002).
151.Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, Opaque Recklessness, 91 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2001).
152.Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, Don't Abandon the Model Penal Code Yet! Thinking Through Simons's Rethinking 6 Buff. Crim. L. R. (2002).
153.Kit Kinports, Rape and Force: The Forgotten Mens Rea, 4 Buff. Crim. L. R. (2001).
154.Kristen L. Chestnut, United States v. Alvarado: Reflections on a Jewell, 19 GOLDEN GATE U. L. REV. (1989).
155.Laughlin, In Support of the Thayer Theory of Presumptions, 52 MICH. L. REV. (1953).
156 . Lawrence Crocker, Justice in Criminal Liability: Decriminalizing Harmless Attempts, 53 Ohio St. L.J. (1992).
157.Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of The Federal Judicary’s Retreat From Sandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev. (1989).
158.Larry Alexander, Kimberly D Kessler, Mens Rea and Inchoate Crimes,87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997).
159.Larry Alexander, Comment: Negligence, Crime, and Tort: Comments On Hurd And Simons,76 B.U.L. Rev (1996).
160.Larry Alexander, Insufficient Concern: A Unified Conception of Criminal Culpability, 88 Calif. L. Rev (2000).
161.Leslie J. Harris, Criminal Law: Constitutional Limits on Criminal Presumptions as an Expression of Changing Concepts of Fundamental Fairness, 77 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1986).
162.Leellen Coacher and Captain Libby Gallo, Criminal Liability: Transferredand Concurrent Intent,44 A.F. L. Rev. (1998).
163.Levinson, Law as Literature, 60 TEX. L. REV. (1982).
164.Lori L. Outzs, A Principled Use of Congressional Floor Speeches in Statutory Interpretation, 28 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs (1995).
165.M. Diane Barber, Fair Warning: The Deterioration of Scienter under Environmental Criminal Statutes, 26 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. (1992).
166.Minow and E. Spelman, "In Context," 63 S. Cal. L. Rev. (1990).
167.M. Varn Chandola, and Anoop Chandola A Cognitive Framework for Mens Rea and Actus Reas: The Application of Contactics Theory to Criminal Law, 35 Tulsa L.J (2000).
168.Martin J. McMahon, Annotation, Application of Felony Murder Doctrine Where Person Killed was Co-Felon, 89 A.L.R.4th (1991).
169.Mark Kelman, Interpretive Construction in the Substantive Criminal Law, 33 Stan. L. Rev. (1981).
170.Margaret J. Radin, Reconsidering the Rule of Law, 69 B.U. L. Rev. (1989).
171.Markus Dirk Dubber, Penal Panopticon: The Idea of a Modern Model Penal Code DOCUMENTS, 4 Buff. Crim. L. R. (2000).
172.Markus Dirk Dubber, The Historical Analysis of Criminal Codes, 18 Law & Hist. Rev (2000).
173.Martin R. Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present, 1993 Utah L. Rev. (1993).
174.Martin T. Lefevour, 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) Requires Mens Reas as to the Physical Characteristics Of The Weapon Staples v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994),85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1995).
175.Marjorie Weinzweig, Discriminatory Impact and Intent Under the Equal Protection Clause: The Supreme Court and the Mind-Body Problem, 1 LAW & INEQ. J. (1983).
176.Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev. (1990).
177.Manly Parks, the Public Welfare Rationale: Defining Mens Rea in RCRA, 18 Wm. & Mary J. Envtl. L. (1993).
178.Matthew Jones, Overcoming the Myth of Free Will in Criminal Law: The True Impact of the Genetic Revolution, 52 Duke L.J. 1031 (2003).
179.Michael S. Moore, Prima Facie Moral Culpability, 76 B.U. L. Rev. (1996).
180.Michael S. Moore, Philosophy of Language and Legal Interpretation: Article: A Natural Law Theory of Interpretation, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev (1985).
181.Michael D. Sherman, The Use of Legislative History: A Debate Between Justice Scalia and Judge Breyer, Admin. L. News (1991).
182.Michael A. Bishop, The Possibility of Conceptual Clarity in Philosophy, 29 IS. PHIL. Q. (1992).
183.Miguel Angel Mendez, A Sisyphean Task: The Common Law Approach to Mens Rea, U.C. Davis Law Review (1995).
184.Michael T. Cahill et al., the Five Worst (and Five Best) American Criminal Codes, 95 Nw. U. L. Rev. (2000).
185.Michael Davis, Strict Liability: Deserved Punishment for FaultlessConduct, 33 WAYNE L. REV. (1987).
186 . Michael.M. O'Hear, Sentencing The Green – Collar Offender: Punishment, Culpability, and Environmental Crime, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2004).
187.Michael S. Moore, Prima Facie Moral Culpability, 76 B.U. L. Rev. (1996).
188.Meir Dan-Cohen, Responsibility and the Boundaries of the Self, 105 Harv. L. Rev. (1992).
189.Mihajlo M. Alimovic, Conceptions of culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI.P. (1965).
190. Mihajlo M. Alimovic, culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI (1965).
191.Miguel, Angelmendez, A Sisyphean Task: The Common Law Approach to Mens Rea, 28 U.C. Davis L. Rev. (1995).
192.Mitchell Keiter, With Malice Toward All: The Increased Lethality of Violence Reshapes Transferred Intent and Attempted Murder Law 38 U.S.F. L. Rev (2004).
193.Monroe Freedman, For the Poor, Criminal Defense a Matter of Third World Justice, Legal Times (1991).
194.Mueller, On Common Law Mens Rea, 42, Minn. L. Rev. (1958).
195.M. Susan Doyle, Note, People v. Patterson: California's Second Degree Felony-Murder Doctrine at "The Brink of Logical Absurdity", 24 LOY. L.A. L. REV. (1990).
196.McMurray, California Jurisprudence, 13 CAL. L. REV. (1925).
197.Nancy J. King and Susan R. Klein May, Essential Elements, 54 Vand. L.Rev. (2001).
198.Negligence and the General Problem of Criminal Responsibility, the Yale Law Journal, Vol. 81, No 5 (1972).
199.Nelson E. Roth & Scott E. Sundby, The Felony-Murder Rule: A Doctrine at Constitutional Crossroads, 70 Cornell L. Rev. (1985).
200.Neal Kumar Katyal, Architecture as Crime Control, 111 Yale L.J. (2002).
201.Neal Kumar Katyal, Deterrence's Difficulty, 95 Mich. L. Rev. (1997).
202.Norman J. Finke, When Mistakes Happen: Commonsense Rules of Culpability March, 3 Psych. Pub. Pol. and L... (1997).
203.Norman Abrams, Criminal Liability of Corporate Officers for Strict Liability Offenses - A Comment on Dotterweich and Park, 28 UCLA L. Rev. (1981).
204.Note, A Re-evaluation of the Use of Legislative History in the Federal Courts, 52 Colum. L. Rev. (1952).
205.Norval Morris, The Felon's Responsibility for the Lethal Acts of Others, 105 U. PA. L. REV. (1956).
206.Orrin Hatch, Legislative History: Tool of Construction or Destruction, 11 Harv. J.l. & PUB. POL'Y (1988).
207.Paul H. Robinson and John M. Darley, The Utility of Desert, 91 Nw. U.L. Rev. 453 (1997).
208.Patient, Some Remarks about the Element of Voluntaries in Offenses of Absolute Liability, CRIM. L. REV. (1968).
209.Packer, Mens rea and the supreme court, supreme court Rev. (1962).
210.Packer, The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 63 COLUM. L. REV. (1963).
211.Paul H. Robinson, Rethinking Federal Criminal Law: Reforming theFederal Criminal Code: A Top Ten List, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R. (1997).
212.Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 STAN. L. REV. (1983).
213 . Paul H. Robinson, Criminal Law Scholarship: Three Illusions, 2 Theoretical Inq. L (2001).
214.Paul Campos, That Obscure Object of Desire: Hermeneutics and the Autonomous Legal Text, 77 Minn. L. Rev. (1993).
215.Paul H. Robinson, Michael T. Cahill, and Usman Mohammad, The Five Worst (And Five Best) American Criminal Codes, 95 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1(2000).
216.Paul H.Robinson, Michael T. Cahill, The Accelerating Degradation of American Criminal Codes, 56 Hastings L.J (2005).
217.Paul H. Robinson, A Functional Analysis of Criminal Law, Spring, 88 Nw. U.L. Rev. (1994).
218.Paul H. Robinson, Rules of Conduct and Principles of Adjudication, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev. (1990).
219.Paul H. Robinson, Are Criminal Codes Irrelevant? November , 68 S. Cal. L. Rev. (1994).
220.Paul H. Robinson, A Brief History of Distinctions in Criminal Culpability, 31 HASTINGS L.J. (1980).
221.Paul H. Robinson, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond April, 35 Stan. L. Rev. (1983).
222.Patricia M. Wald, The Sizzling Sleeper: The Use of Legislative History in Construing Statutes in the 1988-89 Term of the United States Supreme Court, 39 Am. U.L. Rev. (1990).
223.Patrick M. O'Neil, the Moral Blindness of The Positivistic Legal Hermeneutic And the Non-Proximate Mens Rea In The Law Of Criminal Negligence, 41 Am. J. Juris. (1996).
224.Pamela S. Karlan, Discriminatory Purpose and Mens Rea: The Tortured Argument of Invidious Intent, 93 Yale L.J. 111 (1983).
225.Percy H. Winfield, The Myth of Absolute Liability, 42 Law Q. Rev. (1926)
226.Peter W. Low, The Model Penal Code, The Common Law, and Mistakes of Fact: Recklessness, Negligence, or Strict Liability? 19 Rutgers L.J. (1988).
227.Peter Arenella, Convicting the Morally Blameless: Reassessing the Relationship Between Legal and Moral Accountability, 39 UCLA L. Rev (1991).
228.Peter J. Henning, Supreme Court Review: Foreword: Statutory in Interpretation And The Federalization of Criminal law, Summer, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1996).
229.Pinkerton, Developments in the Law: Criminal Conspiracy, 72 HARV. L. REV. (1959).
230.Posner, Legislation and Its Interpretation: A Primer, 68 NEB. L. REV. (1989).
231.Philip E. Johnson, The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy, 61 Cal. L. Rev. (1973).
232.P.H.Winfield, The History of Conspiracy and Abuse of Legal Procedure, 35 Harv. L. Rev. (1921).
233.Randolph N. Jonakait, The Mens Rea for the Crime of Providing Material Resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization Fall, 6 Baylor L. Rev.(2004).
234.Reed Dickerson, Statutory Interpretation: A Peek into the Mind and Will of a Legislature, 50 Ind. L.J. (1975).
235.Remington and Helstad, The Mental Element in Crime-A Legislative Problem, Wis. L. Rev. (1952).
236.Rollin M. Perkins, Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law, 88 U. Pa. L. Rev. (1939).
237.Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Liability Without Fault: A Disquieting Trend 68 Iowa L. Rev (1983).
238.Robert H. Gault; James W. Garner; Edwin R. Keedy; John H. Wigmore, The Progress of Penal Law in the United States of America, 1874-1924,. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol.
15, No.2 (1924).
239.Robert Batey, Judicial Exploitation of Mens Rea Conclusion, At Common Law and Under The Model Penal Code, 18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev (2001).
240.Robert G. Lawson, Criminal Law Revision in Kentucky: Part I - Homicide and Assault, 58 Ky. L.J. (1970).
241.Robert W. Adler & Charles Lord, Environmental Crimes: Raising the Stakes, 59 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. (1991).
242.Robinson, A Brief History of Distinctions in Criminal Culpability, 31 HASTINGS L.J (1980)
243.Rollin M. Perkins, A rationale of Mens rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 52. No.6 (1939).
244.Ronald L. Gainer, The Culpability Provisions of the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J. (1988).
245.Ronald J. Allen, Common Sense, Rationality, and the Legal Process, 22 Cardozo L. Rev. (2001).
246.Ronald J. Allen, Structuring Jury Decision-making in Criminal Cases: A Unified Constitutional Approach to Evidentiary Devices, 94 Harv. L. Rev. (1980)
247.Ronald L. Gainer, Federal Criminal Code Reform: Past and Future, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R. (1998).
248.Richard A. Posner, The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline: 1962-1987, 100 Harv. L. Rev. (1987).
249.Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of The Criminal Law, Oct, 85 Colum. L. Rev. (1985).
250.Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law? 63 S. Cal. L. Rev. (1990)
251.Richard G. Singer, The Resurgence of Mens Rea: I--Provocation, Emotional Disturbance, and the Model Penal Code, 27 B.C. L. Rev. (1986).
252.Richard G. Singer, Foreword to Symposium, the 25th Anniversary of the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J. (1988).
253.Richard Singer & Douglas Husak, Of Innocence and Innocents: The Supreme Court and Mens Rea Since Herbert Packer, 3 Buff. Crim. L. Rev. (1999)
254.Richard Wasserstrom, Strict Liability in the Criminal Law, 12 Stan. L. Rev. 731 (1960).
255.V.F. Nourse, Hearts and Minds: Understanding the New Culpability, Buffalo Criminal Law Review (2002).
256.Richard Singer, Strict Criminal Liability: Alabama State Courts Lead the Way into the Twenty-First Century, 46 Ala. L. Rev(1994).
257.Richard T. Bowser, Spring, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Court and the Law, 19 Campbell L. Rev. (1997).
258.Richard Lowell Nygaard, Free Will, Determinism, Penology and the Human Genome: Where's a New Leibniz When We Really Need Him?, 3 U. Chi. L. Sch. Roundtable (1996).
259.Richard C. Bold, The Construction of Responsibility in the Criminal Law, 140 U. Pa. L. Rev. (1992).
260.Ronald Dworkin, How to Read the Civil Rights Act, N.Y. Review, Dec. 20 (1979).
261.Richard K. Sueyoshi, G. Staples v. United States: Supreme Court Determines the Mens Rea Required Convicting an Individual for Possession of an Unregistered Machinegun 114 S. Ct. (1994). 21 J. Contemp. L. (1995).
262.R.M. Jackson, Absolute Prohibition in Statutory Offences, 6 Cambridge L.J. (1938)
263.Robin Charlow, Willful Ignorance and Criminal Culpability, 70 TEX. L. REV. (1992).
264.Ruth Anna Putnam, Justice in Context, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev. (1990).
265.Sayre, The Present Signification of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law, Harvard Legal Essays (1934).
266.Saltzburg, Burdens of Persuasion in Criminal Cases: Harmonizing the Views of the Justices, 20 AM. CRIM. L. REV. (1983).
267.Sanford Kadish, The Decline of Innocence, 26 Cambridge L.J. (1968).
268.Sanford H. Kadish, Fifty Years of Criminal Law: An Opinionated Review, 87 Calif. L. Rev (1999).
269.Sanford H. Kadish, the Model Penal Code's Historical Antecedents, 19 Rutgers. L.J. (1988).
270.Sanford H. Kadish, Codifiers of Criminal Law: Wechsler's Predecessors, 78 Colum. L. Rev. (1978).
271.Schmolesky, County Court of Ulster v. Allen and Sandstrom v. Montana: The Supreme Court Lends an Ear but Turns Its Face, 33 RUTGERS L. REV. (1981).
272.Schulofer, harm and punishment: A critical of emphasis on the result of conduct in the criminal law, 122 U. Pa. L.Rev. (1974).
273.Stephen B. Chapman, Are Obnoxious Wastes More like Machineguns or Hand Grenades?: Mens Rea Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act After Staples v. United States,43 Kan. L. Rev (1995).
274.Susan F. Mandiberg, The Dilemma of Mental State in Federal Regulatory Crimes: The Environmental Example, 25 Envtl. L. (1995).
275.Susan Estrich, Rape, 95 Yale L.J. (1986).
276.Susan Haack, On Legal Pragmatism: Where Does "The Path Of the Law” Lead US? 50 Am. J. Juris. (2005).
277.Stephen J. Morse. the Twenty-Second Annual National Student Federalist Society Symposium on Law and Public Policy--2003: Inevitable Mens Rea, 27 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y (2003).
278 . Steven S. Nemerson, Note, Criminal Liability Without Fault: A Philosophical Perspective, 75 Colum. L. Rev. (1975).
279.Stephanos Bibas, Judicial Fact-Finding and Sentence-Enhancements in aWorld of Guilty Pleas, 110 Yale L.J. (2001).
280.Stanislaw Frankowski, Mens Rea and Punishment in England: In Search of Interdependence of the Two Basic Components of Criminal Liability (A Historical Perspective), 63 U. Det. L. Rev. (1986).
281.Schauer, An Essay on Constitutional Language, 29 UCLA L. REV. (1982).
282.Stuart P. Green, Why It's A Crime to Tear the Tag Off a Mattress: Overcriminalization and the Moral Content of Regulatory Offenses, 46 Emory L.J. (1997).
283.Smith, the element of chance in criminal liability, crim.L.R (1971).
284.Tanya K. Hernandez, Note, Bias Crimes: Unconscious Racism in the Prosecution of "Racially Motivated Violence," 99 Yale L.J. (1990).
285.Toni M. Massaro, Shame, Culture, and American Criminal Law Length, 89 Mich. L. Rev. (1880).
286.Thomas C. Grey, Holmes and Legal Pragmatism. 41 Stan. L. Rev. (1989).
287.Tracey L. Meares, It's a Question of Connections, 31 Val. U. L. Rev (1997).
288.Thomas F. Cotter, Legal Pragmatism and the Law and Economics Movement,84 Geo. L.J (1996).
289.Thomas C. Grey, Holmes and Legal Pragmatism, 41 Stan. L. Rev (1989).
290.Walter E. Oberer, The Deadly Weapon Doctrine--Common Law Origin, 75 HARV. L. REV. (1962).
291.Walter Wheeler Cook, ct, Intention, and Motive in Criminal law, The Yale Law Journal, Vol.26, No.8 (1917).
292.Wasserstrom, Strict Liability in Criminal Law, 12, Stan. L. Rev. (1960).
293.William E. Shipley, Annotation, Mistake or Lack of Information as to Victim's Age as Defense to Statutory Rape, 8 A.L.R.3d (1966).
294.Williams, More on the Paradigm Case Argument, 39 AUSTL. J. PHIL. (1961).
295.William J. Stuntz, Substance, Process, and the Civil-Criminal Line, 7 J. Contemp. Legal Issues (1996).
296.William N. Eskridge, Jr., Dynamic Statutory Interpretation, 135 U. Pa. L. Rev. (1987).
297.William E. Mikell, the Proposed Criminal Code of Pennsylvania, 71 U. Pa. L. Rev. (1923).
298.William S. Fields, Assessing the Performance of the Burger Court: The Ascent of Pragmatism, 129 Mil. L. Rev. (1990).
299.Williams, Language and the Law 62 LAW Q. REV. (1946).
300.Winfield, the Myth of Absolute Liability, 42 L.Q.Rev (1926).
3 由于美国独特的法律架构,使其相对于单一制国家的法律制度而言能够更为鲜活地体现出作为法律思维抑或逻辑的分析和建构模式。限于篇幅,这里不作过多的解释。同时,笔者十分认同有学者提出的,“我们应该停止讨论什么‘英美法’,而把英国法和美国法当作是极为不同的事物。这是避免错误的第一步,却是重要的一步”。参见[德]伯恩哈德·格罗斯菲尔德著,孙世彦 姚建宗 译:《比较法的力量与弱点》,清华大学出版社 2003 年 10 月第一版,第 91 页。
5 Francis Bowes Sayer, Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol.45, No. 6 (1932), p.986.
7 笔者十分认同刘南平博士对于法学博士论文当中所谓命题(thesis)的论断,并将“美国刑法学研究方法之归纳以及中国刑法学研究方法之建构”作为本文的命题。关于博士论文命题的内容参见刘南平:《法学博士论文的骨髓和皮囊》,载《中外法学》2000 年第 1 期,第 101 页。
8 Frederick M. Lawrence, Civil Rights and Criminal Law: the Mens Rea of Federal Civil Rights Crimes, 67Tul. L. Rev (1993), p.2114.
9 这里进行的仅仅是粗略的分析。事实上殖民地时期的北美大陆法律制度以多元为特色,正如有学者曾经略带夸张地宣称的那样,最终北美发展出 13 个独立的法律体系。而这片大陆上曾经存在过很多国家法律的影子,参见 Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law (2nd Ed.), Simon Schuster, Inc (1985), pp.19-20.
10 Huaiming Wang, Chinese and American Criminal Law: Some Comparison, The Journal of Criminal law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol.46, No.6 (1956), p.815.
11 Mihajlo M. Alimovic, Conceptions of culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI (1965), p.34.
12 参见 Cynthia H. Finn, the Responsible Corporate Officer, Criminal Liability, and Mens Rea: Limitations on the Rco Doctrine, 46 Am. U.L. Rev (1996), p.543.
13 参见 Francis Bowes Sayre, Mens Rea, 45 Harv. L. Rev. 974 (1932), p.981.
14 Glanville Williams, Criminal law: The General Part. 2d. Stevens & Sons, Ltd (1961), p.30.
15 参见 Tidow, der schuldbegriff im englischen und nordamerikaischen strafrecht 60 (1952)。转引自Mihajlo M. Alimovic, Conceptions of culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI (1965), p.36.
16 参见 Huaiming Wang, Chinese and Amercian Criminal Law: Some Comparison, the Journal of Criminal law, Criminology and Police Science,Vol.46, No.6 (1956), p.815.
17 参见 Schwartz, the American Penal System: Sprit and Technique, Annals 1 (1962), p. 339.
18 Mihajlo M. Alimovic, Conceptions of culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI (1965), p.37.
19 Farnsworth, an Introduction to the Legal System of the United States. 3rd.Ed. New York: Oceana (1996), p.164.
20 [美]阿瑟?库恩,陈朝壁译著:《英美法原理》,法律出版社 2002 年 12 月版,第 103 页。
21 Herbert L. Packer, Mens Rea and Super Court, the Supreme Court review, Vol (1962), p. 134.
23 Dennis v. United States, 341, U.S.494.500 (1951),转引自 Bickel and Wellington, the legislative propose and judicial process, 71. Har. L. Rev (1957), p.1.
24 Morissette v. United States, 342, U.S. 246 (1952), 转引自 Hart, The time chart of the justices, 73. Har. L.Rev (1959), p.85.
25 有学者认为行为本身是无色的,是犯意区分了无辜与有罪,参见 Edwin R. Keedy, Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law, 22 Harv. L. Rev (1908), p.76.
26 参见 Miguel, Angelmendez, A Sisyphean Task: The Common Law Approach to Mens Rea, 28 U.C. Davis L. Rev (1995),p. 407.
27 参见 W. LaFave& A. Scott, Criminal Law, West Publishing Co., (1972) , p.6.以及 Model Penal Code § 2.02 (Official Draft 1962),
29 参见李洁 李立丰:《美国刑法中主观罪过表现形式初探》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》 2005 年第1 期(总第 129 期),第 99 页。
30 郑祝君:《英美法时代性背景下的制度变迁》,载《法商研究》2002 年第 2 期,第 136 页。
31 [美]波尔?H?罗宾逊著,何秉松 王桂萍译:《美国刑法的结构概要》(下),载《政法论坛》(中国政法大学学报) 第 23 卷第 3 期,第 98 页。
32 关于刑法学家将犯罪分为主观要素和客观要素可能导致极其不符合逻辑的争论,见 H.L.A.哈特:《过失、犯意与刑事责任》,载《惩罚与犯罪》,第 136 页。转引自[美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年第一版,第 185 页。
33 参见埃德蒙?格蒂尔撰写的“被证明真实相信就是明知吗?”,载《分析》1963 年第 23 期,第121 页。转引自[美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国人民公安大学出版社2004 年第一版,第 192 页。
34 [美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年第一版,第 185 页。
35 Norman J. Finke, When Mistakes Happen: Commonsense Rules of Culpability March, 3 Psych. Pub. Pol. and L (1997), p. 65.
36 Claire Finkelstein, The Inefficiency of Mens Rea, 88 Calif. L. Rev (2000), p.895.
37 Sanford H. Kadish, The Decline of Innocence in Blame and Punishment, Essays in the Criminal law 65 (1987),p. 77.
38 在学习和研究美国法时,人们常常喜欢使用“英美法系”一词,好像美国法和英国法的关系总是非常密切。许多美国律师也似乎倾向于认为美国私法的古老的英国根基是他们作为职业律师的尊严的一个主要因素。但是,美国法律并不像我们甚至一些美国人所认为的那样具有英国性。人们所认为的美国法和英国法的一体性掩盖了许多东西,正如它所揭示的那么多。参见秦前红 刘新英:《美国民事诉讼法的宪法渊源及其成因与启示》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》2001 年第 6 期(总第 110 期),第 134 页。
39 Stephen J. Morse, the Twenty-Second Annual National Student Federalist Society Symposium on Law and Public Policy--2003: Inevitable Mens Rea, 27 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y (2003),p.51.
40 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 84 页。
41 Claire Finkelstein, The Inefficiency of Mens Rea, 88 Calif. L. Rev (2000), p.898.
42 参见 Adam Candeub, Consciousness & Culpability,54 Ala. L. Rev (2002), p.123.
43 John D. Greenwood, Introduction to the Future of the Folk Psychology, Cambridge University Press (1991), p.325.
44 Ronald J. Allen, Common Sense, Rationality, and the Legal Process, 22 Cardozo L. Rev (2001), p. 1419.
45 Andrew E. Lelling, Comment: Eliminative Materialism, Neuroscience & the Criminal Law, 141 U. Pa. L. Rev (1993), p. 1471.
46 参见 M. Varn Chandola, and Anoop Chandola, A Cognitive Framework for Mens Rea and Actus Reas: The Application of Contactics Theory to Criminal Law, 35 Tulsa L.J. winter (2000),p. 383.
47 参见 Francis Bowes Sayer, Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol.45, No. 6 (1932), p.994.
48 参见 Stanislaw Frankowski, Mens Rea and Punishment in England: In Search of Interdependence of the Two Basic Components of Criminal Liability (A Historical Perspective), 63 U. Det. L. Rev (1986), p.393.
49 有些学者并不认同刑法起源于严格责任。如有学者就认为早期英国法要求责任建立在某些犯意要素的基础之上,参见 Percy H. Winfield, the Myth of Absolute Liability, 42 Law Q. Rev (1926), p. 37.
50 Eugene J. Chesney, The Concept of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 29, No.5 (1939),p.627.
51 参见 Sanford Kadish,the Decline of Innocence, 26 Cambridge L.J (1968), p.273.
52 当然情况并不全是如此,某些严格责任犯罪就不需要犯意的证据。参见 W. LaFave& A. Scott, Criminal Law, West Publishing Co., (1972),
53 Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983), p. 681.
54 Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the criminal law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 68. No. 8(1968),p.1425.
55 参见 Sanford H. Kadish, the Model Penal Code's Historical Antecedents, 19 Rutgers. L.J (1988),p. 521.
56 参见 MPC § 2.02(2) (1985),
57 Dane S. Ciolino, The Mental Element of Louisiana Crimes: It Doesn’t Matter What You Think, 70 Tul. L. Rev., March (1996),p. 855.
58 Dannye Holley , The Influence of the Model Penal Code’s Culpability Provision’s on State Legislatures: A Study of Lost Opportunities, Including abolishing the Mistake of fact Doctrine, 27 Sw. U. L. Rev (1993),p.229.
59 Paul H. Robinson& Michael T. Cahill, the Accelerating Degradation of American Criminal Codes, 56 Hastings L.J (2005),p.633.
60 [德]伯恩哈德.格罗斯菲尔德著,孙世彦 姚建宗译:《比较法的力量与弱点》,清华大学出版社 2003年 10 月第一版,第 135 页。
61 血腥复仇被定义为对于杀死自己家人的凶手或其亲属实施杀害的复仇,见 Black’s Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co, (5th ed. 1979),p. 157.
62 Francis Bowes Sayer, Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol.45, No. 6 (1932),p.986.
63 Herbert L. Packer, Mens Rea and Super court, the Supreme Court Review (1962),p.107.
64 George P. Fletcher, Law, Truth, and Interpretation: A Symposium on Dennis Patterson's Law and Truth: Article: What Law Is Like, 50 SMU L. Rev (1997), p. 1599.
65 George P. Fletcher, the Fall and Rise of Criminal Theory, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p. 275.
66 本条未标明注释部分的内容主要参考 Markus Dirk Dubber, The Historical Analysis of Criminal Codes,18 Law & Hist. Rev (2000),p. 433.
67 William Hawkins, A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown (1716, 1721),转引自 David J. Seipp, the Distinction between Crime and Tort in the Early Common Law, 76 B.U. L. Rev (1996),p. 59.
68 参见 Gerhard O.W. Mueller, Crime, Law and the Scholars, Heinemann Educational (1969), p.163.
69 Richard A. Posner, the Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline: 1962-1987, 100 Harv. L. Rev (1987),p. 761.
70 参见 Richard Wasserstrom, Strict Liability in the Criminal Law, 12 Stan. L. Rev (1960),p. 731.
71 George P. Fletcher, the fall and Rise of Criminal Theory, 1 Buff. Crim. L. Rev (1998),p. 276.
72 同上。
73 Susan Estrich, Rape, 95 Yale L.J (1986),p. 1087.
74 George P. Fletcher, the fall and Rise of Criminal Theory, 1 Buff. Crim. L. Rev (1998),p. 277.
75 Dan M. Kahan, The Theory of Value Dilemma: A Critique of the Economic Analysis of Criminal Law, 1 Ohio St. J. Crim. L (2004),p. 643.
76 Ronald L. Gainer, Federal Criminal Code Reform: Past and Future, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p. 45.
77 参见 Markus Dirk Dubber, The Historical Analysis of Criminal Codes ,18 Law & Hist. Rev (2000), p.433.
78 参见 Paul H. Robinson, A Functional Analysis of Criminal Law, 88 Nw. U.L. Rev (1994), p. 857.
79 Paul H. Robinson, Rules of Conduct and Principles of Adjudication, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev. 729 (1990),
80 模范刑法典的 1.02(1)。超过三分之二的美国的州对其加以效仿。参见 Status of Substantive Penal Law Revision: Annual Report, 60 A.L.I. Proc (1983),pp. 560-63.
81 Douglas Hay, Property, Authority and the Criminal Law, in Douglas Hay et al., Albion's Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England, Penguin Books Ltd (1975),p. 17.
82 Adekemi Odujirin, The Normative Basis of Fault in Criminal Law: History and Theory, University of Toronto Press (1998), p. 74.
83 Markus Dirk Dubber, The Historical Analysis of Criminal Codes, 18 Law & Hist. Rev (2000), p. 433.
84 参见 Paul H. Robinson, Michael T. Cahill, and Usman Mohammad, the Five Worst (And Five Best) American Criminal Codes, 95 Nw. U.L. Rev (2000),p.1.
85 参见 Model Penal Code 2.12(2) (1962),
86 参见 Paul H. Robinson, Rules of Conduct and Principles of Adjudication, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev (1990),p. 729.
87 Robert H. Gault; James W. Garner; Edwin R. Keedy; John H. Wigmore, The Progress of Penal Law in the United States of America, Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 15, No.2 (1924),p. 1874.
88 参见 Paul H. Robinson and John M. Darley, The Utility of Desert, 91 Nw. U.L. Rev (1997),p. 453.
89 参见 Michael S. Moore, Prima Facie Moral Culpability, 76 B.U. L. Rev (1996), p.319. 在他看来,佛莱彻区分了错误行为和规因(accountability),并且提出可责性(culpability) 和归责(attribution)的不同是被限制在对于错误行为的责任基础上的。因此,如果对其需要负责的行为实质上正当行为的话,行为人就不是可责的。
90 Michael S. Moore, the Independent Moral Significance of Wrongdoing, 5 J. Contemp. Legal Issues (1994), p. 237.
91 参见 Gerald Leonard, Towards a Legal History of American Criminal Theory: Culture and Doctrine from Blackstone to the Model Penal Code, 6 Buff. Crim. L. R (2003),p. 691.
92 参见 Paul H. Robinson and John M. Darley Winter, The Untility of Dessert, 91 Nw. U.L. Rev (1997),p. 453.
93 Paul H. Robinson and John M. Darley, The Utility of Desert, 91 Nw. U.L. Rev (1997),p. 453.
94 参见 Guyora Binder, Punishment Theory: Moral or Political, 5 Buff. Crim. L. Rev (2002),p. 321.
95 Dan M. Kahan Binder & Smith, The Theory of Value Dilemma: A Critique of the Economic Analysis of Criminal Law, Ohio St. J. Crim. L (2004),p. 64.
96 参见 Richard G. Singer, The Resurgence of Mens Rea: I--Provocation, Emotional Disturbance, and the Model Penal Code, 27 B.C. L. Rev (1986),p.243.
97 Francis B. Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 Colum. L. Rev (1933),p.55.
98 Stephanos Bibas, Judicial Fact-Finding and Sentence-Enhancements in a World of Guilty Pleas, 110 Yale L.J (2001),p.1097.
99 George Soros Busted: Why the Markets Can't Fix Themselves, New Republic ( 2002),p.18.
100 H.L.A. Hart, Legal Responsibility and Excuses, in Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press (1968),p.28.
101 Jeffrey S. Parker, The Economic of Mens Rea, 79 Va. L. Rev (1993),p. 741.
102 David Friedman, An Economic Explanation of Punitive Damages, 40 Ala. L. Rev (1989), p.1125.
103 Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of The Criminal Law, Oct, 85 Colum. L. Re (1985),p.1193.
104 参见 Dan M. Kahan, The Theory of Value Dilemma: A Critique of the Economic Analysis of Criminal Law, 1 Ohio St. J. Crim. L (2004), p.643.
106 参见 W. LaFave& A. Scott, Criminal Law, West Publishing Co., (1972), p.12.
107 参见 Jay Sigler, A History of Double Jeopardy, 7 Am. J. Leg. Hist (1963), p.283. 对于第二点,基本上是在罪数问题当中讨论的。这里不作涉及。相关内容参考 Frank Horack, Jr., The Multiple Consequences of a Single Criminal Act, 21 Minn. L. Rev (1937),p. 805.
112 Model Penal Code (1962), 其规定了四种非自愿行为的适例:(a) 反射(a reflex or convulsion); (b)在无意识或者睡眠当中的身体运动;(c) 在催眠或者催眠的诱导情况下出现的行为;(d) 不是行为人的决定或者努力产物的身体运动,其或者是习惯性的,或者是无意识的。 尽管模范刑法典对这些例子的解释所强调的是在行为人控制范围之内的行为,但与其相关的辅助性介绍很少,并且十分模糊。参见 Deborah W. Denno December, Crime and Consciousness: Science and Involuntary Acts, 87 Minn. L. Rev (2002), p.269.
114 George P. Fletcher, Dogmas of the Model Penal Code, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p.3.
115 Rollin M. Perkins, A rationale of Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 52. No.6 (1939),p. 905.
116 Daniel L. Rotenberg, An Essay on Criminal Liability for Dutyless Omissions that Cause Results, 62 Brooklyn L. Rev (1996), p.1159.
117 Kevin W. Saunders, Voluntary Acts and the Criminal Law: Justifying Culpability Based on The Existences of Volition, 49 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 443(1988).
118 Nancy J. King and Susan R. Klein May, Essential Elements,54 Vand. L. Rev (2001),p.1467.
119 Paul H. Robinson, A Functional Analysis of Criminal Law, Spring, 88 Nw. U.L. Rev (1994),p. 857.
120 Patient, Some Remarks about the Element of Voluntariness in Offenses of Absolute Liability, Crimial L. Rev (1968), p.23.
121 Fox, Physical Disorder, Consciousness, and Criminal Liability, 63 Colum,L. Rev (1963),p. 645.
122 事实上这样的说法是不准确,起码是不完整的。但为了叙述的方便,这里不做详述。
123 J. Hall, General Principle of Criminal Law, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, (1960),p. 449.
124 Kevin W. Saunders, Voluntary Acts and the Criminal Law: Justifying Culpability Based on The Existences of Volition, winter, 49 U. Pitt. L. Rev (1988), p.443.
126 Rollin M. Perkins, A rationale of Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 52. No.6 (1939),p.905.
127 Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law 2122d ed (1986),转引自 Martin R. Gardner , The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present,1993 Utah L. Rev (1993),p.635.
128 Frank J. Remington & Orrin L. Helstad, the Mental Element in Crime-A Legislative Problem, Wis. L. Rev (1952), p.644.
129 Martin R. Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present,1993 Utah L. Rev (1993),p.635.
130 Gary V. Dubin, Mens Rea Reconsidered: A Plea for a Due Process Concept of Criminal Responsibility, 18 Stan. L. Rev (1966), p.322.
131 参见 Rollin M. Perkins, A Rationale of Mens Rea, 52 Harv. L. Rev (1939), p.905.
132 Sayre, the Present Signification of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law, Harvard Legal Essays (1934), p. 399.
133 Remington and Helstad, The Mental Element in Crime-A Legislative Problem, Wis. L. Rev (1952), p. 644..
134 Brown v. State, 23.Del. 159。转引自 Cynthia H. Finn, the Responsible Corporate Officer, Criminal Liability, and Mens Rea: Limitations on the Rco Doctrine, 46 Am. U.L. Rev (1996), p. 543.
135 [美]波尔?H?罗宾逊著,何秉松 王桂萍译:《美国刑法的结构概要》(下),载《政法论坛》(中国政法大学学报) 第 23 卷第 3 期,第 98 页以下。
136 马庆林:《法律语言学 法律语言——兼谈法律英语的特点》,载《西安外国语学院学报》2003 年9 月第 11 卷第 3 期,第 12 页。
137 参见 Daniel E. Hall, Criminal law and procedure, Thomson Delmar Learning; 4 edition (2003), p.35.
138 Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster (1998), p.1366.
139 Margaret J. Radin, Reconsidering the Rule of Law, 69 B.U. L. Rev (1989),p. 781.
141 Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p.803.
143 Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p.803.
144 Jeremy Waldron, Void for Vagueness: Vagueness in Law and Language: Some Philosophical Issues, 82 Calif. L. Rev (1994), p.509.
145 R. Dickerson, the Fundamentals of Legal, 39 (1986),转引自 Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p.803.
146 Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926),
148 John Calvin Jeffries, Jr. Legality, Vagueness, and the Construction of Penal Statutes,71 Va. L. Rev (1985),p.189.
149 参见 Packer, Mens Rea and the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Rev (1962),p.137.
150 参见 Mihajlo M. Alimovic, Conceptions of culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI (1965), p. 37.
151 参见[美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年第一版,第 195-197 页。
152 芦光 张亚玲:《英美刑法中的道德痕迹》,载《河南公安高等专科学校学报》2003 年 8 月第 4 期(总第 71 期),第 15 页。
153 储怀植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 2005 年 2 月第三版,第 4 页。
154 John Robinson, Crime, Culpability, and Excuses, 10 ND J. L. Ethics & Pub Pol'y (1996),p.1.
155 Peter Arenella, Convicting the Morally Blameless: Reassessing the Relationship Between Legal and Moral Accountability, 39 UCLA L. Rev. June (1991), p. 1511.
156 参见 Toni M. Massaro, Shame, Culture, and American Criminal Law Length, 89 Mich. L. Rev (1991), p.1880.
157 参见 N. Lacey, State Punishment, Political principles and Community Values, Routledge (1988), p. 146.
158 Arenella, Character, Choice, and Moral Agency: The Relevance of Character to Our Moral Culpability Judgments, 7 Soc. Phil. & Pol’ y 59 (1990), p.60.
159 Dressler, Reflections on Excusing Wrongdoers: Moral Theory, New Excuses, and the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J (1988), p. 671.
160 李 洁 李立丰:《美国刑法中主观罪过表现形式初探》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》 2005 年第 1 期(总第 129 期),第 99 页。
161 Richard G. Singer, John Q. La Fond, Criminal law: Examples and Explanations 6th Edition, Aspen Publishing, Ing (1995), p.53.
162 Eugene J. Chesney, The Concept of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 29, No.5 (1939),p. 627.
163 Steven L. Emanuel, Criminal Law, 中信出版社 2003 年版,p.26.
164 参见 Winfield, the Myth of Absolute Liability,42 L.Q.Rev (1926),p.37.
165 丁启明 李韧夫:《英美刑法犯罪心理若干问题论》,载《大庆高等专科学校学报》 2003 年 7 月第 3 期,第 1 页。
166 Jerome Hall, General principle of criminal law, Indianapolis the Boss-Merrill company publishers, (1947), p.142.
167 Elaine M. Chiu, The Challenge of Motive in the Criminal Law, 8 Buff. Crim. L. R (2005), p.653.
168 韦恩?拉法夫、奥斯汀?斯科特:《刑法》,第 204 页。转引自[美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 1 月第二版。
169 [美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 1 月第二版,第 228 页。
170 Jerome Hall, General principle of criminal law, Indianapolis the Boss-Merrill company publishers (1947), p.142.
171 Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part, Stevens & Sons; 2r.e. edition (1961), p.48.
172 Hitchler, Motive as an Essential Element of Crime, 35. Dick. L. Rev (1931), p. 105.
173 Jerome Hall, General principle of criminal law, Indianapolis the Boss-Merrill company publishers (1947),p.152.
174 Antony Duff, Principle and Contradiction in the Criminal Law: Motives and Criminal Liability, in Philosophy and the Criminal Law。转引自 Elaine M. Chiu, The Challenge of Motive in the Criminal Law, 8 Buff. Crim. L. R (2005), p.653.
175 Christine Sistare, Agent Motives and the Criminal Law, 13 Soc. Theory & Prac (1987), p.303.
176 [美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 1 月第二版,第 233 页。
177 Tracey L. Meares, It's a Question of Connections, 31 Val. U. L. Rev (1997), p. 579.
178 Jerome Hall, General principle of criminal law, Indianapolis the Boss-Merrill company publishers (1947), p.144.
179 Elaine M. Chiu, The Challenge of Motive in the Criminal Law, 8 Buff. Crim. L. R (2005), p.65.
180 Jerome Hall, General principle of criminal law, Indianapolis the Boss-Merrill company publishers (1947),p.160.
181 Thomas J. Gardner, Criminal law: Principles and cases, Wadsworth Publishing; 6 edition (2006), p.42.
182 George K. Gardner, Bailey v. Richardson and the Constitution of the United States, 33 B.U. L. Rev (1953),p. 176,
183 Henry M. Hart, Jr., The Aims of the Criminal Law, 23 Law & Contemp. Probs (1958),p. 401.
184 [美]胡萨克著,谢望原等译,刑法哲学,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 1 月第二版,第 226 页。
185 Martin R. Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present, Utah L. Rev (1993),p.635.
186 William E. Shipley, Annotation,Mistake or Lack of Information as to Victim's Age as Defense to Statutory Rape, 8 A.L.R.3d (1966),p.1100.
187 Cook, Act, intention and motive in the criminal law,26 Yale L.J (1917),p.645.
188 Tanya K. Hernandez, Note, Bias Crimes: Unconscious Racism in the Prosecution of "Racially Motivated Violence," 99 Yale L.J (1990),p. 845.
189 [美]乔治?P?佛莱彻著,蔡爱惠 陈巧燕 江溯 译:《刑法的基本概念》,中国政法大学出版社 2004年 8 月第一版,第 150 页。
190 Martin R. Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present,Utah L. Rev (1993),p.635.
191 John Quigley, The Common Law's Theory of Criminal Liability: a Challenge from across the Atlantic, 11 Whittier L. Rev (1989), p.479.
192 Francis B. Sayre, Criminal Attempts, 41 Harv. L. Rev (1928), p.834.
193 Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983), p.681.
194 Francis Bowes Sayer, Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol.45, No. 6 (1932),p,997.
195 参见 Martin R. Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present 1993 Utah Law Review Society, Utah L. Rev (1993),p.635.
196 Elaine M. Chiu, The Challenge of Motive in the Criminal Law, 8 Buff. Crim. L. R (2005), p.653.
197 Stephen, General View of the Criminal Law of England, p.71.转引自 Walter Wheeler Cook, ct, Intention, and Motive in Criminal law, The Yale Law Journal, Vol.26, No.8 (1917), p. 645.
198 [美]胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 1 月第二版,第 220 页。
199 [美]胡萨克著,谢望原等译,《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 1 月第二版。第 58 页。
200 Daniel E. Hall, Criminal law and procedure, Thomson Delmar Learning; 4 edition (2003),p.43.
201 Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, LexisNexis; 4 edition (2006),p.109.
202 St Steven L. Emanuel, Criminal Law, 中信出版社 2003 年版,p.13.
203 Donald A. Dripps, The Constitutional Status of the Reasonable Doubt Rule, 75 Cal. L. Rev (1987), p.1674.
204 Martin R. Gardner , The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present,1993 Utah L. Rev (1993),p.635.
205 Daniel E. Hall, Criminal law and procedure, Thomson Delmar Learning; 4 edition (2003), p.334.
206 Guido Calabresi, A Common Law for the Age of Statutes 38 (1982),转引自 Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev (2005),p.949.
207 参见 William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Philip P. Frickey, Cases and Materials on Legislation: Statutes and the Creation of Public Policy (1988),p569.
208 Patricia M. Wald, The Sizzling Sleeper: The Use of Legislative History in Construing Statutes in the 1988-89 Term of the United States Supreme Court, 39 Am. U.L. Rev (1990),p. 277.
209 参见 Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica: Treatise on Man, in 19 Great Books of the Western World 463-64 (R. M. Hutchins ed., 1952), 转引自 Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev (2005),p.949.
210 参见 St. Thomas Aquinas, On Law and Justice: Excerpts from Summa Theologica 1022-23 (Leslie Adams, Jr. ed., 1988), 转引自 Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev (2005)p. 949.
211 Jeremy Bentham, A General View of a Complete Code of Laws, in 3 Works of Jeremy Bentham 191 (John Bowring ed., 1843), 转引自 Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev (2005),p.949.
212 Thomas A. Mauet, Trial Techniques, Aspen Publishers; 6th edition (2002),p.486.
213 Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev (2005),p.949.
214 Richard T. Bowser, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Court and the Law, 19 Campbell L. Rev (1997), p.212.
215 Michael S. Moore, Philosophy of Language and Legal Interpretation: Article: A Natural Law Theory of Interpretation, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev (1985), p. 279.
216 Cass R. Sunstein, Interpreting Statutes in the Regulatory State, 103 Harv L. Rev (1989),p.405.
217 Henry P. Monaghan, Our Perfect Constitution, 56 NYU L Rev (1981), p.335.
218 David A. Strauss Summer, Common Law Constitutional Interpretation 63 U. Chi. L. Rev (1996),p.877.
219 参见本文第一章第二节。
220 这样的观点概括来说就是认为社会科学使用的是不同于自然科学的类型化概念,参见 Cover, The Supreme Court, 1982 Term -- Foreword: Nomos and Narrative, 97 HARV. L. REV (1983),p.4.
221 Levinson, Law as Literature, 60 TEX. L. REV (1982),p. 373.
222 David A. Strauss,Common Law Constitutional Interpretation 63 U. Chi. L. Rev (1996),p. 877.
223 Williams,More on the Paradigm Case Argument, 39 Austl. J. Phil (1961),p. 276.
224 Michael S. Moore, Philosophy of Language and Legal Interpretation: Article: A Natural Law Theory of Interpretation, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev. January (1985),p. 279.
225 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 156 页。
226 Michael S. Moore, Philosophy of Language and Legal Interpretation: Article: A Natural Law Theory of Interpretation,, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev (1985),p. 279.
227 引同上。
228 参见 Lori L. Outzs, A Principled Use of Congressional Floor Speeches in Statutory Interpretation, 28 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs (1995), p.279.
230 如在 Blanchard v. Bergeron 案中, 489 U.S. 87, 91, 95 (1989),在法官意见的第一部分,法院就使用一个参议院委员会的报告来认定争议的问题,并且在后面使用参众两院的报告来对于国会的意图加以明确。转引自 Lori L. Outzs, A Principled Use of Congressional Floor Speeches in Statutory Interpretation, 28 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs (1995), p.297.
231 Note, A Re-evaluation of the Use of Legislative History in the Federal Courts, 52 Colum. L. Rev (1952), p.125.
232 参见 George A. Costello, Average Voting Members and Other "Benign Fictions": The Relative Reliability of Committee Reports, Floor Debates, and Other Sources of Legislative History, Duke L.J (1990), p.39.
233 Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev (2005),p.949.
234 参见 Schauer, An Essay on Constitutional Language, 29 Ucla, L. Rev (1982), p.797.
235 United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U.S. 398, 403 (1999),
236 Darrlk. Brown, The Jury’s Role In Administering Justice in the United States: Judicial instructions, Defendant Culpability, and Jury Interpretation of Law, Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 21 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev (2002), p.25.
237 参见 George P. Fletcher, the fall and Rise of Criminal Theory, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998), p.275.
238 限于篇幅,这里对于美国刑事陪审团的简介仅仅涉及其对于法律和事实判断相关的部分,而对于其他的方面并没有太过涉及。另,对于美国陪审团的介绍,除明确标明出处的部分,主要参考Albert W. Alschuler and Andrew G. Deiss, A Brief History of the Criminal Jury in the United States. 61 U. Chi. L. Rev (1994),p. 867.
239 U.S. Const. amend. VI.
240 Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 156 (1980),转引自 Kimberly A. Mottley, David Abrami, and Darryl K. Brown, The Jury’s Role in Administering Justice in The United States: A Over View of the American Criminal Jury , 21 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev (2002), p.99.
241 Leonard W. Levy, Bill of Rights, in Leonard W. Levy, ed, Essays on the Making of the Constitution 258, 269 (Oxford, 2d ed 1987), 转引自 Albert W. Alschuler and Andrew G. Deiss, A Brief History of the Criminal Jury in the United States. 61 U. Chi. L. Rev (1994), p. 867.
242 Richard Solari, National Judicial Reporting Program, US Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, (1992),
243 Patrick A. Langan and John M. Dawson, Felony Sentences in State Courts, 1988, 参见 US Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, (1990)
244 US Const, Art III, § 2.
245 US Const, Amend VI.
246 John H. Langbein, On the Myth of Written Constitutions: The Disappearance of Criminal Jury Trial, 15 Harv J L & Pub Pol (1992),
247 Patton v United States, 281 US 276, 298-99 (1930),
248 John C. B. Davis, The Massachusetts Justice: A Treatise upon the Powers and Duties of Justices of the Peace,Warren Lazell (1847),p.119.
249 New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, 1990 Crime and Justice Annual Report 162,参见 Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistical Services, (1991),
250 Brady v United States, 397 US 742, 753 (1970),
251 Albert W. Alschuler, Plea Bargaining and Its History, 79 Colum L Rev (1979), p.1.
252 Harold M. Hyman and Catherine M. Tarrant, Aspects of American Trial Jury History, in Rita James Simon, ed, The Jury System in America: A Critical Overview,Sage Publications(1975),p.21.
253 Bruce Buursma, LA Child Abuse Case Ends in Acquittals, Chi Trib C1 (1990),
254 James B. Thayer, "Law and Fact" in Jury Trials, 4 Harv L Rev (1890),p.147.
255 John M. Murrin, Magistrates, Sinners, and a Precarious Liberty: Trial by Jury in Seventeenth-Century New England, in David D. Hall, John M. Murrin, and Thad W. Tate, eds, Saints and Revolutionaries: Essays on Early American History 152 (Norton, 1984),转引自 Albert W. Alschuler and Andrew G. Deiss, A Brief History of the Criminal Jury in the United States. 61 U. Chi. L. Rev (1994),p, 867.
256 参见 Richard E. Ellis, the Jeffersonian Crisis: Courts and Politics in the Young Republic, Oxford (1971), p. 115.
259 参见 L. Kinvin Wroth and Hiller B. Zobel, eds, 1 Legal Papers of John Adams xli, Belknap (1965), pp.48-89.
261 Ann Hopkins, Mens Rea and the Right to Trial by Jury, 76 Calif. L. Rev (MarchA1988), p. 391.
262 156 US 51 (1895),
264 参见 Mortimer R. Kadish and Sanford H. Kadish, Discretion to Disobey: A Study of Lawful Departures from Legal Rules,Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press (1973),p.50.
265 William E. Nelson, Americanization of the Common Law: The Impact of Legal Change on Massachusetts Society, Harvard Press (1975),p. 1760.
266 参见 Michael S. Moore, Philosophy of Language and Legal Interpretation: Article: A Natural Law Theory of Interpretation, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev (1985),p. 279
267 Cohen, Field Theory and Judicial Logic, 59 YALE L.J (1950),p. 238.
268 Fuller, Positivism and Fidelity to Law -- A Reply to Professor Hart, 71 HARV. L. REV. 630 (1958), 转引自 Williams, Language and the Law (pt.V), 62 LAW Q. REV (1946),p. 387.
270 Green v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 490 U.S. 504, 528 (1989)
271 William N. Eskridge,Jr., Dynamic Statutory Interpretation, 135 U. Pa. L. Rev (1987),p. 1479.
272 Richard T. Bowser, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law, 19 Campbell L. Rev (1997),p.209.
273 文本主义在这里被定义为使用不同的工具,包括字典定义以及解释规则,来试图对于包括在成文法当中的单字或者术语赋予被其认定是客观的意义。引自 Lori L. Outzs, A Principled Use of Congressional Floor Speeches in Statutory Interpretation, 28 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs (1995),p.297.
274 参见 Arthur W. Murphy, Old Maxims Never Die: The "Plain-Meaning Rule" and Statutory Interpretation in the "Modern" Federal Courts, 75 Colum. L. Rev (1975),p. 1299.
275 Richard T. Bowser, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law, 19 Campbell L. Rev (1997),p. 209.
276 K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 325 (1988),
277 Richard A. Posner, The Federal Courts: Crisis and Reform 286-87 (1985),转引自 Richard T. Bowser, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law, 19 Campbell L. Rev (1997),p.209.
278 参见 Paul Campos, That Obscure Object of Desire: Hermeneutics and the Autonomous Legal Text, 77 Minn. L. Rev (1993),p. 1065.
279 Ronald Dworkin, How to Read the Civil Rights Act, N.Y. Review, Dec. 20, (1979),pp. 38-39.
280 参见 Reed Dickerson, Statutory Interpretation: A Peek into the Mind and Will of a Legislature, 50 Ind. L.J (1975),p.208.
281 Stephen Breyer,On the Uses of Legislative History in Interpreting Statutes, 65 S. Cal. L. Rev (1992),p 845.
282 Lori L. Outzs, A Principled Use of Congressional Floor Speeches in Statutory Interpretation, 28 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. (1995),p. 297. 根据该学者的调查,在这五十三起案件的十八起当中,法院参照了立法历史来帮助其对于成文法的解读。
283 参见 Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev (2005),p. 949.
284 Jorge L. Carro & Andrew W. Brann, The U.S. Supreme Court and the Use of Legislative Histories: A Statistical Analysis, 22 Jurimetrics J (1982), p.294.
285 Kenneth A. Shepsle, Congress is a "They," Not an "It": Legislative Intent as Oxymoron, 12 Int'l Rev. L. & Econ (1992),p.239.
286 参见 Orrin Hatch, Legislative History: Tool of Construction or Destruction, 11 Harv. J.l. & PUB. POL'Y (1988),p.43.
287 参见 Kenneth W. Starr, Observations about the Use of Legislative History, DUKE L.J (1987),p.371.
288 参见 Arthur W. Murphy, Old Maxims Never Die: The "Plain-Meaning Rule" and Statutory Interpretation in the "Modern" Federal Courts, 75 Colum. L. Rev (1975),p. 1299.
289 Posner, Legislation and Its Interpretation: A Primer, 68 NEB. L. REV (1989),p.431.
290 Peter J. Henning, Supreme Court Review: Foreword: Statutory in Interpretation And The Federalization of Criminal law, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1996),p.1167.
291 Richard G. Singer, Foreword to Symposium, the 25th Anniversary of the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J (1988),p.519.
293 George P. Fletcher, Dogmas of the Model Penal Code, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p.3.
294 参见 George P. Fletcher, the fall and Rise of Criminal Theory, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p.275.
295 参见 Charles McClain, Criminal Law Reform: Historical Development in the United States, in 2 Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice 501 (Sanford H. Kadish ed., 1983),转引自 Sanford H. Kadish, Fifty Years of Criminal Law: An Opinionated Review, 87 Calif. L. Rev (1999),p.943.
296 Sanford H. Kadish, Codifiers of Criminal Law: Wechsler's Predecessors, 78 Colum. L. Rev (1978),p. 1098.
297 Dale E. Bennett, the Louisiana Criminal Code: A Comparison with Prior Louisiana Criminal Law, 5 La. L. Rev (1942),p.6.
298 Herbert Wechsler, the Challenge of a Model Penal Code, 65 Harv. L. Rev (1952),p. 1097.
299 Herbert Wechsler & Jerome Michael, A Rationale of the Law of Homicide I, 37 Colum. L. Rev (1937),p. 701.
300 William E. Mikell, the Proposed Criminal Code of Pennsylvania, 71 U. Pa. L. Rev (1923),p.99.
301 参见 Sanford H. Kadish, Fifty Years of Criminal Law: An Opinionated Review, California Law Review July, Vol. 87 (1999), 根据该教授的观点,模范刑法典的成功绝非偶然,美国刑法学界将这些原因作以划分,认为很多原因都可以用来解释刑法典的成功。主要原因是模范刑法典本身十分具有说服力,而且体现了一种原则化的实用主义(principled pragmatism)。这也是其可以成为美国立法机构在二十世纪后半期立法模板的一个主要原因,次要原因是因为战后重建,乐观的公众意识,经济复苏,或许是因为种族冲突,反战浪潮分散了公众,立法以及媒体对于刑法典的注意力,福特基金会(Ford Foundation)对于刑法领域的资助,美国律师基金会(the American Bar Foundation)对于刑事司法的报告等。
302 Dannye Holley, The Influence of The Model Penal Code’s Culpability Provisions on State Legislatures: A study of Lost Opportunity, Including Abolishing the Mistake of Fact Doctrine, 27 Sw. U. L. Rev(1997),p. 229.
303 美国法学会(the American law institute),是于 1923 年由一些杰出的法官,律师以及法学教师所成的,是一个致力于完善以及明晰现行法律的永久性组织。在其成立之初,就十分关注实体刑法方面存在的问题。在对于这个问题的重述之后出现的第一个提案很快就发现了问题所在,作为研究对象的成文法过于庞杂,而这种庞杂仅仅通过重述这样的方式是不能有效解决的。很多人都认为应该寻求对于长期拖欠的对于法律改革的指引,而不是对于即存法律的描述或者肯定。因此,在 1931年提出了呼吁设定模范法典的第二个提案。然而,这样的一种努力需要十分细致的实证分析,而在经济大萧条的年代也耗费颇巨,故尽管得到罗斯福总统强有力的支持,仍然流产了。1950 年这种努力又重新得以开始。从与犯罪以及刑法的理解与实务相关的各个领域当中抽选出来的人员所组成的咨询委员会得以成立,1952 年开始了法典的设计以及起草工作。在随后的十年当中召开了很多次的咨询委员会议,每次大多持续三天左右的时间,在会议期间,基本的政策问题得以争论并加以解决。与会者提出各自的研究成果以及草案被提交上来被加以讨论和修改,所有这些争论的结果被集合成一个最终的版本。从 1953 年到 1962 年这十年期间总共讨论了 31 个草案。在会议讨论修改通过之后,整个材料加上相关的评论被按照一定的顺序送交法学会,后面附加了于 1961 年呈交上来的针对刑罚和改正措施的最终草案,形成了官方的 1962 年草案。法学会所进行的评价当中考虑了之前不同利益集团所提出的不同草案版本,在修正的过程中都充分考虑了这些观点的作用。并不是所有参与到这个复杂过程当中的人都对于这个法典当中的主要观点持赞成态度,更别说某些细节了。但可以比较肯定地认为还是达成了很大程度的共识的。但必须指出的是,在全国范围内达成刑法的统一并不是法学会的目的所在。因为一般认为不同州的环境以及观念的不同势必会在其刑事实体法当中反映出来。这种模式的提出无非是刺激以及帮助对于各自现在实行的法律进行系统的反思已确保其能够反应我们对于各自司法区的成熟的看法和观点,并且可以为其审视自身所面临的问题提供新的评价和解决办法。但,这并不是说美国法学会没有野心使得这部法律模板得到适用,起码是某种参照。应该承认,模范刑法典即使在没有总体上的修正的情况下,仍然在很多具体问题上仍能提供有利的联系。以上内容参见 Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the criminal law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 68. No. 8(Dec., 1968),美国法学会花费了十年来争论和起草一部模范刑法典。二十八个起草者和二十八位咨询委员起草了十八份在八次年会当中被用来争论的报告。二十年之后,七位报告人和二十八位咨询委员完成了六卷官方的评论。赫尔博特·维斯勒(Herbert Wechsler)是其主报告人;路易斯·舒瓦茨(Louis B. Schwartz)是副报告人。这项工作持续了五十年的时间,在法学同仁的致力之下,1962 年报告人提出了最终版本。法典做出了很多贡献。这样的一种伟大的起草努力又仅仅是在 1962 年模范刑法典被制定之后接近三分之二个州对于其刑法典重新规定的行动的起点。在每个这样的情形当中,一个委员会,或者众多立法委员会,或者二者,花费了大量的时间和经历来争论和修改 1962 的标准版本。例如,在加州,一个改革委员会于 1963 年开始用了六年的时间草拟出了三个公开的征求意见稿。参见 Arthur H. Sherry, Criminal Law Revision in California, 4 J.L. Reform (1971),p. 441.
304 Herbert L. Packer, the Model Penal Code and Beyond, 63 Colum. L. Rev (1963),p. 594.
305 参见 Ronald L. Gainer, Federal Criminal Code Reform: Past and Future, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p.4.
306 George P. Fletcher, Dogmas of the Model Penal Code: 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p.3.
307 参见 Michael T. Cahill et al., the Five Worst (and Five Best) American Criminal Codes, 95 Nw. U. L. Rev (2000),p. 3.
308 法典改革委员会于 1965 年创立,由此,联邦法典改革的改革就大面积展开。以模范刑法典作为主要的参照,一个规模庞大的委员会的成员提出并且讨论了一个研究版本和一个最后的联邦刑法典草案。 而这个提案催生了参议院相关委员会在接下来的六年当中的五十一次听证会,产生出了一个十八卷的超过一万页的材料。 在 1973 年, 参议员提出了 2 个议案,听证会的材料超过了 3000页,但是没有立法的行动。 在下一届国会当中还提出了另外的一个新的提案,但是围绕这个提案的争论没有使得起进入到表决阶段。 在进一步的修正和妥协之后,经过八天的议会辩论,参议员
通过了 1978 年的 criminal code reform bill 。 但是整个国会都没有采取行动。参见 Paul H. Robinson, Are Criminal Codes Irrelevant? November, 68 S. Cal. L. Rev (1994),p.159.
309 参见 Paul H. Robinson, Rules of Conduct and Principles of Adjudication, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev (1990),p. 729.
310 参见 Herbert L. Packer, the Model Penal Code and Beyond, 63 Column. L. Rev (1963),p.594.
311 Paul H. Robinson, A Brief History of Distinctions in Criminal Culpability, 31 HASTINGS L.J, (1980),p. 815.
312 参见 Markus Dirk Dubber, Penal Panopticon: The Idea of a Modern Model Penal Code, 4 Buff. Crim. L. R (2000),p.53.
313 Douglas Husak, Is the Criminal Law Important?, 1 Ohio St. J. Crim. L (2003),p.261.
314 Paul H. Robinson & Michael T. Cahill, the Accelerating Degradation of American Criminal Codes, Hastings Law Journal, March, 56 Hastings L.J.(2005),p.633.
315 George P. Fletcher, the fall and Rise of Criminal Theory, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p. 275.
316 Peter W. Low, the Model Penal Code, The Common Law, and Mistakes of Fact: Recklessness, Negligence, or Strict Liability? 19 Rutgers L.J (1988),p.539.
317 参见 Sanford H. Kadish, Fifty Years of Criminal Law: An Opinionated Review July, 87 Calif. L. Rev (1999),p.943.
318 Packer, the Model Penal Code and Beyond, 63 COLUM. L. REV (1963),p.549.
319 Robinson, A Brief History of Distinctions in Criminal Culpability, 31 HASTINGS L.J (1980),p. 815.
320 Martin R. Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present, Utah L. Rev (1993),p. 635.
321 Ronald L. Gainer, The Culpability Provisions of the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J (1988),p. 575.
322 Miguel Angel Mendez, A Sisyphean Task: The Common Law Approach to Mens Rea, U.C. Davis Law Review (1995),p.353.
323 George P. Fletcher, Mistake in the Model Penal Code: A False Problem, 19 Rutgers L.J (1988),p. 649.
324 国家的联邦刑法改革咨询委员会认定了当今法当中所使用的 78 种不同的术语。参见 Feinberg, Toward a New Approach to Proving Culpability: Mens Rea and the Proposed Federal Criminal Code, 18 AM. CRIM. L. REV (1980),p. 123.
325 起草者解释:仅仅需要四个概念来描述最低的要求并且设定通常所需要进行厘定的区分。模范刑法典对于犯意术语的经典表述在各具体州的规定并不是被一以贯之的,我们在各州刑法典当中所发现的是与模范刑法典不同的表述。例如爱德华州法典规定的是任意地(willfully ),过失(neglect ) ,道德败坏地 (corruptly ),恶意地(malice )和明知地 (knowingly );印地安娜州法典规定的是故意地(intentionally ),明知地(knowingly ),和轻率地(recklessly );堪萨斯州规定的是意欲地(willful ) 和任意(wanton);肯塔基州法典使用故意地(intentionally ),明知地(knowingly ), 任意地(wantonly )以及轻率地 (recklessly);洛杉矶州规定的是特定犯意(specific intent ),概括意图(general intent )和犯罪过失 (criminal negligence);明尼苏达州规定的是明知(know )和故意地(intentionally); 蒙大拿州规定的是轻率(recklessness ) 的对于危险的有意不顾为过失,而对于通常被称之为过失的具有可责性的疏忽大意不追究刑事责任;内华达州法典规定的是明知地(knowingly ),恶意地(maliciously)和过失地 (negligently); 北达克他州规定有意地(willfully);南达克他州规定恶意(malice),意图(intent ),了解 (knowledge),轻率(recklessness)和过失(neglect); 华盛顿州除了模范刑法典的区分之外,仍然保持了恶意(malice)和任意(willfulness)。参见 lexis 数据库中各州刑法文本。以及 Feinberg, Toward a New Approach to Proving Culpability: Mens Rea and the Proposed Federal Criminal Code, 18 AM. CRIM. L. REV (1980),p. 123.
326 Ronald L. Gainer, Federal Criminal Code Reform: Past and Future, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p. 45.
327 参见 Martin R. Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present, Utah L. Rev (1993),p. 635..
328 Peter W. Low, the Model Penal Code, The Common Law, and Mistakes of Fact: Recklessness, Negligence, or Strict Liability? 19 Rutgers L.J (1988),p. 544.
329 Paul H. Robinson and Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983), p. 681.
330 参见 Dannye Holley, The Influence of the Model Penal Code’s Culpability Provision’s on State Legislatures: A Study of Lost Opportunities, Including abolishing the Mistake of fact Doctrine, Sw. U. L. Rev (1993),p. 229.
331 参见 Markus Dirk Dubber, the Historical Analysis of Criminal Codes, 18 Law & Hist. Rev(2000),p.433.
332 Sanford H. Kadish, "Codifiers of the Criminal Law: Wechsler's Predecessors," Columbia Law Review (1978),p. 78
333 参见 Richard G. Singer, The Resurgence of Mens Rea: I--Provocation, Emotional Disturbance, andthe Model Penal Code, 27 B.C. L. Rev (1986),p.243.
334 Martin R. Gardner, the Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Presen, Utah L. Rev (1993),p. 635.
335 Richard G. Singer and John Q. Lafond 著,王秀梅等注:criminal law, 2nd.,中国方正出版社 2003年 9 月影印第一版,第 67 页。
336 参见 Paul H. Robinson, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond April, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983),p. 681.
338 参见 Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Mattew Bender, Matthew Bender & Co; 2nd edition (June 1995), p.111.
341 Model Penal Code § 2.05 (Proposed Official Draft 1962),
344 参见 Paul H. Robinson, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond April, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983),p. 681.
345 参见 Ronald L. Gainer, The Culpability Provisions of the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J (1988), p. 575.
347 Sanford H. Kadish, Fifty Years of Criminal Law: An Opinionated Review, 87 Cal. L. Rev (1999),p. 943.
348 参见 Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 STAN. L. REV (1983),p. 681.
349 参见 Paul H. Robinson, A Brief History of Distinctions in Criminal Culpability, 31 HASTINGS L.J (1980),p. 815.
350 刘仁文老师主持翻译的美国刑法典将 purpose 翻译为蓄意,论者认为直译为意图较为合适。具体原因见后。
351 Paul H. Robinson & Jane Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983),p. 681.
352 Mark Kelman, Interpretive Construction in the Substantive Criminal Law, 33 Stan. L. Rev (1981),p. 591.
353 Sanford H. Kadish, Fifty Years of Criminal Law: An Opinionated Review, 87 Calif. L. Rev. (1999),p. 943.
354 对于模范刑法典犯意规定的评价,见后章。
355 Kenneth W. Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U.L. Rev (1992),p. 463.
356 Negligence and the General Problem of Criminal Responsibility, the Yale Law Journal, Vol. 81, No 5 (1972),p. 949.
357 Kenneth W. Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U.L. Rev (1992),p. 463
358 David M. Treiman, Recklessness and the Model Penal Code, 9 AM. J. CRIM. L.(1981),p. 281.
359 Herbert Wechsler, On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 339, Crime and The American Penal (1962),p.24.
360 Hall, Negligent Behavior Should Be Excluded from Penal Lability, 63 Colum. L. Rev (1963),p. 632.
362 Mihajlo M. Alimovic, Conceptions of culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI (1965), p.40.
365 Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the criminal law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 68. No (1968),p. 8.
366 Herbert Wechsler, On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 339, Crime and The American Penal (1962),p.31.
367 参见 Jerome Hall, Negligent Behavior Should be Eliminated from Penal Liability, 63, Colum. L. Rev (1963), P. 632.
368 Herbert Wechsler, On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 339, Crime and The American Penal (1962),p.24.
369 Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the criminal law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 68. No. 8 (1968), p.1425.
370 George P. Fletche, Dogmas of the Model Penal Code, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p. 3.
371 参见 Paul H. Robinson and Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983),p. 681.
372 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes Spring, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p. 731.
373 Model Penal Code, Section 2.02(2)(a)(i)
374 Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631, 641(1947),
375 参见 Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the criminal law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 68. No. 8 (1968), p.1059.
376 Herbert Wechsler, On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 339, Crime and The American Penal (1962),p.25.
377 Kenneth W. Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U.L. Rev (1992),p. 463.
378 Robert Batey, Judicial Exploitation of Mens Rea Conclusion, At Common Law and Under The Model Penal Code, 18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev (2001),p. 341.
379 Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the criminal law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 68. No. 8(Dec., 1968),p.1060.
380 Edwin H. Byrd, III, Comment, Reflections on Willful, Wanton, Reckless and Gross Negligence, 48 LA. L. REV (1988),p. 1383.
381 John M. Fischer, Introduction: Responsibility and Freedom, in Moral Responsibility, Cambridge. University Press (1986),p. 9.
382 Matthew Jones, Overcoming the Myth of Free Will in Criminal Law: The True Impact of the Genetic Revolution,52 Duke L.J (2003), p. 1031.
383 Joel Feinberg, The Expressive Function of Punishment, Philosophy of Law: Crimes and Punishments, Little Brown Press (1994),p.89.
384 Richard Lowell Nygaard, Free Will, Determinism, Penology and the Human Genome: Where's a New Leibniz When We Really Need Him? 3 U. Chi. L. Sch. Roundtable (1996),p.417.
385 Matthew Jones, Overcoming the Myth of Free Will in Criminal Law: The True Impact of the Genetic Revolution, 52 Duke L.J (2003),p. 1031.
386 Joel R. Cornwell, the Confusion of Causes and Reasons in Forensic Psychology: Deconstructing Mens Rea and Other Mental Events, 33 U. Rich. L. Rev (1999),p.107.
387 Jack Katz, Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil (1988),转引自 V.F. Nourse, Hearts and Minds: Understanding the New Culpability, 6 Buff. Crim. L. R (2002),p.361.
388 John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding 467, Books for Libraries Press 1969),转引自 Adam Candeub, Consciousness & Culpability, 54 Ala. L. Rev (2002),p.114.
389 Arenella, Character, Choice, and Moral Agency: The Relevance of Character to Our Moral Culpability Judgments, 7 SOC. PHIL. & POL'Y (1990),p.59.
390 Peter Arenella, Convicting the Morally Blameless: Reassessing the Relationship between Legal and Moral Accountability. 39 UCLA L. Rev (1992), p. 1511.
391 John Robinson, Crime, Culpability, and Excuses, 10 ND J. L. Ethics & Pub Pol'y 1 (1997),p. 1996.
392 Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972),
393 Richard C. Bold, The Construction of Responsibility in the Criminal Law, 140 U. Pa. L. Rev (1992),p. 2245.
394 Mark Kelman, Interpretive Construction in the Substantive Criminal Law, 33 Stan. L. Rev (1981),p. 591.
395 参见 Meir Dan-Cohen, Responsibility and the Boundaries of the Self, 105 Harv. L. Rev (1992),p. 959.
396 Ann Hopkins, Mens Rea and the Right to Trial by Jury, 76 Calif. L. Rev (1988),p.391.
397 Marjorie Weinzweig, Discriminatory Impact and Intent under the Equal Protection Clause: The Supreme Court and the Mind-Body Problem, 1 LAW & INEQ. J (1983),p. 277.
398 参见 Paul H. Robinson, Criminal Law: Criminal Law Scholarship: Three Illusions January, 2 Theoretical Inq. L (2001),p. 287.
399 Dennis Patterson, Wittgenstein and the Code: A Theory of Good Faith Performance and Enforcement under Article Nine, 137 U. PA. L. REV (1988), p.335.
400 Miguel, Angelmendez, A Sisyphean Task: The Common Law Approach to Mens Rea, 28 U.C. Davis L. Rev (1995), p.407.
401 参见 Paul H. Robinson, Michael T. Cahill, and Usman Mohammad, American Criminal Codes, 95 Nw. U.L. Rev (2000),p.1.
402 Packer, Mens Rea and the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Rev. 137(1962),p.107.
403 Miguel Angel Mendez, A Sisyphean Task: The Common Law Approach To Mens Rea, 28 U.C. Davis L. Rev (1995),p.407.
404 Mihajlo M. Alimovic, culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI (1965), p.1076.
405 Ronald L. Gainer, The Culpability Provisions of the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J (1988),p. 575.
406 V.F. Nourse, Hearts and Minds: Understanding the New Culpability, 6 Buff. Crim. L. R (2002),p.361.
407 Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983),p.683.
408 Model Penal Code 1.13(9) (Official Draft 1985),
409 Martin T. Lefevour, Requres Mens Rea to the Physcal Characteistics of the Weapon, 85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1988), p.1136.
410 Paul H. Robinson, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev(1983),p. 68.
411 Paul H. Robinson, Rethinking Federal Criminal Law: Reforming the Federal Criminal Code: A Top Ten List, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R (1997),p.225.
412 Model Penal Code § 220.3 (规定在寻衅滋事罪当中)。
413 Model Penal Code § 250.7 (阻碍高速公路交通罪)。
414 Model Penal Code § 213.1(1)(a) (强奸犯罪的定义)。
415 Model Penal Code § 5.03(1)(a) (共谋犯罪的定义)。
416 参见 Kenneth W. Simons, Model Penal Code Second: Good or Bad Idea?: Should the Model Penal Code's Mens Rea Provisions Be Amended? 1 Ohio St. J. Crim. L (2003),p. 179.
417 Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, Don't Abandon the Model Penal Code Yet! Thinking Through Simons's Rethinking, 6 Buff. Crim. L. R (2002),p. 185.
418 George P. Fletche, Dogmas of the Model Penal Code, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p. 3.
419 V.F. Nourse, Hearts and Minds: Understanding the New Culpability, Buffalo Criminal Law Review, (2002),p.361.
420 Kenneth W. Simons, Culpability and Retributive Theory: The Problem of Criminal Negligence, J. Contemp. Legal Issues (1994),p. 365.
421 参见 Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, Opaque Recklessness, 91 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2001), p. 597.
422 参见 Kenneth W. Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U.L. Rev (1992),p. 463,
423 Paul H. Robinson & Michael T. Cahil, the Accelerating Degradation of American Criminal Codes, 56 Hastings L.J (2005), p. 633.
424 Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 252 (1952),转引自 Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p. 803.
425 Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 500 (1951),转引自 Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 COLUM. L. REV (1933),p.55.
426 参见 Patrick M. O'Neil, the Moral Blindness of the Positivistic Legal Hermeneutic and the Non-Proximate Mens Rea In The Law Of Criminal Negligence, 41 Am. J. Juris (1996),p.289.
427 Emilio S. Binavince, the Ethical Foundation of Criminal Liability, 33 Fordham L. Rev (1964),p.1.
428 Staples v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1793, 1803 (1994),转引自 Alun Griffith, Comment: People v. Ryan : A Trap for the Unwary,61 Brooklyn L. Rev (1995),p.1011.
429 参见 Alan Saltzman, Strict Criminal Liability and the United States Constitution: Substantive Criminal Law Due Process, 24 Wayne L. Rev (1978),p. 1571.
431 Herbert Wechsler, On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 339 (1962),p.1059.
433 Compare United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 280-81 (1943),United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 406 n.6 (1980),转引自 Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Liability Without Fault: A Disquieting Trend 68 Iowa L. Rev (1983),p,1067.
434 Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 COLUM. L. REV (1933),p.55.
435 对于二者的区分,有学者提出其在很大程度上取决于一种群体性的认识,但又有学者置疑,认为像美国这样的多元社会当中,包括价值在内的社会意识是多元且具有很大分歧的。具体参见 Hart, Social Solidarity and the Enforcement of Morality, 35 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1967),p.8.
436 参见 Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Liability Without Fault: A Disquieting Trend 68 Iowa L. Rev (1983),p. 1067.
437 Alun Griffith, Comment: People v. Ryan : A Trap for the Unwary, 61 Brooklyn L. Rev (1995),p. 1011.
438 参见 Douglas N. Husak, Varieties of Strict Liability, 8 Canadian J.L. & Jurisprudence (1995) ,p. 189(讨论了七种不同的严格责任并且认为很明显还存在其他的类型)。
439 石文英:《从归责的历史发展看严格责任》,载《焦作工学院学报(社会科学版)》2002 年 6 月第3 卷 第 2 期,第 31 页。
440 闫显明 冯建军:《英美刑法中的严格责任制度及其借鉴意义》,载《武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2001 年 8 月第 14 卷第 4 期,第 329 页。
441 行为人如果实施了法律禁止的行为, 或处于法律规定的状态中, 或导致了法律否定的结果, 司法机关无须证明行为人的主观心理状态, 即可使其负刑事责任。参见骆梅芬:《英美法系刑事法律中严格责任与绝对责任之辨析》,载《中山大学学报(社会科学版)》1999 年第 5 期,第 114 页。
442 有学者主张绝对责任就是法律许可对某些缺乏犯罪犯意的行为追究刑事责任。因此绝对责任就是无罪过责任。参见闫显明 冯建军:《英美刑法中的严格责任制度及其借鉴意义》,载《武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2001 年 8 月第 14 卷第 4 期,第 330 页以下。而还有学者主张二者是不同的,其区别主要体现在严格责任和绝对责任又是反映着对犯意要求的不同程度的两个词, 它们是有区别的。1. 从适用范围来看 2. 从举证责任来看。参见骆梅芬:《英美法系刑事法律中严格责任与绝对责任之辨析》,载《中山大学学报(社会科学版)》1999 年第 5 期,第 114 页以下。
443 康均心 董邦俊:《罪过责任之思考———兼评严格责任之冲突》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》2000 年第 5 期(总第 103 期),第 25 页。
444 参见付霞:《试论英美刑法中严格责任之应然归宿》,载《黑龙江省政法干部管理学院学报》2003 年第 5 期,第 99 页。
445 闫显明 冯建军:《英美刑法中的严格责任制度及其借鉴意义》,载《武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2001 年 8 月第 14 卷第 4 期,第 329 页。
446 与此相关的问题详见 Kenneth W. Simons, Criminal Law: When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just? 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997),1075.
447 参见 Michael S. Moore, Prima Facie Moral Culpability, 76 B.U. L. Rev (1996), p.319.
448 Kenneth W. Simons, Criminal Law: When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just? 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997), p. 1075.
449 参见 Ingeborg Paulus, Strict Liability: Its Place in Public Welfare Offenses, 20 Crim. L.Q (1977-78),p.
445 其认为十九世纪英国为了保证食品供应而承认严格责任是必须的,提出了某些情况下严格责任的正当性。
450 Model Penal Code 2.05 (1985),
451 付霞:《试论英美刑法中严格责任之应然归宿》,载《黑龙江省政法干部管理学院学报》2003 年第 5 期,第 99 页以下。
452 Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Liability without Fault: A Disquieting Trend, 68 Iowa L. Rev (1983),p. 1067.
453 参见 Ann Hopkins, Mens Rea and the Right to Trial by Jury. 76 Calif. L. Rev (1988), p.391.
454 Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 COLUM. L. REV (1933), p. 55.
455 参见 Alan C. Michaels, Constitutional Innocence, 112 Harv. L. Rev (1999), p.828.
456 Kent Greenawalt, "Uncontrollable" Actions and the Eighth Amendment: Implications of Powell v. Texas, 69 Colum. L. Rev (1969) ,p. 927, 977 .其认为严格责任在任何可以被判处监禁的犯罪上适用都是违宪的;John Calvin Jeffries, Jr. & Paul B. Stephan III, Defenses, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law, 88 Yale L.J (1979),p. 1325,其提出作为一项宪法原则,至少在某些非成文犯罪当中,刑事责任应当限制在那些行为人悖离了一个理性化的守法公民在当时情境下应当为的行为模式的情况。
457 参见 Richard Singer & Douglas Husak, Of Innocence and Innocents: The Supreme Court and Mens Rea Since Herbert Packer, 3 Buff. Crim. L. Rev (1999),提出法院认为在公共利益犯罪当中严格责任是合宪的,在别的方面也没有从宪法的角度对严格责任加以否认,而可能的否认根据出自均衡性原则,转引自 Alan C. Michaels, Constitutional Innocence, 112 Harv. L. Rev (1999),p.828.
458 参见 Allen, Criminal Law and the Modern Consciousness: Some Observations on Blameworthiness, 44 TENN. L. REV (1977),p. 735.
459 闫显明 冯建军:《英美刑法中的严格责任制度及其借鉴意义》,载《武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2001 年 8 月第 14 卷第 4 期,第 329 页以下。
460 参见 Barry Capp, A Little Knowledge Can Be a Dangerous Thing - State of New Jersey v. Robertson & Mens Rea in the Freshwater Wetlands, Protection Act of 1987, 15 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (1998),p. 655.
461 参见 Jeffrey S. Parker, The Economic of Mens Rea, 79 Va. L. Rev (1993),p.741.
462 Francis B. Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 Colum. L. Rev. 55 (1933),有学者将其称之为纯粹的严格责任,而在这样的情况下犯罪被起诉是没有建构在被告的犯意要素的基础之上的。从总体上而言,这些犯罪就是所谓的公益犯罪或者行政犯罪。转引自 Alun Griffith, Comment: People v. Ryan : A Trap for the Unwar,61 Brooklyn L. Rev (1995),p. 1011.
463 Jeremy Horder, A Critique of the Correspondence Principle in Criminal Law, Crim. L. Rev (1995),p.759.
464 参见 Kenneth W. Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U.L. Rev (1992),p. 463.
465 参见 Kenneth W. Simons, Criminal Law: When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just? 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997),p. 1075.
466 参见 Mark Kelman, Interpretive Construction in the Substantive Criminal Law, 33 Stan. L. Rev(1981),p. 591.
467 John Shepard Wiley Jr, Not Guilty By Reason Of Blamlessness: Culpability In Federal Criminal In Interpreation, 85 Va. L. Rev (1999),p. 1021.
468 参见 Peter W. Low, The Model Penal Code, the Common Law, and Mistakes of Fact: Recklessness, Negligence, or Strict Liability?, 19 Rutg. L. J (1988),p. 539.
469 参见 Kenneth W. Simons, Criminal Law: When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just? 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997),p. 1075.
470 参见 Lawrence Crocker, Justice in Criminal Liability: Decriminalizing Harmless Attempts, 53 Ohio St. L.J (1992),p. 1057。模范刑法典并没有要求针对量刑要素的可责性,参见 Model Penal Code 223.1, cmt (c) (1980),
471 上述观点所反映的是对于这个问题权威的观点,包括模范刑法典起草者在内的很多学者都持这样一种观点。参见 Mueller, On Common Law Mens Rea, 42, Minn. L. Rev (1958),p. 1043.
472 在上述四种罪责形式当中,作为罪责形式最为薄弱的就是过失。因为行为人被假设是没有留意,同时因为其对于适用于自己的法律没有认识,因此刑法不能对其加以威胁。对于没有充分认识的行为人,教育或者矫正而不是刑罚才视为是合适的对策。但我们认为,这样的观点过于简单化了。对于虽然没有留意,但产生了不合适的危险的情况,行为人需要额外的动机加以谨慎,运用自己的经验来防止可能的结果的发生,而对于这样的行为加以提出会导致对于判决和裁判的了解。在这个意义上,至少这种动机可以作为一种控制的手段。当然立法者可以根据这种假设基于一系列情况来进行立法,如果我们简单地认为其无效就显得十分的教条。因此,我们认为过失,正如我们这里所定义的那样,不能被完全否认作为罪责根据,从而否定了刑罚的目的。转引自 Herbert L. Packer, Mens Rea and Super court, the Supreme Court review, Vol.1962 (1962),p. 107.
473 Kenneth W. Simons, Culpability and Retributive Theory: The Problem of Criminal Negligence, 5 J. Contemp. Legal Issues (1994),p. 365.其认为过失可以被描述为几种不同类型的过错或者错误行为,而其中的某些该当刑事处罚。 Steven S. Nemerson, Note, Criminal Liability Without Fault: A Philosophical Perspective, 75 Colum. L. Rev (1975),p. 1517,其认为适当谨慎意味着一个理性谨慎的人在类似或者相同的情况下会尽到的注意层级,而 Model Penal Code 2.02(2)(d) (1985)规定,行为人的行为是过失的,当其应该认识到实体要素存在的实质且非正当的危险,这样的危险的本质和程度必须达到如果行为人没有对其加以认识的话,其就构成了对于一个理性人应该认识到的注意标准的违反, 转引自 John Shepard Wiley Jr, Not Guilty By Reason Of Blamlessness: Culpability In Federal Criminal In Interpretation, 85 Va. L. Rev (1999),p. 1021.
474 Collings, Negligence Murder, 49, Calif. L. Rev. (1961),p. 254.
475 参见 Wasserstrom, Strict Liability in Criminal Law, 12, Stan. L. Rev (1960),p. 731.
477 参见 Kenneth W. Simons, Criminal Law: When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just? 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997), p.1075
478 有些学者认为,对于重罪谋杀的报应性的反对意见有些言过其实了,因为大多数重罪谋杀的确反映了针对死亡的某些可责性。在最近进行的社会公众外行针对犯罪的相对严重性认知的实际调查当中,保罗·罗宾逊教授(Paul Robinson)和约翰·达力(John Darley)发现在重罪的实施过程当中导致死亡总体上被认为和轻率性地杀人类同。在公众的心中,我们应该具有的是重罪过失杀人原则(felony-manslaughter),而不是重罪谋杀原则(felony-murder)。.参见 Paul H. Robinson & John M. Darley, Justice Liability and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law, Boulder:Westview Press(1995)p. 178.
479 Richard Posner, an Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, 85 Colum. L. Rev (1985),p.1193.
480 参见 Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part, Stevens & Sons (2d ed. 1961), p.21.
481 参见康均心 董邦俊:《罪过责任之思考———兼评严格责任之冲突》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》2000 年第 5 期(总第 103 期),第 25 页以下。
482 参见 Norman Abrams, Criminal Liability of Corporate Officers for Strict Liability Offenses - A Comment on Dotterweich and Park, 28 UCLA L. Rev (1981),p. 463.
483 Fox, Physical Disorder, Consciousness, and Criminal Liability, 63 COLUM. L. REV (1963),p. 645.
484 参见 Peter W. Low, The Model Penal Code, the Common Law, and Mistakes of Fact: Recklessness, Negligence, or Strict Liability?, 19 RUTGERS L.J (1988),p. 539.
485 Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions: The Middle ground Between Criminal and Civil Law. 101 Yale L.J(1992), p.1795.
486 Larry Alexander, Negligence, Crime, and Tort: Comments On Hurd And Simons,76 B.U.L. Rev (1996),p.301.
487 Kenneth W. Simons, Criminal Law: When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just? 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997),p. 1075.
488 124 N.W. 221 (Minn. 1910),
489 参见 Alvin K. Klevorick, Symposium on Law and Eeonomics: Legal Theory and the Economic Analysis of Torts and Crimes. 85 Colum. L. Rev (1985),p.905.
490 Larry Alexander, Comment: Negligence, Crime, and Tort: Comments On Hurd And Simons,76 B.U.L. Rev (1996),p. 301.
491 参见 Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions: The Middle ground Between Criminal and Civil Law, 101 Yale L.J (1992),p.1049.
492 有美国学者认为第一个重罪谋杀规则不是在中世纪的英国,而是在十九世纪的美国制定的。他们不是基于普通法的管辖而是通过立法和司法解读。参见 Guyora Binder, The Origins of American Felony Murder Rules October, 57 Stan. L. Rev (2004),p.59.
493 72 Eng. Rep. 458 (K.B. 1535),转引自 Norval Morris, The Felon's Responsibility for the Lethal Acts of Others, 105 U. PA. L. REV (1956),p.50.
494 73 Eng. Rep. 279 (K.B. 1536), 转引自 Note, Felony Murder as a First Degree Offense: An Anachronism Retained, 66 Yale L.J (1957),p. 427.
495 参见 Herbert Wechsler, Codification of Criminal Law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, 68 COLUM. L. REV (1968),p. 1425.
496 参见 Note, Recent Extensions of Felony-Murder Rule, 31 IND. L.J. 534, 534 n.3 (1956)转引自 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule-Murder Rule:A Study of The Forces That Shape our Criminal Law, 51 Wash & Lee L. Rev (1994),p.1429.
497 参见 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule-Murder Rule:A Study of The Forces That Shape our Criminal Law, 51 Wash & Lee L. Rev (1994),p.1429.
498 参见 Jo Anne C. Adlerstein, Felony-Murder in the New Criminal Codes, 4 AM. J. CRIM. L (1976) p. 249.(提出杀人,通奸,纵火,强奸,抢劫,夜盗,越狱等少数犯罪才是普通法意义上的重罪)
499 参见 Homicide Act of 1957, 5 & 6 Eliz. 2, ch. 11, § 1 (Eng.),转引自 George P. Fletcher, Reflections on Felony Murder, 12 SW. U. L. REV (1980-1981),p. 413.
500 David Lanham, Felony Murder -- Ancient and Modern, 7 CRIM. L.J (1983),p. 90.
501 参见 M. Susan Doyle, Note, People v. Patterson: California's Second Degree Felony-Murder Doctrine at "The Brink of Logical Absurdity", 24 LOY. L.A. L. REV (1990),p. 195.
502 SHAW. REV. STAT. § § 707-701, 707-701.5 (Supp. 1992),转引自 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule-Murder Rule:A Study of The Forces That Shape our Criminal Law, 51 Wash & Lee L. Rev (1994),p.1429.
503 参见 Martin J. McMahon, Annotation, Application of Felony Murder Doctrine Where Person Killed was Co-Felon, 89 A.L.R.4th (1991),p. 683.
504 Robert G. Lawson, Criminal Law Revision in Kentucky: Part I - Homicide and Assault, 58 Ky. L.J (1970),p. 242.
505 Bernard E. Gegan, Criminal Homicide in the Revised New York Penal Law, 12 N.Y.L.F (1966),p. 565.
506 Paul H. Robinson, Criminal Law 726 (1997) 转引自 Guyora Binder, The Origins of American Felony Murder Rules October, 57 Stan. L. Rev (2004),p.59.
507 参见 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule: A Study of the Forces That Shape Our Criminal Law, 51 Wash. & Lee L. Rev (1994),p.1443.
508 Francis B. Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 COLUM. L. REV (1933),p.55.
509 Erwin S. Barbre, Annotation, What Felonies Are Inherently or Foreseeably Dangerous to Human Life for Purposes of Felony-Murder Doctrine, 50 A.L.R.3d (1973),p. 397.
510 Guyora Binder, Felony Murder and Mens Rea Default Rules: A Study in Statutory Interpretation,4 Buff. Crim. L. R (2000),p. 399.
511 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule: A Study of the Forces That Shape Our Criminal Law, 51 Wash. & Lee L. Rev (1994),p. 1429.
512 Guyora Binder, Felony Murder and Mens Rea Default Rules: A Study in Statutory Interpretation,4 Buff. Crim. L. R (2000),p.399.
513 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule: A Study of the Forces That Shape Our Criminal Law, 51 Wash. & Lee L. Rev (1994),p. 1429.
514 Sanford H. Kadish & Stephen J. Schulhofer, Criminal Law and Its Processes 479 (6th ed. 1995),转引自 Guyora Binder, Felony Murder and Mens Rea Default Rules: A Study in Statutory Interpretation,4 Buff. Crim. L. R (2000), p.399.
515 参见 Guyora Binder,The Origins of American Felony Murder Rules,57 Stan. L. Rev (2004), p. 59.
516 Modern Penal Code 210.1(1) (如果行为人意图,明知,轻率或者过失导致他人的死亡,其就犯有杀人罪),
517 Modern Penal Code 210.1(2) (杀人罪包括谋杀,过失杀人),
518 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule: A Study of the Forces That Shape Our Criminal Law, 51 Wash. & Lee L. Rev (1994),p. 1429.
520 美国刑法中作为传统普通法犯罪存在的重婚罪,诱拐儿童脱离父母罪等与法定强奸具有很大的类似性,这里仅仅以法定强奸作为代表加以论述。正如有的学者所指出的那样,“在美国,严格刑事责任,在十九世纪开始被接受的程度之内,几乎专属地被用来规定惩罚道德犯罪,特别是那些和酒以及总体上可以使未成年人堕落的物品。另外,这个国家在和性行为相关的案件当中适用严格责任,最为值得一提的就是重婚罪。以及被称之为法定强奸的犯罪”。转引自 Richard Singer, Strict Criminal Liability: Alabama State Courts Lead the Way into the Twenty-First Century, 46 Ala. L. Rev (1994),p.47.
521 石文英:《从归责的历史发展看严格责任》,载《焦作工学院学报(社会科学版)》2002 年 6 月第3 卷第 2 期,第 31 页。
522 犯罪当中不要求证据证明犯意要素的情况,犯罪被认定为所谓的严格责任"strict liability 或者绝对责任"absolute liability." 。 无论什么原因,或许仅仅是懈怠,立法者经常忽略真实犯罪当中的犯意要素。 结果就是,法院或许可以宣称成文法违宪,或许对其加以适用,而法院简单地适用一个犯意要素而要求起诉方对其加以证明,正如其他的犯罪要素一样。而后面的作法,即解读一种犯意要素(通常是犯罪过失), 是模范刑法典所建议的作法。 对于严格责任犯罪最好的定义就是不存在犯意要素,但是允许对此的抗辩。 而对于绝对责任最好的定义就是不仅不需要犯意要素,而且也不允许对此的抗辩。参见 Jeremy M. Miller, Mens Rea Quagmire: The Conscience or Consciousness of the Criminal Law? 29 W. St. U.L. Rev (2001), p.21.
523 私通罪(The crime of fornication)就是通过增加和未婚的伴侣发生性行为这样一个额外要素来使这样的故意行为可以被犯罪化的途径。在 1991 年,私通仍然在 13 个州及哥伦比亚特区被认为是犯罪。参见 Note, Constitutional Barriers to Civil and Criminal Restrictions on Pre-and Extramarital Sex, 104 Harv. L. Rev (1991)p. 1660.
524 Francis Wharton, a Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 436-37 (2d ed. 1852), 2003,参见 Gerald Leonard, Towards a Legal History of American Criminal Theory: Culture and Doctrine from Blackstone to the Model Penal Code, 6 Buff. Crim. L. R (2003),p. 691.
525 8 Iowa 447 (1859), 在本案中,被告根据制定法被指控以卖淫为目的将不满十五岁的女孩迷走而脱离其法定监护人。判决之后,被告上诉,认为法官拒绝承认其合理的确信被告已经超过了十五岁这样一个事实,并且认为其所犯的错误类似于那种误将他人为自己的妻子而与之发生性行为的丈夫。然而,法院指出,这种情况和发生错误的丈夫之间并不具有相似性,因为这种假设情况下丈夫并不具有法律或者道德上的犯意存在。而被告,在另一方面,不顾被告的年龄,仍然具有犯意,因为其目的在于让这个女孩卖淫。在该州这样的诱骗行为如果发生在女孩子超过了十五岁以后话就不算犯罪,但这并没有妨碍法院将诱拐女孩子从事卖淫行为作为具有犯意,起码是错误的意愿来看待。而从这开始法院发现即使这样非指控性质的错误犯意都可以用来支持对于一个可指控犯罪的被告,例如对于不满十五岁的女人的诱拐行为。从这个观点来看法院仅仅援引了 Joel Prentiss Bishop 的对于刑法的观点, 其本身并没有引用任何案例来说用同样的一个普通法上的原则,即可转换的错误的,非指控性的犯。转引自 John L. Diamond, The Myth of Morality and Fault in Criminal Law Doctrine, 34 Am. Crim. L. Rev (1996), p.111.
526 参见 Gerhard O.W. Mueller, On Common Law Mens Rea, 42 Minn. L. Rev (1958),p. 1043,但其这样作的方式并不是宣称对于犯罪的要素宣布严格责任。实际上,尽管爱荷华州的刑法已经法典化,但其并没有将犯意作为一个概念而附加到犯罪的任何一个要素当中,但对于普通法而言这样作是一个传统,认为其从犯罪的总体上面来看是较为啰嗦的溲≡袢衔敢庾魑桓稣宥杂诜缸锎嬖冢?并且坚持被告在传统的普通法的术语的意义上具有犯意。这并不是说成文法要排挤掉普通法,犯意只有在成文法明确规定的情况下才存在,但在这部法典当中所规定的犯意和普通法评论者所要求的一样。也就是说,在危害结果发生的情况下,法院可以将某种错误的意愿转化为犯意。
527 44 Iowa 45 (1876),参见参见 Gerald Leonard, Towards a Legal History of American Criminal Theory: Culture and Doctrine from Blackstone to the Model Penal Code, 6 Buff. Crim. L. R (2003),p.691.
528 同上。
529 Lawrence v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. 845 (1878),转引自 James B. Brady, Strict Liability Offenses: A Justification, 8 Crim. L. Bull (1972),p.217.
530 46 P. 915, 916 (1896),参见 Kenneth W. Simons, When is Strict Criminal Liability Just?, 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997),p.1075.
531 145 N.E. 289, 290 (Ill. 1924), ; Richard A. Wasserstrom, Strict Liability in the Criminal Law, 12 Stan. L. Rev (1960),p. 731.
532 432 N.E.2d 463, 464-65 (Mass. 1982)转引自 Colin Campbell, Annotation, Mistake or Lack of Information as to Victim's Age as Defense to Statutory Rape, 46 A.L.R. 5th (1997),p.499.
533 514 A.2d 724, 727 (Conn. 1986),转引自 Colin Campbell, Annotation, Mistake or Lack of Information as to Victim's Age as Defense to Statutory Rape, 46 A.L.R. 5th (1997),p.501.
534 Miller v. State 79 So. 314 (1918),具体参照 Richard G. Singer, The Resurgence of Mens Rea: III--The Rise and Fall of Strict Criminal Liability, 30 B.C. L. Rev. 337 (1989),
535 Jerome Hall, Interrelations of Criminal Law and Torts: II, 43 Colum. L. Rev (1943),p. 967.
536 James J. Hippard, Sr., the Unconstitutionality of Criminal Liability without Fault: An Argument for a Constitutional Doctrine of Mens Rea, 10 Hous. L. Rev (1973),p. 1039.
537 Alan C. Michaels, "Rationales" of Criminal Law Then and Now: For a Judgmental Descriptivism, 100 Colum. L. Rev (2000),p. 54.
538 Kenneth W. Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U.L. Rev (1992),p.463.
539 Michael Davis, Strict Liability: Deserved Punishment for Faultless Conduct, 33 WAYNE L. REV (1987),p.1363.
540 Peter W. Low, The Model Penal Code, the Common Law, and Mistakes of Fact: Recklessness, Negligence, or Strict Liability?, 19 RUTGERS L.J (1988),p.539
541 Gerald Leonard, Towards a Legal History of American Criminal Theory: Culture and Doctrine from Blackstone to the Model Penal Code, Buffalo Criminal Law Review,6 Buff. Crim. L. R (2003),p.691
542 因为法定强奸的被告人可能不管受害者年龄而在基督教法庭因为其从事的私通行为受审,根据年龄将法定强奸解读为严格责任犯罪的根据是这样的一个假设,即在英国刑事成文法制定的时候,受害女子的年龄是对于被告对于自己行为需要承担刑事责任的实体要素。但是对于这个犯罪的要素并没有所谓正确的观点,相反,受害人的年龄更为合适地应该被视为针对司法区或者犯罪的量刑层级的要素。假设法定强奸当中的女孩已满 16 岁。在这个案件当中,被告仍然可以被判有罪:私通罪。然而,其不能在当代的法院当中被判决,相反,这样的审判将会在宗教法庭上来进行。在 1828年,该犯罪最初确定的时候,宗教法院具有对于私通犯罪的管辖权。参见Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p. 803.
543 转引自 McMurray, California Jurisprudence, 13 CAL. L. REV (1925), p. 445.
544 Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p. 803.
545 参见 Herbert L. Packer, Mens Rea and Super court, the Supreme Court review, Vol.1962.(1962),p. 107.
546 John L. Diamond, The Myth of Morality and Fault in Criminal Law Doctrine, 34 Am. Crim. L. Rev (1996),p.111.
547 Richard Singer, Strict Criminal Liability: Alabama State Courts Lead the Way into the Twenty-First Century, 46 Ala. L. Rev (1994),p.47.
548 Jerome Hall, Interrelations of Criminal Law and Torts: I, 43 Colum. L. Rev (1943),p. 753.
549 Richard G. Singer, The Resurgence of Mens Rea: III--The Rise and Fall of Strict Criminal Liability, 30 B.C. L. Rev (1989),p.337.
550 Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Liability without Fault: a Disquieting Trend, 68 Iowa L. Rev (1983),p. 1067.
551 Jeremy M. Miller, Mens Rea Quagmire: The Conscience or Consciousness of the Criminal Law? 29 W. St. U.L. Rev (2001), p.21.
552 参见 Kit Kinports, Rape and Force: The Forgotten Mens Rea, 4 Buff. Crim. L. R. 755 (2001),p. 755.
553 就绝对责任是否可以作为有效命题存在是有争议的。有美国学者认为不存在所谓绝对的责任,他们认为我们应该强调没有对于犯罪加以执行的绝对责任。无论责任来源是什么,责任不是绝对的。参见 Winfield, The Myth of Absolute Liability, 42 LAW Q. REV (1926) ,p. 37 但笔者认为根据本文所提出的绝对责任概念,应该说起码从逻辑上是可以成立的。
554参见 Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983),p.681.其承认对于犯意而言,总体观点已经由一个比较模糊的有关邪恶的概括而转化到一种较为确定的心理状态。
555 正如有的学者所介绍的那样,普通法和较早的法典通常将犯罪规定为仅仅需要一种心理状态。根据犯罪分析模式(offense analysis)可以提出所谓的故意犯罪(intentional offenses),轻率犯罪(reckless offenses)和过失犯罪(negligent offenses)。模范刑法典规定的总体的罪责规定,相反,认为每种单一的犯罪对于其每一种客观要素而言可能需要不同的罪责犯意。转引自 Alan C. Michaels, Constitutional Innocence, 112 Harv. L. Rev (1999),p.828.
556 参见 Frank J. Remington & Orrin L. Helstad, The Mental Element in Crime-A Legislative Problem, Wis. L. Rev (1952),p. 644.其提出某些法庭仅仅需要犯意去证明重罪谋杀当中的重罪。
557 15 M. & W. 404 (Exch. 1846),转引自 Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p. 803.
558 Cynthia H. Finn, The Responsible Corporate Officer, Criminal Liability, And Mens Rea Limitations on The Rco Doctrine 46 Am. U.L. Rev (2004),p.543.
559 Francis B. Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 Colum. L. Rev (1933),p.55.
560 J.M. Kaye, The Early History of Murder and Manslaughter - Part I, 83 Law Q. Rev (1967),p. 365, 380.
561 Michael.M. O'Hear, Sentencing the Green –Collar Offender: Punishment, Culpability, and Environmental Crime, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2004), p.133.
562 参见 United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp, 402 U.S. 558 (1971))
563 参见 Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 432-33 (1985)
564 参见 United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp, 402 U.S. 558 (1971),
565 参见 Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 611-12 (1994),
566 被某些巡回法院作为公益犯罪对待的随附情状水法,即 CWA section 309(c)规定的日罚金高达50,000 美金,监禁的时限最高为 3 年,而对于再犯,日罚金最高为 100,000 美金,最高刑期为六年。转引自 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes,20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p. 731.
567 Susan F. Mandiberg, The Dilemma of Mental State in Federal Regulatory Crimes: The Environmental Example, 25 Envtl. (1995), p.1165.
568 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes,20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p.731.
569 参见 James J. Tomkovicz, The Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule-Murder Rule:A Study of The Forces That Shape our Criminal Law, 51 Wash & Lee L. Rev (1994),p.1429.
570 Randolph N. Jonakait, The Mens Rea for the Crime of Providing Material Resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization Fall, 6 Baylor L. Rev(2004),p.861.
571 J.M. Kaye, The Early History of Murder and Manslaughter - Part I, 83 Law Q. Rev (1967),p.380.
572 转引自 Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev (1990),p.803.
573 David Lanham, Felony Murder - Ancient and Modern, 7 Crim. L.J (1983),p.90.
574 Cynthia H. Finn, The Responsible Corporate Officer, Criminal Liability, And Mens Rea Limitations on The Rco Doctrine,46 Am. U.L. Rev (2004),p.543.
575 Susan F. Mandiberg, The Dilemma of Mental State in Federal Regulatory Crimes: The Environmental Example, 25 Envtl. L. (1995),p.1165.
576 Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 433 (1985),转引自 Joseph E. Cole, Environmental Criminal Liability: What Federal Officials Know (or should Know) can Hurt Them,54 A.F. L. Rev.(2004),p.1.
577 471 U.S. 419 (1985),
578 参见 Brigid Harington, A Proposed Narrowing Of The Clean Water Acts Criminal Negligence Provisions: Its Only Human?, 32 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev (2005),p. 643,
579 Morissette v United States, 342 US 246, 253-55 (1952), 转引自 David A. Gordon, Protecting Public Welfare: Mens Rea Under Section 3008(d)(2)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 1997 U Chi Legal F (1997),p.439.
580 258 US 250, 254 (1922),转引自 Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis In Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev (1983),p.681.
581 Richard A. Wasserstrom, Strict Liability in the Criminal Law, 12 Stan. L. Rev (1960),p.731.
582 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes Spring, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p.731.
583 Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(5)(A) (1977); 亦参见 Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(c)(3) (2000)等法。转引自 Lawrence Crocker, The Upper Limit of Just Punishment, 41 Emory L.J (1992),p. 1059.
584 Herbert L. Packer, Mens Rea and Super court, The supreme court review, Vol.1962. (1962), p. 107.
585 Michael Moore, Placing Blame: A General Theory of the Criminal Law 247 (1997)转引自 Michael.M. O'Hear, Sentencing the Green –Collar Offender: Punishment, Culpability, and Environmental Crime, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology Fall (2004), p.133.
586 Bruce R. Bryan, The Battle Between Mens Rea And The Public Welfare: United States V. Laughlin Finds A Middle Ground, 6 Fordham Envtl. Law J (1995), p.157.
587 42 U.S.C. 6928(d) (1988 & Supp. V 1993) (emphasis added),转引自 Bruce R. Bryan, The Battle Between Mens Rea And The Public Welfare: United States V. Laughlin Finds A Middle Ground, 6 Fordham Envtl. Law J (1995),p.157.
588 Ann K. Pollack, Note, The Role of Injunctive Relief and Settlements in Superfund Enforcement, 68 Cornell L. Rev (1983),p.709.
589 Manly Parks, the Public Welfare Rationale: Defining Mens Rea in RCRA, 18 Wm. & Mary J. Envtl. L (1993),p.219.
590 Richard G. Singer, the Resurgence of Mens Rea: III-The Rise and fall of Strict Criminal Liability, 30 B.C. L. Rev (1989),p. 337.
591 Robert W. Adler & Charles Lord, Environmental Crimes: Raising the Stakes, 59 Geo. Wash. L. Rev (1991),p. 781.
592 Bruce R. Bryan, The Battle Between Mens Rea And The Public Welfare: United States V. Laughlin Finds A Middle Ground, 6 Fordham Envtl. Law J (1995),p.157.
593 参见 Michael.M. O'Hear, Sentencing The Green –Collar Offender: Punishment, Culpability, and Environmental Crime, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2004),p.133.
594 引同上。
595 参见 Brigid Harington, A Proposed Narrowing Of The Clean Water Acts Criminal Negligence Provisions: Its Only Human?, 32 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev (2005), p.643.
596 David A. Gordon, Protecting Public Welfare: Mens Rea Under Section 3008(d)(2)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,1997 U Chi Legal F (1997),p.439.
597 Stuart P. Green, Why It's A Crime to Tear the Tag Off a Mattress: Overcriminalization and the Moral Content of Regulatory Offenses, 46 Emory L.J (1997),p.1533.
598 参见 Michael.M. O'Hear, Sentencing the Green –Collar Offender: Punishment, Culpability, and Environmental Crime, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2004), p.133.
599 参见 Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(c) (2000),转引自 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p.731.
600 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p.731.
601 Morissette v United States, 342 US 246, 253-55 (1952),转引自 David A. Gordon, Protecting Public Welfare: Mens Rea Under Section 3008(d)(2)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,1997 U Chi Legal F (1997),p.439.
602 Rivers and Harbors (Refuse) Act, 33 U.S.C. 407 (2000),转引自 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) ofthe Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p. 731.
603 328 F. Supp. 354 (N.D. Ind. 1970),转引自 Brigid Harington, A Proposed Narrowing Of The Clean Water Acts Criminal Negligence Provisions: Its Only Human?, 32 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. (2005),p.643.
604 498 F.2d 619 (1st Cir. 1974),转引自 Brigid Harington, A Proposed Narrowing Of The Clean Water Acts Criminal Negligence Provisions: Its Only Human?, 32 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. (2005),p.643.
605 33 U.S.C. 1319(c) (1972), amended by 33 U.S.C. 1319(c) (2000),转引自 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p. 731.
606 参见 Stephen B. Chapman, Are Obnoxious Wastes More like Machineguns or Hand Grenades?: Mens Rea Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act After Staples v. United States,43 Kan. L. Rev (1995),p.1117.
607 Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d 1275. 转引自 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p. 731.
608 United States v. Sinskey, 119 F.3d 712 (8th Cir. 1997), Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p. 731
609 United States v. Wilson, 133 F.3d 251 (4th Cir. 1998),引同上。
610 有意"willful"被最高法院在 United States v. Ratzlaf 案解读为有意识的从事坏的行为,而这样的行为基于行为人对于其非法性的认识。转引自 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L.Rev (2003),p. 731
611 United States v. Hanousek, 176 F.3d 1116 528 U.S. 1102 (2000), Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p. 731
612 David A. Gordon, Protecting Public Welfare: Mens Rea Under Section 3008(d)(2)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,1997 U Chi Legal F, (1997),p.439.
613 参见 Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003),p.731.
614 Model Penal Code 2.02(4),
615 该法院注意到因为对于许可的解读是一个法律问题,为了支持这样的一种结论,其援引了Hemlani v. Guerrero, 902 F.2d 1412 (9th Cir. 1990),转引自 Richard G. Cohn-Lee, Mens Rea And Permit Interpretation Under The Clean Water Act: United States v. Weitzenhoff, 24 Envtl. L (1994),p.1351.
616 United States v. International Minerals Corp., 402 U.S. 558 (1971),转引自 M. Diane Barber, Fair Warning: The Deterioration of Scienter under Environmental Criminal Statutes, 26 Loy. L.A. L. Rev (1992),p.105.
617 Brigid Harington, A Proposed Narrowing Of The Clean Water Acts Criminal Negligence Provisions: Its Only Human?, 32 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev (2005),p. 643. 617 498 F.2d 619 (1st Cir. 1974),同上
618 26 U.S.C sections 5801-5872 (1989),转引自 Stephen B. Chapman, Are Obnoxious Wastes More like Machineguns or Hand Grenades?: Mens Rea Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act After Staples v. United States,43 Kan. L. Rev (1995),p1117.
619 David Hardy, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act: A Historical and Legal Perspective, 17 Cumb. L. Rev (1987),p. 585.
620 参见 Stephen B. Chapman, Are Obnoxious Wastes More like Machineguns or Hand Grenades?: Mens Rea Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act After Staples v. United States,43 Kan. L. Rev. (1995),p.1117.
621 401 U.S. 601.转引自 Martin T. Lefevour, 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) Requires Mens Reas as to the Physical Characteristics Of The Weapon Staples v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994),85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1136 (1995),
622 Section 5861(d)规定任何持有未经适当登记的火器的人将会被处以最高刑为 10 年的犯罪。而根据该法,手榴弹根据该法是火器。26 U.S.C. sections 5845(a)(8), 5845(f)(1)(B) (1989),转引自 David A. Gordon, Protecting Public Welfare: Mens Rea Under Section 3008(d)(2)(A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 1997 U Chi Legal F (1997),p.439.
623 698 F.2d 981 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 821 (1983),
624 例如,在 United States v. Ross 案中 ,第七巡回法院就沿用先例认为 5861(d) 的规定并没有要求犯意。第十巡回法院采用了形似的逻辑。在 United States v. Mittleider 案中,第十巡回法院不要求证据证明被告明知其持有的武器是成文法规定的火器。转引自 Stephen B. Chapman, Are Obnoxious Wastes More like Machineguns or Hand Grenades?: Mens Rea Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act After Staples v. United States,43 Kan. L. Rev (1995),p.1117. 625 在 United States v. Anderson 案中,被告因为违反 5861(d)被逮捕。其持有两只自动武器和消音器。第五巡回法院推翻了判决,因为唯一陪审团要求提供的证据就是被告从总体的意义上明知其持有的是火器。 法院担心陪审团会对于无辜的被告加以判决。根据对于陪审团的指导意见,那些对于其所持有的武器内部特征没有了解的被告会因为持有没有外在根据证明其属于成文法规定的火器的武器而被判决。法院推理认为国会明确表明的意图并不是对于持有手枪的人加以监禁,这些人无辜且理性地认为其所持有的武器是合法的,因为其并不知道其被法律规定为全自动武器。因此,法院认为如果要根据 5861(d)加以判决的话,政府必须证明被告明知其所持有的武器是成文法所规定的火器。转引自 Stephen B. Chapman, Are Obnoxious Wastes More like Machineguns or Hand Grenades?: Mens Rea Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act After Staples v. United States,43 Kan. L. Rev (1995),p.1119.
626 参见 Martin T. Lefevour, 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) Requires Mens Reas as to the Physical Characteristics Of The Weapon Staples v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994),85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1995),p.1136.
627 Stephen B. Chapman, Are Obnoxious Wastes More like Machineguns or Hand Grenades?: Mens Rea Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act After Staples v. United States,43 Kan. L. Rev. (1995),p.1117.
628 Richard K. Sueyoshi, G. Staples v. United States: Supreme Court Determines the Mens Rea Required to Convict an Individual for Possession of an Unregistered Machinegun 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994), 21 J. Contemp. L (1995),p.112.
629 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994),转引自 Martin T. Lefevour, 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) Requires Mens Reas as to the Physical Characteristics Of The Weapon Staples v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994),85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1995),p.1136.
630 [美]乔治·P·弗莱彻著:《刑法的基本概念》,蔡爱惠等译,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 8 月第一版,第 171 页。
631 参见 Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Mattew Bender 2nd edition (1995), p.111
632 储怀植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 2005 年 2 月第三版,第 105 页。
633 Edwin R. Keedy, Criminal Attempts at Common Law, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 102, No. 4. (Feb., 1954), p. 464.
634 John S. Strahorn, Jr. The Effect of Impossibility on Criminal Attempts, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 78, No. 8 (Jun., 1930),p.962.
635 Arnold N. Enker, Mens Rea and Criminal Attempt, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol.2.No.4 (1977), p. 845.
636 Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Matthew Bender & Co; 2nd edition (June 1995), p.111.
637 转引自乔治·P·弗莱彻著:《刑法的基本概念》,蔡爱惠等译,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 8月第一版,第 171 页。
638 Model Penal Code 5.01(1)(c)。
639 参见储怀植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 2005 年 2 月第三版,第 103 页。
640 参见赵秉志主编:《英美刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社 2004 年 11 月第一版,第 91 页。
641 参见储怀植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 2005 年 2 月第三版第 106-7 页。
642 引同上。
643 Arnold N. Enker, Mens Rea and Criminal Attempt, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol.2.No.4 (1977), p.879.
644 Holmes, the common law(1881)54.转引自 Francis Bowes Sayre, Criminal Attempts, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 41, No. 7 (1928) , p821.
645 引同上。
646参见 J. H. Beale, Jr. Criminal Attempts, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 7 (1903) , p507.
647 赵秉志主编:《英美刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社 2004 年 11 月第一版,第 92 页。
648 Arnold N. Enker, Mens Rea and Criminal Attempt, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol.2.No.4 (1977), p879.
649 Schulofer, harm and punishment: A critical of emphasis on the result of conduct in the criminal law, 122 U. Pa. L.Rev (1974),p. 1497.
650 参见戴斯勒的论说。其提出 D 袭击了 V,意图致其重伤。如果 D 无意杀了 V, D 犯了谋杀罪(murder)而致其重伤的故意就构成了该罪成立的充分的主观条件。如果 V 侥幸逃脱,那么 D 不承担谋杀未遂的责任,因为其需要比杀人更高的罪责犯意。参见 Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Matthew Bender & Co; 2nd edition (1995),p.342.
651 Smith, the element of chance in criminal liability,12 crim.L.R (1971),p.73.
652 如有学者所举的例子,假如驾驶者明知自己汽车的刹车失灵,但仍然驾驶。这样的行为或许构成轻率制造危险这样的成文法的犯罪。但如果我们可以在其进入到驾驶室当中,发动汽车发生出发的一刹那将其制止,其行为是否构成了轻率制造危险的未遂呢?转引自 John M. Brumbaugh, criminal law and approach to the study of law, the foundation press.(1986), p.760
653 Arnold N. Enker, Mens Rea and Criminal Attempt, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol.2.No.4 (1977) , p879.
654 有学者反对这样的一种分析模式,而持这样一种观点的学者一般都怀疑在不同的要素之间可以做出这样的区分。参见 Douglas Husak, Attempts and the Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Liability: R.A. Duff, Criminal Attempts. 8 Crim. L.F (1997),p.293。论者之前就承认不可能对于一个研究对象进行截然的切割,但理论,或者通行的理论注定是暧昧且拟制的。这里不对此作太多纠缠。
660 Mitchell Keiter, With Malice Toward All: The Increased Lethality of Violence Reshapes Transferred Intent and Attempted Murder Law, 38 U.S.F. L. Rev (2004),p.261.
661 Leo Katz, Ill-Gotten Gains: Evasion, Blackmail, Fraud, and Kindard Puzzles of the Law (1996),转引自 Larry Alexander, Insufficient Concern: A Unified Conception of Criminal Culpability, 88 Calif. L. Rev. (2000),p.931.
663 参见 Model Penal Code 5.01 cmt. 2 (1985)。如某人的意图是摧毁某一建筑,明知有人在建筑当中而且可能会被爆炸所杀害,然而后来证明炸弹失效。那么即使建筑物当中的居民死亡并不是其意图,他能否构成谋杀未遂的罪名呢?参见 Model Penal Code 5.01 cmt. 2 (1985),
665 Mitchell Keiter, With Malice toward All: the Increased Lethality of Violence Reshapes Transferred Intent and Attempted Murder Law 38 U.S.F. L. Rev (2004), p.261.
666 参见 Alan C. Michaels, Acceptance: The Missing Mental States, 71 S. Cal. L. Rev (1998),p. 953.
667 Keith Culver, the Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 11 Can. J.L. & Juris (1998),p.441.
668 Wayne R. LaFave,Criminal law,St. Paul, Minn. : West Group, 2000,p.513. ,转引自 Arnold N. Enker, Mens Rea and Criminal Attempt, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol.2.No.4. (1977), p.845.
670 在十三世纪,根据 Bracton 的观点,存在两种对于重犯的控诉方式,一种就是求助私力,其基本上是通过私力争斗来解决,而其他的一种是求助后来被称之为大陪审团的公力解决机构。但由于对于虚假告诉的惩罚力度不足,特别是出现了利用不需承担刑事责任的未满十二周岁的儿童进行滥诉的情况。转引自 Francis B. Sayre, Criminal Conspiracy, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 4 (1922),p427.
671 参见 Philip E. Johnson, The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy, 61 Cal. L. Rev (1973),p. 1137,该学者在本文当中呼吁取消对于这个原则。
672 Abraham S. Goldstein, Conspiracy To Defraud the United States, 68 Yale L.J (1959),p. 405.
673 Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law 573 & n.66 (3d ed. 2000),转引自 Neal Kumar Katyal, Architecture as Crime Control, 111 Yale L.J (2002),p. 1039.
674 Neal Kumar Katyal, Deterrence's Difficulty, 95 Mich. L. Rev (1997),p. 2385.
675 Kathy Diene and Teisha C. Johnson, Federal Criminal Conspiracy, 42 Am. Crim. L. Rev (2005),p. 46.
676 Philip E. Johnson, The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy, 61 Cal. L. Rev (1973),p. 1137.
677 Gary R. Ostos-Irwin, Wisconsin’s Party to a Crime Statute: The Mens Rea Element under the Abiding and Abetting Subsection, and the aiding and Abetting –Choate conspiracy Distinction. Wis. L. Rev (1984),p. 769.
678 Pinkerton, Developments in the Law: Criminal Conspiracy, 72 HARV. L. REV (1959),p. 922.
679 Herbert Wechsler; William Kenneth Jones; Harold L. Korn Institute: Attempt, Solicitation, and Conspiracy: The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of the American Law, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 6 (1961) p1030.
680 参见 Neal Kumar Katyal, Conspiracy Theory, 112 Yale L.J (2003),p.1037.
681 参见 United States v. Ferrarini, 219 F.3d 145, 155 (2d Cir. 2000) ,转引自 Kathy Diene and Teisha C. Johnson, Federal Criminal Conspiracy, 42 Am. Crim. L. Rev (2005),p. 46.
682 参见 Gary R. Ostos-Irwin, Wisconsin’s Party to a Crime Statute: The Mens Rea Element under the Abiding and Abetting Subsection, and the aiding and Abetting –Choate conspiracy Distinction. 1984 Wis. L. Rev (1984),p.769.
684 P.H.Winfield, The History of Conspiracy and Abuse of Legal Procedure, 35 Harv. L. Rev (1921),p.353.
685 Herbert Wechsler; William Kenneth Jones; Harold L. Korn Institute: Attempt, Solicitation, and Conspiracy: The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of the American Law Columbia Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 6 (1961) , p.1030.
686 G. H. L. Fridman, Mens Rea in Conspiracy, the Modern Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 3 (1956) , p284.
687 参见 Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Matthew Bender & Co; 2nd edition (1995),p.143.
688 有些学者担心如果坚持明知或者了解的犯意标准,势必导致包括零售业在内的美国商业活动因为担心被追究共谋的刑事责任而避免其所认为的危险情况的交易,从而影响经济的正常运行。在people v. lauria 案当中,法院认定检方必须证明行为人的犯意要素是故意的,仅有明知是不够的。这样可以最大限度地鼓励商业的自由,鼓励商业上追求自己的最大利益,而不是要求行为人承担防止自己的商品被用于犯罪行为的额外义务。参见 Richard G..Singer and John A. Lafond, 王秀梅等注,Criminal law 中国方正出版社,2003 年 9 月第一版。第 95 页。
689 Larry Alexzander, Kimberly D. Kessler, Mens Rea in Inchoate Crimes,87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997),p. 1138.
690 参见 Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 499-500(1951),转引自 Herbert Wechsler; William Kenneth Jones; Harold L. Korn Institute: Attempt, Solicitation, and Conspiracy: The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of the American Law, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 6 (1961) p. 957.
691 Scales v. United States, 81 sup. Ct. 1469(1951),转引自 Conspiracy. Criminal Liability. Specific Intent as an Element of the Crime, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 1 (1924) p. 110 .
692 United States v. Oleson, 310 F.3d 1085, 1089 (8th Cir. 2002),该司法区认为如果要对共谋犯罪加以认定的话,检方必须证明被告明知地参与了共谋行为; United States v. Albarran, 233 F.3d 972, 976 (7th Cir. 2000),该司法区要求检方必须证明合意的存在以及被告对于合意的明知性参与; United States v. Womack, 191 F.3d 879, 884 (8th Cir. 1999)该司法区认为为了证明共谋的存在,检方必须排除合理怀疑地证明被告明知共谋的主要目标等。转引自 Kathy Diene and Teisha C. Johnson, Federal Criminal Conspiracy, 42 Am. Crim. L. Rev (2005),p.46.
693 参见 Kevin W. Saunders, Voluntary Acts and the Criminal Law: Justifying Culpability Based on The Existences of Volition, winter, 49 U. Pitt. L. Rev (1988),p.443.
694 参见乔治?弗莱彻著:《刑法的基本概念》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 8 月第一版,第 258 页。
695 参见 Richard G..Singer and John A. Lafond, 王秀梅等注,Criminal law 中国方正出版社,2003 年9 月第一版。第 283 页。
696 Herbert Wechsler; William Kenneth Jones; Harold L. Korn, Institute: Attempt, Solicitation, and Conspiracy: The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of the American Law,Columbia Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 6 (1961) , p1030.
697 Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Matthew Bender & Co; 2nd edition (1995), p.143.
698 63. N.Y. 88 (1875),转引自 Herbert Wechsler; William Kenneth Jones; Harold L. Korn, Institute: Attempt, Solicitation, and Conspiracy: The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of the American Law, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 6. (1961), p1030.
699 但这里所暗含的前提就是非道德性与非法性是可以加以分野的。事实上,就这个问题,美国还有学者认为二者之间实际上是等同的,如美国学者斯蒂芬(Stephen)认为,在很多案件当中共谋的定义是合意从事非法行为,但是其意味的不仅仅是从事个人所从事的时候本身构成犯罪的行为,非法这个词意味着和非道德很紧密的含义,并且至少等同于非道德以及对于公众的伤害。也符合模范刑法典的规定。参见 Albert J. Harno, Intent in Criminal Conspiracy, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 89, No. 5 (1941), p. 624.
700 Albert J. Harno, Intent in Criminal Conspiracy, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 89, No. 5 (1941), p. 624.
701 参见 Larry Alexander, Kimberly D Kessler, Mens Rea and Inchoate Crimes,87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997),p.1138.
702 D Kessler, Developments in the Law: Criminal Conspiracy, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 72, No. 5 (1959), p1008.
704 Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of The Federal Judiciary’s Retreat From Sandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev (1989),p. 367.
705 刑法,和其他的学科一样,现在已经成为一种交叉学科,在其中不同的学科领域被综合从而形成对于特定现象的更好解释。例如,刑法就越来越受到诸如精神病学(Psychiatry)和辩论科学(Forensic science)。其也经常成为心理学和社会学所经产研究的领域。但从实然的角度而言,在沿用西方刑法传统的国家当中,犯罪定义基本上仍然沿用行为要素(Actus reas)和心态要素(Mens rea)的二元建构模式。转引自 M. Varn Chandola and Anoop Chandola, A Cognitive Framework for Mens Rea and Actus Reas: The Application of Contactics Theory to Criminal Law, 35 Tulsa L.J (2000),p.383.
706 雷·笛卡尔(Rene Descartes, 1596-1650),法国哲学家和数学家,其也是当代哲学的奠基人之一。在 17 世纪的前半部分,其认识到需要突破以伽利略为首提出的万能机械论,从而挽救人类的目的,观念,价值和渴望。参见 Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of The Federal Judiciary’s Retreat From Sandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev (1989),p.367.
707 引同上。
708 参见 Michael S. Moore, Causation and the Excuses, 73 Cal. L. Rev (1985),p. 1091.
709 参见 Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of The Federal Judicary’s Retreat From Sandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev (1989),p. 367.
710 引同上。
711 M. Varn Chandola and Anoop Chandola, A Cognitive Framework for Mens Rea and Actus Reas: The Application of Contactics Theory to Criminal Law, 35 Tulsa L.J (2000),p.383.
712 而在并不涉及重要权利剥夺的民事案件当中,起诉方通常需要根据压倒性的证据来证明其案件当中的要素,参见 Pamela S. Karlan, Discriminatory Purpose and Mens Rea: The Tortured Argument of Invidious Intent, 93 Yale L.J (1983),p.111.
713 参见 Kevin L. Keeler, Comment: Direct Evidence of State of Mind: A Philosophical Analysis of How Facts in Evidence Support Conclusions regarding Mental State, 1985 Wis. L. Rev (1985),p. 435.
714 参见 Michael S. Moore, Prima Facie Moral Culpability, 76 B.U. L. Rev (1996),p. 319.
715 Dannye Holley, Culpability Evaluations in the State Supreme Courts from 1977 to 1999: A "Model" Assessment, 34 Akron L. Rev (2001), p. 401.
716 J. Wigmore, The Science of Judicial Proof, § § 101-21 (3d ed. 1937), 转引自 Joachim Hruschka, Imputation, B.Y.U. L. Rev (1986),p. 669.
717 Kevin L. Keeler, Comment: Direct Evidence of State of Mind: A Philosophical Analysis of How Facts in Evidence Support Conclusions regarding Mental State, 1985 Wis. L. Rev (1985),p. 435.
718 这样的一种观念最早是由十九世纪的英国哲学家 John Stuart Mill 提出来的,参见 Kevin L. Keeler, Comment: Direct Evidence of State of Mind: A Philosophical Analysis of How Facts in Evidence Support Conclusions regarding Mental State, 1985 Wis. L. Rev. 435 (1985) ,p. 1985.
719 参见 Michael S. Moore, Choice, Character, and Excuse, Soc. Phil. and Pol'y, Spring (1990),p. 29.
720 Numbers 35:16-22 (New International Version),其中规定事先恶意可以从故意使用致命性武器的活动当中推定出来。转引自 Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of The Federal Judicary’s Retreat From Sandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev (1989),p. 367.
721 J. Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at The Common Law 326 (1898),转引自 Crimes: Evidence: Presumption of Malice from Use of a Deadly Weapon, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 24, No. 4 (1926),p 415.
722 参见 Wayne R. Lafave & Austin W. Scott, Criminal Law 613-14 (2d ed. 1986),转引自 BruceLedewitz, Mr. Carroll's Mental State or What is Meant by Intent Presumption, 38 Am. Crim. L. Rev (2001),p. 71.
723 Walter E. Oberer, The Deadly Weapon Doctrine--Common Law Origin, 75 HARV. L. REV (1962),p. 1565.
724 Laughlin, In Support of the Thayer Theory of Presumptions, 52 MICH. L. REV (1953),p. 195.
725 Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of The Federal Judiciary’s Retreat From Sandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev. (1989),p. 367.
726 参见 John Calvin Jeffries, Jr.; Paul B. Stephan, III, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 88, No. 7 (Jun., 1979), pp. 1325-1407
727 Riggins v. State, 174 S.E.2d 908, 910 (Ga. 1970)本案中,法官认为要求被告承担压倒性的证明精神耗弱的证据的这样的一种指导意见是适当的,而这样的指导意见推定行为人具有健全的心智,行为被推定为自由意志的结果,而行为人推定对于其行为的自然且可能的结果具有意图,在这样的情况下法院认为推定并不是结论性性的,是可辩驳的,并且并没有将证明义务转移给被告。转引自 Bruce L. Ackerman, The Conclusive Presumption Shuffle, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 125, No. 4 (1977),p. 761.
728 Chamberlain, Presumptions as First Aid to the District Attorney, 14 A.B.A.J (1928),p. 287.
729 对于概念范畴的分类是无穷尽的,除了下面所要相信论述的两类区分之外,还存在所谓表面证据成立的推定(prima facie presumption),结论性推定(conclusive presumption)以及对于事实的推定三种类型区分(presumption of fact)。限于篇幅这里对此不做细考。参见 John M.M. Greabe, Spelling Guilt out of a Record? Harmless-Error Review of Conclusive Mandatory Presumptions and Elemental Misdescriptions, 74 B.U.L. Rev (1994),p. 819.
730 对于刑法当中推定的经典分析模式出现在 County Court of Ulster v. Allen,案中,其将推定区分为如下的两种,即义务性或者强制性推定,以及被允许的推定。参见 Bruce Ledewitz, Mr. Carroll's Mental State or What is Meant by Intent, 38 Am. Crim. L. Rev ( 2001),p.71.
731 John M.M. Greabe, Spelling Guilt out of a Record? Harmless-Error Review of Conclusive Mandatory Presumptions and Elemental Misdescriptions, 74 B.U.L. Rev (1994),p. 819.
732 Leslie J. Harris, Criminal Law: Constitutional Limits on Criminal Presumptions as an Expression of Changing Concepts of Fundamental Fairness, 77 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1986),p. 308.
733 John M.M. Greabe, Spelling Guilt out of a Record? Harmless-Error Review of Conclusive Mandatory Presumptions and Elemental Misdescriptions, 74 B.U.L. Rev (1994)p. 819.
734 Charles V. Laughlin, In Support of the Thayer Theory of Presumptions, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 2 (1953) , p230.
735 Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of The Federal Judiciary’s Retreat FromSandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev (1989),p. 367.
736 John M.M. Greabe, Spelling Guilt out of a Record? Harmless-Error Review of Conclusive Mandatory Presumptions and Elemental Misdescriptions, 74 B.U.L. Rev (1994),p. 819.
737 Rollin M. Perkins, A rationale of Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 52. No.6 (1939),p. 928.
739 442 U.S. 510 (1979),
740 Schmolesky, County Court of Ulster v. Allen and Sandstrom v. Montana: The Supreme Court Lends an Ear but Turns Its Face, 33 RUTGERS L. REV (1981),p. 261.
741 从史源上来看,具有分水岭意义的 Sandstrom 案中出现的理念可以追溯到之前在关于犯意问题具有里程碑作用的 Morissette v. United States 案(342 U.S. 246 (1952),当中,法院的判决当中的一部分就涉及对于陪审团的指导意见当中关于结论性推定的宪法性的问题。在 Morissette 案当中,最高法院认为被告的重罪犯意可以通过被告自身的行为加以推断。 而法院将这样的推定视为结论性的,这种不能推翻的结论性的推断的实际效果可以视为有效地取消犯意作为犯罪的组成部分。法院解释如果当意图是被指控犯罪的组成部分,其存在就成为必须被提交到陪审团考虑的事实问题。无论证据有多明晰,无论法官对于犯意的推定如何的多具有争议,意图从来没有被认为是法律问题,而是必须提交给陪审团。因此,如果对于犯意进行强制性推定的话,实质上导致的是剥夺被告受陪审团审判的权力,以及剥夺相关事实受检验的权利。特别需要指出的是,在本案当中,法院认为即使被许可的对于犯意的推定都会导致错误地不审而判。再审法院认定审理法院错误地认定唯一的犯意问题是是否被告意图占有财物,法院的解释是尽管被告承认有意识地占有财物,但这样的事实本身并不是陪审团发现犯罪意图的充分根据。参见 Saltzburg, Burdens of Persuasion in Criminal Cases: Harmonizing the Views of the Justices, 20 AM. CRIM. L. REV (1983),p. 393.
742 Leslie J. Harris, Criminal Law: Constitutional Limits on Criminal Presumptions as an Expression of Changing Concepts of Fundamental Fairness, 77 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1986),p. 308.
744 Richard G. Singer, John, Q. Lafond 等著,王秀梅等译: Criminal law,中国方正出版社 2003 年 9 月第一版,第 58 页。
746 Hall, Daniel, Criminal law and procedure , 3rd ed. Albany, N.Y. : West Legal Studies , (2000), p.61.
748 Leslie J. Harris, Constitutional Limits on Criminal Presumptions as an Expression of Changing Concepts of Fundamental Fairness, 77 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1986),p. 308.
749 Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Matthew Bender & Co; 2nd edition (1995), P.98.
750 Bruce Ledewitz, Mr. Carroll's Mental State or What is Meant by Intent,38 Am. Crim. L. Rev (2001),p. 71.
751 参见美国模范刑法典§1.12(5),
752 如果 A 根据事先恶意打击了 B 但是错误地打击了 C 并导致了 C 的死亡,那么尽管其并没有针对 C 的恶意,其行为仍然构成谋杀,法律将恶意转移到了受伤害的人身上,参见 Matthew Hale, History of the Pleas of the Crown, 466 (1736),转引自 Leellen Coacher and Captain Libby Gallo, Criminal Liability: Transferred and Concurrent Intent,44 A.F. L. Rev (1998),p. 227.
753 Douglas N. Husak, Transferred Intent, 10 ND J. L. Ethics & Pub Pol'y (1996),p. 65.
754 Elizabeth F. Harris, 1995-1996: Recent Decisions: The Maryland Court of Appeals, 56 Md. L. Rev (1997),p.744.
755 参见 Mitchell Keiter, With Malice Toward All: The Increased Lethality of Violence Reshapes Transferred Intent and Attempted Murder Law Winter, 38 U.S.F. L. Rev (2004),p.261.
756 如有学者认为其在定义为有缺陷的,是对是古代法的较为奇怪的残余,在理论上的不连贯的,是太过严苛的,参见 Anthony M. Dillof, Transferred Intent: An Inquiry into the Nature of Criminal Culpability,1 Buff. Crim. L. R. (1998),p. 501;Wilfred J. Ritz, Felony Murder, Transferred Intent, and the Palsgraf Doctrine in the Criminal Law, 68 Wash. & Lee L. Rev (1969),p. 169;William L. Prosser, Transferred Intent, 45 Tex. L. Rev (1967),p. 650.
757 参见 Kimberly D. Kessler, Comment, The Role of Luck in the Criminal Law, 142 U. Pa. L. Rev (1994),p. 2183.
758 Anthony M. Dillof, Transferred Intent: An Inquiry into the Nature of Criminal Culpability,1 Buff. Crim. L. R (1998),p. 501.
759 参见 Mitchell Keiter, With Malice Toward All: The Increased Lethality of Violence Reshapes Transferred Intent and Attempted Murder Law, 38 U.S.F. L. Rev ( 2004),p, 261.在该文当中,其提出转移故意发生的情况包括 a.意图和非意图的受害人都死亡;b.非意图的受害人死亡,意图的受害人生还;c.意图受害人和非意图受害人都生还的情况,d.意图受害人死亡,非意图受害人生还等四种可能的情况。
760 Model Penal Code § 1.07(1),
761 Leellen Coacher and Captain Libby Gallo, Criminal Liability: Transferred and Concurrent Intent,44 A.F. L. Rev (1998), p. 227.
762 Ford v. State, 625 A.2d 984 (Md. 1993),转引自 Elizabeth F. Harris, 1995-1996: Recent Decisions: The Maryland Court of Appeals. 56 Md. L. Rev (1997),p. 744.
763 State v. Wilson, 546 A.2d 1041 (Md. 1988),转引自 Mitchell Keiter, With Malice toward All: The Increased Lethality of Violence Reshapes Transferred Intent and Attempted Murder Law, 38 U.S.F. L. Rev(2004),p. 261.
764 Leellen Coacher and Captain Libby Gallo, Criminal Liability: Transferred and Concurrent Intent,44 A.F. L. Rev (1998),p. 227.
765 Elizabeth F. Harris, 1995-1996: Recent Decisions: The Maryland Court of Appeals, 56 Md. L. Rev (1997),p.744.
766 Douglas N. Husak Transferred Intent, 10 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y (1996),p.65.
767 People v. Washington, 547 N.W.2d 661, 662 (Mich. 1996),转引自 Elizabeth F. Harris, 1995-1996: Recent Decisions: The Maryland Court of Appeals, 56 Md. L. Rev (1997),p. 744.
768 最初的时候,英国法曾经否认了解和有意无视之间存在对应关系,在 Regina v. Sleep,169 Eng. Rep. 1296 (Cr. Cas. Res. 1861)案第一次否认了解和有意无视之间存在对应关系,而这样的一种理念一直持续到 1875 年判决的 Bosley v. Davies, 1 Q.B.D. 84 (1875)案。参见 Edwards, The Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 MOD. L. REV (1954),p. 294.
769 169 Eng. Rep. 1296 (Cr. Cas. Res. 1861),
770 Jonathan L. Marcus, Economic Competitiveness and The Law: Note: Model Penal Code Section 2.02(7) and Willful Blindness.June, 102 Yale L.J (1993),p. 2231.
771 74 Cal. 306, 16 P. 1 (1887),转引自 Irap. Robbins, The Ostrich Instruction: Delibreate Ignorance As A Criminal Mens Rea, , 81 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1990),p. 191.
772 Douglas N. Husak & Crig A Callender, Willful Ignorance, Knowledege, and the Equal Culpability thesis: A study of The Deeper Significance of The Principle of Legality. 1994 Wis. L. Rev (1994),p. 29.
773 参见 Frans J. von Kaenel, Willful Blindness: A Permissible Substitute for Actual Knowledge Under the Money Laun-dering Control Act?, 71 Wash. U. L. Q (1993),p. 1189.
774 Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, § 401(a)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1988)规定任何人明知或者故意地制造,销售,处置或者持有管制物质为非法。而 Section 1002(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) (1988)规定进口任何受管制的物品进入到美国关境之内为非法,该部分要求了解到该物质是受到控制的。基本上来看,该法禁止明知地运输受控制的物品,以及明知地以销售为目的持有这样的物质。
775 Comment, Willful Blindness as a Substitute for Criminal Knowledge, 63 IOWA L. REV (1977),p. 466.
776 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1976),转引自 Douglas N. Husak & Crig A Callender, Willful Ignorance, Knowledege, and the Equal Culpability thesis: A study of The Deeper Significance of The Principle of Legality. 1994 Wis. L. Rev (1994),p. 29.
778 Rollin M. Perkins, "Knowledge" as a Mens Rea Requirement, 29 HASTINGS L.J (1978),p. 953.
779 395 U.S. 6 (1969),
780 396 U.S. 398 (1970),
781 转引自 Irap. Robbins, The Ostrich Instruction: Delibreate Ignorance As A Criminal Mens Rea, 81 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1990),p, 191.
782 Joseph Hutchison, Counsel to the United States Attorney, Remarks to the Environmental Law Class,Quinnipiac College School of Law (1999),p. 14.
783 Jane F. Barett & Veronica M. Clarke, Perspectives on the Knowledge Requirement of Section 6928(d) of RCRA after United States v. Dee, 59 Geo. Wash. L. Rev (1991),p. 862.
784 Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part, Stevens & Sons; 2r.e. edition (2d ed. 1961),p, 21.
785 其他的表述还包括默许(Connivance),有意避免(Conscious avoidance),有意睁一只眼,闭一只眼 (Willful shutting of the eyes),有意无视(Deliberate ignorance), 蓄意无视(Studied ignorance)等等,参见 Douglas N. Husak & Crig A Callender, Willful Ignorance, Knowledege, and the Equal Culpability thesis: A study of The Deeper Significance of The Principle of Legality. Wis. L. Rev. (1994),p. 29,一位学者曾考证过刑法当中围绕这个概念存在过十四种不同的概念名称,参见 Robin Charlow, Willful Ignorance and Criminal Culpability, 70 TEX. L. REV (1992),p. 1351.
786 Kristen L. Chestnut, United States v. Alvarado: Reflections on a Jewell, 19 GOLDEN GATE U. L. REV (1989),p, 47.
787 Douglas N. Husak & Crig A Callender, Willful Ignorance, Knowledege, and the Equal Culpability thesis: A study of The Deeper Significance of The Principle of Legality. 1994 Wis. L. Rev (1994),p, 29.
788 法学研究中建构某种没有日常词汇对应的专业技术性辞藻必然是用来服务其所意图满足的特定目的,而最能满足其设定目的概念就是最好的概念。参见 Michael A. Bishop, The Possibility of Conceptual Clarity in Philosophy, 29 AM. PHIL. Q (1992),p. 267.
789 David Luban, Contrived Ignorance, 87 Geo. L.J (1999), p. 957.
790 参见 Irap. Robbins, The Ostrich Instruction: Delibreate Ignorance As A Criminal Mens Rea, 81 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1990),p. 191.
791 J. LI. J. Edwards, The Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 MOD. L. REV (1954),p. 294.
792 174 U.S. 728 (1899),转引自 Jonathan L. Marcus, Economic Competiveness and the Law: NOTE: Model Penal Code Section 2.02(7) and Willful Blindness. 102 Yale L.J ( 1993),p, 2231.
795 David Luban, Contrived Ignorance, 87 Geo. L.J (1999),p. 957.
796 Model Penal Code. § 2.02(7),
797 Jonathan L. Marcus, Economic Competiveness and the Law: NOTE: Model Penal Code Section 2.02(7) and Willful Blindness. 102 Yale L.J ( 1993),p.2231.
798 参见 Douglas N. Husak & Crig A Callender, Willful Ignorance, Knowledege, and the Equal Culpability thesis: A study of The Deeper Significance of The Principle of Legality. 1994 Wis. L. Rev. (1994),p.29.
799 Frans J. von Kaenel, Willful Blindness: A Permissible Substitute for Actual Knowledge Under the Money Laun-dering Control Act?, 71 Wash. U. L. Q (1993),p.1189.
800 一个评论者就提出通过将对于事实的了解定义为对于事实高度盖然性的认知来解决这个问题。参见 David Luban, Contrived Ignorance, 87 Geo. L.J (1999)p.957.
801 对此,存在不同的解释,有人认为高度可能性和确信规定的是不同时间点的检验,也有学者提出二者所代表的性质不同,前者代表客观标准,后者代表主观标准。具体参见 Jonathan L. Marcus, Economic Competitivessness and The Law: NOTE: Model Penal Code Section 2.02(7) and Willful Blindness., 102 Yale L.J (1993),p.2231.
802 Douglas N. Husak & Craig A. Callender, Willful Ignorance, Knowledge, and the "Equal Culpability" Thesis: A Study of the Deeper Significance of the Principle of Legality, WIS. L. REV (1994),p. 29.
803 [苏] 斯?勒?齐扶斯著,李浩培译:《美国刑法的反动本质》,法律出版社 1955 年 12 月第一版,第 5 页。
804 杨寿堪 王成兵著:《实用主义在中国》,首都师范大学出版社 2002 年 12 月第一版,第 5 页。
805 Susan Haack, On Legal Pragmatism: Where Does "The Path Of the Law” Lead US? 50 Am. J. Juris (2005),p.71.
806 Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law? 63 S. Cal. L. Rev (1990), p.1653.
807 Arthur S. Link, American Epoch: A history of The United States since 1890s, New York:Knopf (1962), p.17.
808 Anthony E. Cook, the Death of God in American Pragmatism and Realism: Resurrecting the Value of Love in Contemporary Jurisprudence. 82 Geo. L.J (1994), p. 1431.
809 杨寿堪 王成兵著:《实用主义在中国》,首都师范大学出版社 2002 年 12 月第一版,第 2-3 页。
811 关于美国实用主义的基本理念和特点,将在后文详述,这里不作细述。
812 [苏] 斯?勒?齐扶斯著,李浩培译:《美国刑法的反动本质》,法律出版社 1955 年 12 月第一版,第 33 页。
813 Herbert L. Packer, the Model Penal Code and Beyond, 63 Colum. L. Rev (1963),p. 594.
814 参见刘仁文等译:《美国刑法典及其评注》,法律出版社 2005 年第一版,第 7 页。
815 姚云旺:《美国怀俄明州刑法述评——以比较法为视角》,载《安徽警官职业学院学报》2005 年第二期,第 94 页。
816 黄明东:《试析实用主义思想对美国教育立法的影响》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》 2003 年第 6 期(总第 122 期),第 16 页。
817 William S. Fields, Assessing the Performance of the Burger Court: The Ascent of Pragmatism, 129 Mil. L. Rev (1990),p.211.
818 Brian Z. Tamanaha, Pragmatism in U.S. Legal Theory: It’s Application to Normative Jurisprmative Jurisprudences, Socio legal Studies, and the Fact-Value Distinction, 41 Am. J. Juris (1996), p 315.
819 [美]杜威著,胡适译:《杜威五大演讲》,安徽教育出版社 1999 年 9 月第一版,第 85 页。
820 杨寿堪 王成兵著:《实用主义在中国》,首都师范大学出版社 2002 年 12 月第一版,第 21 页。
821 参见 Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law? 63 S. Cal. L. Rev (September, 1990), p.1658.
822 参见 Brian Z. Tamanaha, Pragmatism in U.S. Legal Theory: Its Application to Normative Jurisprmative Jurisprudences, Socio legal Studies, and the Fact-Value Distinction, 41 Am. J. Juris (1996), p 315.
823 G. Minda, Postmodern Legal Movements: Law and Jurisprudence at Century's End. New York: New York University Press (1995),p.124.
824 参见 Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law? 63 S. Cal. L. Rev (1990), p.1664.
825 Catharine Pierce Wells, Why Pragmatism Works For Me, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev (2000), p. 347.
826 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 76页。
827 Ruth Anna Putman, Justice in Content, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev (1990),p.1797.
828 M. Minow and E. Spelman, "In Context," 63 S. Cal. L. Rev(1990), p. 1597
829 参见 Brian Z. Tamanaha, Pragmatism in U.S. Legal Theory: Its Application to Normative Jurisprmative Jurisprudences, Socio legal Studies, and the Fact-Value Distinction, 41 Am. J. Juris (1996), p.320.
830 Thomas C. Grey, Holmes and Legal Pragmatism, 41 Stan. L. Rev (April, 1989), p.787.
831 [美]威廉·詹姆士著,庞景仁译:《彻底的经验主义》,上海人民出版社 1965 年版,第 2 页。
832 Catharine Pierce Wells, Why Pragmatism Works For Me, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev (2000), p. 347.
833 Joseph W. Singer, Should Lawyers Care About Philosophy? 1989 Duke L.J(1989), p.1757.
834 [美]约翰?杜威著,傅统先译:《确定性的寻求》,上海世纪出版集团 2005 年 9 月第一版,第 20 页。
835 Thomas F. Cotter, Legal Pragmatism and the Law and Economics Movement, 84 Geo. L.J (1996),p.2071.
836 参见储怀植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 2005 年第三版,第 7 页。
837 引同上。
838 Ruth Anna Putman, Justice in Context, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev (1990), p. 1797.
839 储怀植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 2005 年第三版,第 7 页。
840 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 88页。
841 Thomas F. Cotter, Legal Pragmatism and the Law and Economics Movement, 84 Geo. L.J (1996), p.2081.
842 Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law? 63 S. Cal. L. Rev (1990), p.1658.
843 [苏] 斯?勒?齐扶斯著,李浩培译:《美国刑法的反动本质》,法律出版社 1955 年 12 月第一版,第 7 页。
844 参见杨寿堪 王成兵著:《实用主义在中国》,首都师范大学 2002 年 12 月第一版,第 138-141 页。
845 参见 Daniel A. Farber, Legal Pragmatism and the Constitution, 72 Minn. L. Rev (1988), p.1342-1347.
846 Brian Z. Tamanaha, Pragmatism in U.S. Legal Theory: Its Application to Normative Jurisprmative Jurisprudences, Socio legal Studies, and the Fact-Value Distinction, 41 Am. J. Juris (1996), p 326.
847 Catharine Pierce Wells, Why Pragmatism Works for Me, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev (2000), p, 347.
848 杨寿堪 王成兵著:《实用主义在中国》,首都师范大学 2002 年 12 月第一版,第 148 页。
849 转引自孙有中著:《美国精神的象征——杜威社会思想研究》,上海人民出版社 2002 年第一版,第 251 页。
850 引同上,第 253 页。
851 Susan Hack, On Legal Pragmatism: Where Does "The Path Of The Law" Lead Us? 50 Am. J. Juris (2005), p.77.
852 [苏]列宁著,中共中央马恩列斯著作编译局译:《哲学笔记》,人民出版社 1974 年第三版,第 305页,转引自杨寿堪 王成兵著:《实用主义在中国》,首都师范大学 2002 年 12 月第一版,第 215 页。
853 邓正来著:《中国法学向何处去———建构“中国法律理想图景”时代的论纲》,商务印书馆 2006年第一版,第 51 页。
854 张之沧:《“实用主义真理观”辨析》,载《求是学刊》2004 年 5 月第 31 卷第 3 期,第 25 页。
855 叶志坚:《实用主义基本理论倾向、阶级属性、社会作用之辨析》,载《中共福建省委党校学报》2002 年第 10 期,第 49 页。
856 参见[美]玛卓莉·米勒著,李红 韩东晖译:《中美文化发展中的实用主义主题》,载《自然辩证法研究》1999 年第 15 卷第 4 期,第 9 页以下。
857 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 36页。
858 参见司汉武 崔巧玲:《工具、价值与实用主义——兼论实用主义与马克思主义的实践观分野》,载《延安大学学报(社会科学版)》2000 年 6 月第 22 卷第 2 期,第 20 页。
859 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 29 页。
860 引同上,第 30 页。
861 引同上,第 31 页。
862 柏元海:《实事求是与詹姆士实用主义比较分析》,载《暨南学报(哲学社会科学)》1999 年 9 月第 21 卷第 5 期,第 51 页。
863 何向东 吕进:《论实用主义的“真理论”》,载《哲学研究》2007 年第 2 期,第 90 页。
864 Ruth Anna Putman, Justice in Content, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev(September, 1990),p.1803.
865 当然,这仅仅是论者个人的观点,我国学界基本上将实用主义归于主观唯心主义之列。
866 范进学:《“法学”是什么?———比较法视域中的“法学”含义诠释》,载《法学论坛》2006 年7 月第 21 卷第 4 期,第 32 页。
867 如我国有学者将刑法的特征总结为“哲学性、事实性和规范性”,参见赵秉志 魏昌东:《中国刑法哲学的产生和发展》,载《法制与社会发展(双月刊)》2005 年第 2 期(总第 62 期),第 3 页以下,论者认为,这样的观点当中的事实性特征其实所指的就是法律文本的客观存在这一“静态特征”。而其坚持的规范性和哲学性特征则是混淆了刑法与刑法学不同话语的典型表征。
868 如有学者提出,“刑法学属于规范科学,研究刑法的规范及其应用”,参见张明楷:《刑法学研究中的十关系论》,载《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2006 年 3 月第 24 卷第 2 期,第 3 页以下。
869 如有学者提出,“从研究对象和研究范围来说,法学是人学;从思维方式来说,法学是权利义务之学;从学术使命来说,法学是求真求善求美之学。这三种解释从三个方面揭示了法学的三重规定性,不仅具有认识论意义,也就有方法论意义”参见黄文艺:《法学释义》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》 2000 年 5 月号,第 61 页。
870 [德]伯恩哈德·格罗斯菲尔德,孙世彦译:《比较法的基本问题》,载《法制与社会发展》2002年第 4 期,第 106 页。
871 引同上。
872 参见沈宗灵主编:《法理学》,北京大学出版社 2000 年版,第 24 页。
873 刘水林:《法学方法论研究》,载《法学研究》2001 年第 3 期。
874 参见《现代汉语词典》(修订本),商务印书馆 1998 年版,第 353 页。
875 严 平:《走向解释学的真理—伽达默尔哲学述评》,东方出版社 1998 年版,第 18 页。
876 许发民:《论刑法应然性研究的“合法性”———兼论刑法学研究范围及其方法》,载《法律科学(西北政法学院学报)》 2003 年第 5 期,第 98 页以下。
877 鲁 珂:《比较法的现代性歧途》,载《比较法研究》2003 年第 5 期,第 93 页。
878 薛佐文:《比较法应当是一种法的研究方法》,载《贵州民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》2005年第 3 期(总第 91 期),第 51 页。
879 参见黄文艺:《比较法:批判与重构》,载《法制与社会发展》2001 年第 1 期,第 13 页。
880 参见刘静仑:《比较法的方法论探析》,载《河北学刊》2000 年第 6 期,第 108 页。
881 参见黄文艺:《比较法:批判与重构》,载《法制与社会发展》2001 年第 1 期,第 13 页以下。
882 华 枫:《从美好的幻想到理性的追求—评米健“从比较法到共同法”一文质疑新共同法说》,载《比较法研究》2003 年第 2 期,第 118 页。
883 参见沈宗灵:《比较法学的方法论》,载《法制与社会发展》1996 年第 3 期,第 8 页。
884 张旭 卓黎黎:《构建刑法学研究方法体系》,载《河北法学》2006 年第 24 卷第 3 期,第 144页。
885 王作富 田宏杰:《中国刑法学研究应当注意的几个基本问题》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期,第 6 页。
886 刘艳红:《重构我国刑法学研究的“方法群”》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期,第 16 页。
887 马克昌:《改进中国刑法学研究之我见》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期,第 3 页。
888 高铭暄:《九五”以来刑法学研究状况及发展趋势》,载《政治与法律》 2000 年第 0 期,第 10页。
889 如曾粤兴教授曾著有《刑法学方法的一般理论》一书,相关评价可参考于志刚 蒋涤非:《方法的反思与更新——刑法学方法的一般理论》,载《甘肃政法学院学报》2006 年 7 月总第 87 期,第136 页以下。
890 张明楷著:《刑法学》(上),法律出版社 1997 年版,第 2 页以下。
891 其指出,“从体系到内容突破既存的刑法理论,完成从注释刑法学到理论刑法学的转变,这就是我们的结论。”参见陈兴良著:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 1991 年版,前言第 1 页。
892 “在《刑法哲学》一书的前言中,我曾经提出刑法学要从刑法解释学向刑法哲学转变的命题。现在看来‘转变’一词不尽妥当与贴切,而应当是‘提升’。”其认为“如果用‘提升’一词,就能够以一种公正的与科学的态度处理刑法哲学与刑法解释学的关系:两者不是互相取代,而是互相促进。”参见陈兴良主编:《刑事法判解》(第 1 卷) ,法律出版社 1991 年版,卷首语第 2 页。
893 引同上。
894 刘艳红:《走向实质解释的刑法学———刑法方法论的发端、发展与发达》,载《中国法学》2006 年第 5 期,第 170 页。
895 参见刘艳红:《走向实质解释的刑法学———刑法方法论的发端、发展与发达》,载《中国法学》2006 年第 5 期,第 170 页。
897 刘水林:《法学方法论的哲学基础》,载《西南民族大学学报?人文社科版》2004 年第 4 期,第200 页。
898 目前,我国刑法学界已经开始有学者关注“一般人”或者“国民认同”这种实用主义检验标准。参见周光权:《论刑法的公众认同》,载《中国法学》2003 年第 1 期,第 116 页。
899 齐文远:《刑法学人学术品格的重塑》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期,第 31 页。
900 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 28 页。
901 参见张旭 张磊:《刑法学发展报告》,载《当代法学》2005 年 7 月号,第 62 页。
902 张智辉:《刑法改革的价值取向》,载《中国法学》2002 年第 6 期,第 98 页。
903 蒋熙辉:《权利发展与刑法改革》,载《法制与社会发展》 2005 年第 5 期,第 16 页。
904 赵秉志:《全球化时代中国刑法改革中的人权保障》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》 2006 年第 1期,第 5 页。
905 卢建平:《国际人权公约视角下的中国刑法改革建议》,载《华东政法学院学报》2006 年 5 期,第 132 页。
906 周光权:《刑法理论应在对抗、论争中求发展》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期,第 14 页。
908 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 34页。
909 引同上。
910 邓正来 邹立君:《“理想图景”、“世界结构”与“定义中国”———与邓正来谈<中国法学向何处去>》,载《河北法学》2006 年 12 月第 24 卷第 12 期,第 176 页。
911 周光权:《刑法学的西方经验与中国现实》,载《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2006 年 3 月第24 卷第 2 期,第 20 页。
913 王世洲:《刑法方法理论的若干基本问题》,载《法学研究》2005 年第 5 期,第 70 页。
914 张 旭 卓黎黎:《构建刑法学研究方法体系》,载《河北法学》2006 年 3 月第 24 卷第 3 期,第 144 页。
915 Thomas C. Grey, Holmes and Legal Pragmatism. 41 Stan. L. Rev (1989), p.787.
916 Ruth Anna Putnam, Justice in Context, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev(1990), p.1797.
917 柏元海:《实事求是与詹姆士实用主义比较分析》,载《暨南学报(哲学社会科学)》1999 年 9 月第 21 卷第 5 期,第 51 页。
918 于志刚 蒋涤非:《方法的反思与更新———<刑法学方法的一般理论>读后》,载《甘肃政法学院学报》2006 年 7 月总第 87 期,第 136 页。
919 参见储槐植:《提倡折衷——法学研究范式检讨》,载《浙江社会科学》2005 年第三期,第 87页。
920 参见邱兴隆:《折衷刑的理性反思》,载《法学评论》1999 年第 3 期,第 22 页。
921 系统的介绍,参见曾粤兴著:《刑法学方法的一般理论》,人民出版社 2005 年第一版。
922 例如有学者就直接提出,综合的方法才是最好的刑法方法。参见王世洲:《刑法方法理论的若干基本问题》,载《法学研究》2005 年第 5 期,第 70 页以下。
923 相关著述实在太多,无法一一列举。
924 周光权:《刑法学的西方经验与中国现实》,载《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2006 年 3 月第24 卷第 2 期,第 20 页。
925 曾粤兴:《刑法学方法的一般理论》,人民出版社 2005 年第一版,转引自于志刚 蒋涤非:《方法的反思与更新———<刑法学方法的一般理论>读后》,载《甘肃政法学院学报》2006 年 7 月总第87 期,第 136 页。
927 李海东教授指出:刑法本身是多余和伪善的, 而其作用是一方面为了在宣传与标榜上有美化国家权力,另一方面束缚国家机器面对犯罪的反应速度与灵敏度。参见李海东:《刑法原理入门( 犯罪论基础) 》,法律出版社 1998 年版,第 3 - 4 页。
928 有人认为实体正义是刑法的最高价值,其使得刑法不仅具有工具价值,而且具有目的价值。参见陈兴良:《法治国的刑法文化——21 世纪刑法学研究展望》,载《人民检察》1999 年 11 期,第10 页。
929 参见储槐植:《提倡折衷——法学研究范式检讨》,载《浙江社会科学》2005 年第三期,第 87页。
930 陈兴良:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 1991 年第一版,前言。
931 张明楷:《刑法学》(上),法律出版社 1997 年第一版,第 3 页。
932 陈兴良:《刑事法判解》(第 1 卷),法律出版社 1991 年版,卷首语。
933 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 31页。
934 刘艳红:《重构我国刑法学研究的“方法群”》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期,第 16 页。
935 表现为若干专门的学术专著以及大量的学术文章,这里不一一列举。
936 刘晓莉:《刑法解释的主体》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》2003 年 3 月第 2 期,第 47 页。
937 当然,其规定的合理性如何这里暂不做讨论。
938 [美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979 年 8 月第一版,第 61页。
939 包括被某些学者称之为“刑法解释行政主体”的其他部委。相关论述参照林维:《刑法解释中的行政解释因素研究》,载《中国法学》2006 年第 5 期,第 135 页以下。
940 林维:《刑法解释中的行政解释因素研究》,载《中国法学》2006 年第 5 期,第 135 页。
941 参见李洁:《中国有权刑法司法解释模式评判》,载《当代法学》2004 年 1 月第 18 卷第 1 期,第 81 页。
1.储槐植著:《美国刑法》,北京大学出版社 1996 年第二版。
2.陈兴良著:《刑事法判解》(第 1 卷),法律出版社 1991 年第一版。
3.陈兴良著:《刑法哲学》,中国政法大学出版社 1991 年第一版。
4.陈兴良著:《刑法的价值构造》,中国人民大学出版社 1998 年第一版。
5.邓正来著:《中国法学向何处去——建构“中国法律理想图景”时代的论纲》,商务印书馆 2006 年第一版。
6.李海东著:《刑法原理入门( 犯罪论基础) 》,法律出版社 1998 年第一版。
7.孙有中著:《美国精神的象征——杜威社会思想研究》,上海人民出版社 2002 年第一版。
8.杨寿堪,王成兵著:《实用主义在中国》,首都师范大学出版社 2002 年12 月第一版。
9.曾粤兴著:《刑法学方法的一般理论》,人民出版社 2005 年第一版。
10.张明楷著:《刑法学》(上),法律出版社 1997 年第一版。
11.张明楷著:《刑法的基本立场》,中国法制出版社 2002 年 3 月第一版。
12.周光权著:《法治视野中的刑法客观主义》,清华大学出版社 2002 年第一版。
13.赵秉志主编:《英美刑法学》,中国人民大学出版社 2004 年 11 月第一版。
14.刘仁文等译:《美国模范刑法典及其评注》,法律出版社 2005 年第一版。
15.[德]伯恩哈德?格罗斯菲尔德著,孙世彦 姚建宗 译:《比较法的力量与弱点》,清华大学出版社 2003 年 10 月第一版。
16.[美]阿瑟?库恩著,陈朝壁 译著:《英美法原理》,法律出版社 2002 年12 月第一版。
17.[美]道格拉斯?N?胡萨克著,谢望原等译:《刑法哲学》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年第一版。
18.[美]乔治?P?佛莱彻著,蔡爱惠 陈巧燕 江溯 译:《刑法的基本概念》,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年 8 月第一版。
19.[美]威廉?詹姆士著,陈羽伦 孙端禾译:《实用主义》,商务印书馆 1979年 8 月第一版。
20.[美]威廉?詹姆士著,庞景仁译:《彻底的经验主义》,上海人民出版社1965 年第一版。
21.[美]约翰?杜威著,傅统先译:《确定性的寻求》,上海世纪出版集团2005 年 9 月第一版。
22.[美] 约翰?杜威著,胡适译:《杜威五大演讲》,安徽教育出版社 1999年 9 月第一版。
23.[苏] 斯?勒?齐扶斯著,李浩培译:《美国刑法的反动本质》,法律出版社 1955 年 12 月第一版。
1. Adekemi Odujirin, the Normative Basis of Fault in Criminal Law: History and Theory, University of Toronto Press, (1998).
2. Arthur S. Link, American Epoch: A history of The United States since 1890s, New York:Knopf. (1962).
3. Black’s Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co, 5th ed. (1979).
4. Daniel E. Hall, Criminal law and procedure, Thomson Delmar Learning; 4 edition (2003).
5. Douglas Hay, Property, Authority and the Criminal Law, in Douglas Hay et al.,Albion's Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century, England, Penguin Books Ltd (1975).
6. Farnsworth, an Introduction to the Legal System of the United States. 3rd Ed. New York: Oceana. (1996).
7. Franz Alexander & Hugo Staub, the Criminal, the Judge, and the Public: A Psychological Analysis, Translated by Gregory Zilboorg, the Macmillan co. (1931).
8. Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part 21, 48, Stevens & Sons; 2re edition (1961).
9. G Williams, The mental element in crime, Uerusalem and Oxford. (1965).
10. Gerhard O.W. Mueller, Crime, Law and the Scholars, Heineman ,Educational (1969).
11. G. Minda, Postmodern Legal Movements: Law and Jurisprudence at Century's End. New York: New York University Press (1995).
12. H.L.A. Hart, Legal Responsibility and Excuses, in Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press (1968).
13. John M. Fischer, Introduction: Responsibility and Freedom, in Moral Responsibility 9, 41, Cambridge. University Press (1986).
14. John D. Greenwood, Introduction to the Future of the Folk Psychology, Cambridge University Press (1991).
15. Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, Matthew Bender & Co; 2ndedition (1995).
16. J. Hall, General Principle of Criminal Law, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company (1960).
17. Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law (2nd Ed.), Simon Schuster, Inc. (1985).
18. Mortimer R. Kadish and Sanford H. Kadish, Discretion to Disobey: A Study of Lawful Departures from Legal Rules, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press (1973).
19. Oliver Wendell Holmes, The common law, Dover Publications, Inc. New Yolk (1991).
20. Paul H. Robinson, Structure and Function in Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1997).
21. R.A. Duff & David Garland, Introduction: Thinking About Punishment, in A Reader on Punishment 1, 8-10 (R.A. Duff & David Garland eds., Oxford University Press, USA (1995).
22. Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, Foundation Press (2004).
23. Richard G. Singer, John Q. La Fond, Criminal law: Examples and Explanations 6th Edition, Aspen Publishing, ING. (1995).
24. Rita James Simon, Ed, the Jury System in America: A Critical Overview, Sage Publications (1975).
25. Steven L. Emanuel, Criminal Law, 中信出版社 2003 年第一版。
26. Thomas J. Gardner, Criminal law: Principles and cases, Wadsworth Publishing; 6 edition (2006).
27. W. LaFave& A. Scott, Criminal Law, West Publishing Co. (1972).
28. John M. Brumbaugh, Criminal law and approach to the study of law, thefoundation press (1986).
29. N. Lacey, State Punishment, Political principles and Community Values, Routledge (1988).
1. 柏元海:《实事求是与詹姆士实用主义比较分析》,载《暨南学报(哲学社会科学)》1999 年 9 月第 21 卷第 5 期。
2. 陈兴良:《法治国的刑法文化——21 世纪刑法学研究展望》,载《人民检察》1999 年 11 期。
3. 储槐植:《提倡折衷——法学研究方法检讨》,载《浙江社会科学》2005年第三期。
4.丁启明 李韧夫:《英美刑法犯罪心理若干问题论》,载《大庆高等专科学校学报》2003 年 7 月 第 3 期。
5.邓正来 邹立君:《“理想图景”、“世界结构”与“定义中国”———与邓正来谈<中国法学向何处去>》,载《河北法学》2006 年 12 月第 24 卷第 12 期。
6.付霞:《试论英美刑法中严格责任之应然归宿》,载《黑龙江省政法干部管理学院学报》2003 年第 5 期。
7.范进学:《“法学”是什么?———比较法视域中的“法学”含义诠释》,载《法学论坛》2006 年 7 月第 21 卷第 4 期。
8.高铭暄:《九五”以来刑法学研究状况及发展趋势》,载《政治与法律》 2000 年第 5 期。
9.华 枫:《从美好的幻想到理性的追求—评米健“从比较法到共同法”一文质疑新共同法说》,载《比较法研究》2003 年第 2 期。
10. 何向东 吕进:《论实用主义的“真理论”》,载《哲学研究》2007 年第 2 期
11. 黄文艺:《比较法:批判与重构》,载《法制与社会发展》2001 年第 1期。
12. 黄文艺:《法学释义》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》 2000 年 5 月号。
13. 黄明东:《试析实用主义思想对美国教育立法的影响》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》 2003 年第 6 期(总第 122 期)。
14. 康均心 董邦俊:《罪过责任之思考———兼评严格责任之冲突》,载 《法学评论(双月刊)》2000 年第 5 期(总第 103 期)。
10.林维:《刑法解释中的行政解释因素研究》,载《中国法学》2006 年第 5 期。
11.李洁:《中国有权刑法司法解释模式评判》,载《当代法学》2004 年 1月第 18 卷第 1 期。
12.李 洁 李立丰:《美国刑法中主观罪过表现形式初探》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》2005 年第 1 期(总第 129 期)。
13.芦光 张亚玲:《英美刑法中的道德痕迹》,载《河南公安高等专科学校学报》2003 年 8 月第 4 期(总第 71 期)。
14.刘静仑:《比较法的方法论探析》,载《河北学刊》2000 年第 6 期。
15.刘水林:《法学方法论的哲学基础》,载《西南民族大学学报?人文社科版》2004 年第 4 期。
16.刘水林:《法学方法论研究》,载《法学研究》2001 年第 3 期
17.刘南平:《法学博士论文的骨髓和皮囊》,载《中外法学》 2000 年第一期。
18.刘晓莉:《刑法解释的主体》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》2003 年 3月第 2 期。
19.刘艳红:《重构我国刑法学研究的“方法群”》,载《法商研究》2003年第 3 期。
20.刘艳红:《走向实质解释的刑法学——刑法方法论的发端、发展与发达》,载《中国法学》2006 年第 5 期。
21.卢建平:《国际人权公约视角下的中国刑法改革建议》,载《华东政法学院学报》2006 年 5 期。
22.骆梅芬:《英美法系刑事法律中严格责任与绝对责任之辨析》,载《中山大学学报(社会科学版)》1999 年第 5 期。
23.鲁 珂:《比较法的现代性歧途》,载《比较法研究》2003 年第 5 期
24.马庆林:《法律语言学 法律语言——兼谈法律英语的特点》,载《西安外国语学院学报》2003 年 9 月第 11 卷,第 3 期。
25.马克昌:《改进中国刑法学研究之我见》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3期。
26.齐文远:《刑法学人学术品格的重塑》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期。
27.秦前红 刘新英:《霍姆斯刑法思想评析》,载《法学评论(双月刊)》2000 年第 5 期(总第 103 期)。
28.邱兴隆:《折衷刑的理性反思》,载《法学评论》1999 年第 3 期。
29.石文英:《从归责的历史发展看严格责任》,载《焦作工学院学报(社会科学版)》2002 年 6 月第 3 卷 第 2 期。
30.沈宗灵:《比较法学的方法论》,载《法制与社会发展》1996 年第 3 期。
31.司汉武 崔巧玲:《工具、价值与实用主义——兼论实用主义与马克思主义的实践观分野》,载《延安大学学报(社会科学版)》2000 年 6 月第 22 卷第 2 期。
32.王世洲:《刑法方法理论的若干基本问题》,载《法学研究》2005 年第 5 期。
33.王作富 田宏杰:《中国刑法学研究应当注意的几个基本问题》,载《法商研究》2003 年第 3 期。
34.许发民:《论刑法应然性研究的“合法性”———兼论刑法学研究范围及其方法》,载《法律科学(西北政法学院学报)》 2003 年第 5 期。
35.薛佐文:《比较法应当是一种法的研究方法》,载《贵州民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》2005 年第 3 期(总第 91 期)。
36.曾尔恕 郭琛:《本土法和外国法:美国的经验》,载《政法论坛》2000年第 2 期。
37.闫显明 冯建军:《英美刑法中的严格责任制度及其借鉴意义》,载《武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2001 年 8 月第 14 卷第 4 期。
38.叶志坚:《实用主义基本理论倾向、阶级属性、社会作用之辨析》,载《中共福建省委党校学报》2002 年第 10 期。
39.姚云旺:《美国怀俄明州刑法述评——以比较法为视角》,载《安徽警官职业学院学报》2005 年第二期。
40.于志刚 蒋涤非:《方法的反思与更新——<刑法学方法的一般理论>读后》,载《甘肃政法学院学报》2006 年 7 月总第 87 期
41.郑祝君:《英美法时代性背景下的制度变迁》载《法商研究》2002 年第 2 期。
42.周光权:《刑法学的西方经验与中国现实》,载《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2006 年 3 月第 24 卷第 2 期。
43.周光权:《刑法理论应在对抗、论争中求发展》,载《法商研究》2003年第 3 期。
44.周光权:《论刑法的公众认同》,载《中国法学》2003 年第 1 期。
45.张 旭 卓黎黎:《构建刑法学研究方法体系》,载《河北法学》2006年 3 月第 24 卷第 3 期。
46.张旭 张磊:《刑法学发展报告》,载《当代法学》2005 年 7 月号。
47.张智辉:《刑法改革的价值取向》,载《中国法学》2002 年第 6 期。
48.张明楷:《学术之盛需要学派之争》,载《环球法律评论》2005 年第一期。
49.张明楷:《刑法学研究中的十关系论》,载《政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)》2006 年 3 月第 24 卷第 2 期。
50.张之沧:《“实用主义真理观”辨析》,载《求是学刊》2004 年 5 月第
31 卷第 3 期。
51.赵秉志:《全球化时代中国刑法改革中的人权保障》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》 2006 年第 1 期。
52.赵秉志 魏昌东:《中国刑法哲学的产生和发展》,载《法制与社会发展(双月刊)》2005 年第 2 期。
53.[美]波尔?H?罗宾逊,何秉松 王桂萍译:《美国刑法的结构概要》(下),载《政法论坛》(中国政法大学学报) 第 23 卷第 3 期。
54.[美]玛卓莉?米勒,李红 韩东晖译:《中美文化发展中的实用主义主题》,载《自然辩证法研究》1999 年第 15 卷第 4 期。
55.[德]伯恩哈德?格罗斯菲尔德,孙世彦译:《比较法的基本问题》,载《法制与社会发展》2002 年第 4 期。
1.Abraham S. Goldstein, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, 68 Yale L.J. (1959).
2.Adam Candeub, Consciousness & Culpability, 54 Ala. L. Rev (2002).
3.Albert W. Alschuler and Andrew G. Deiss, a Brief History of the CriminalJury in the United States. 61 U. Chi. L. Rev (1994).
4.Albert J. Harno, Intent in Criminal Conspiracy, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 89, No. 5. (1941).
5.Alan Saltzman, Strict Criminal Liability and the United States Constitution: Substantive Criminal Law Due Process, 24 Wayne L. Rev. (1978).
6.Alun Griffith, Comment: People v. Ryan: a Trap for the Unwary, 61 Brooklyn L. Rev (1995).
7.Alan C. Michaels, Constitutional Innocence, 112 Harv. L. Rev (1999).
8.Alan C. Michaels, "Rationales" of Criminal Law Then and Now: For a Judgmental Descriptivism, 100 Colum. L. Rev. (2000).
9.Allen, Criminal Law and the Modern Consciousness: Some Observations on Blameworthiness, 44 TENN. L. REV. (1977).
10.Allen, Structuring Jury Decision-making in criminal cases: A unified constitutional approach to evidential devices, 94 Harv. L. Rev. (1980).
11.Alvin K. Klevorick, Symposium on Law and Eeonomics: Legal Theory and the Economic Analysis of Torts and Crimes. 85 Colum. L. Rev (1985).
12.Ann Hopkins, Mens Rea and the Right to Trial by Jury, 76 Calif. L. Rev., (1988)
13.Ann K. Pollack, Note, the Role of Injunctive Relief and Settlements in Superfund Enforcement, 68 Cornell L. Rev. (1983).
14.Andrew C. Hanson, Section 309(c) of the Clean Water Act: Using the Model Penal Code to Clarify Mental State in Water Pollution Crimes, 20 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (2003).
15.Andrew E. Lelling, Comment, Eliminative Materialism, Neuroscience & the Criminal Law, 141 U. Pa. L. Rev. (1993).
16.Anthony M. Dillof Transferred Intent: An Inquiry into the Nature of Criminal Culpability, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R. (1998).
17.Anthony E. Cook, the Death of God in American Pragmatism and Realism: Resurrecting the Value of Love in Contemporary Jurisprudence. 82 Geo. L.J. (1994), p. 1431.
18.Arthur W. Murphy, Old Maxims Never Die: The "Plain-Meaning Rule" and Statutory Interpretation in the "Modern" Federal Courts, 75 Colum. L. Rev. (1975).
19.Arnold N. Enker, Mens rea and Criminal Attempt, American Bar Foundation Research Journal, Vol.2.No.4. (1977)
20.Arenella, Character, Choice, and Moral Agency: The Relevance of Character to Our Moral Culpability Judgments, 7 Soc. Phil. & Pol’y (1990).
21.Asford & Risinger, Presumptions, Assumptions, and Due Process in Criminal Cases: A Theoretical Overview, 79 YALE L.J. (1969).
22.Barry Capp, A Little Knowledge Can Be a Dangerous Thing - State of New Jersey v. Robertson & Mens Rea in the Freshwater Wetlands, Protection Act of 1987, 15 Pace Envtl. L. Rev (1998).
23. Bernard E. Gegan, Criminal Homicide in the Revised New York Penal Law, 12 N.Y.L.F. (1966).
24.Brian Z. Tamanaha, Pragmatism in U.S. Legal Theory: It’s Application to Normative Jurisprmative Jurisprudences, Socio legal Studies, and the Fact-Value Distinction, 41 Am. J. Juris. (1996).
25.Bickel and Wellington, the legislative propose and judicial process, 71. Har. L. Rev. (1957).
26.Brian Z. Tamanaha, Pragmatism in U.S. Legal Theory: It’s Application to Normative Jurisprmative Jurisprudences, Socio legal Studies, and the Fact-Value Distinction, 41 Am. J. Juris. (1996).
27.Brigid Harington, a Proposed narrowing Of the Clean Water Acts Criminal Negligence Provisions: It’s only human? 32 B.C. Envtl. Off. L. Rev. (2005).
28.Bruce Ledewitz, Mr. Carroll's Mental State or What is Meant by Intent Presumption, 38 Am. Crim. L. Rev (2001).
29.Bruce L. Ackerman, the Conclusive Presumption Shuffle, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 125, No. 4. (Apr., 1977).
30.Cass R. Sunstein, Interpreting Statutes in the Regulatory State, 103 Harv L. Rev (1989).
31.Catharine Pierce Wells, Why Pragmatism Works For Me, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev (2000).
32.Christine L. Chinni, who’s Head is in the Sand? Problems with the Use of the Ostrich Instruction in Conspiracy Cases, 13 W. NEW ENG. L. REV. (1991).
33.Christine Sistare, Agent Motives and the Criminal Law, 13 Soc. Theory & Prac. (1987).
34.Chamberlain, Presumptions as First Aid to the District Attorney, 14 A.B.A.J. (1928).
35.Claire Finkelstein, the Inefficiency of Mens Rea, 88 Calif. L. Rev. May (2000).
36.Collings, Negligence Murder, 49, Calif. L. Rev. (1961).
37.Colin Campbell, Annotation, Mistake or Lack of Information as to Victim'sAge as Defense to Statutory Rape, 46 A.L.R. 5th (1997).
38.Cover, the Supreme Court, 1982 Term -- Foreword: Nomos and Narrative, 97 HARV. L. REV. (1983).
39.Cook, Act, intention and motive in the criminal law, 26 Yale L.J. (1917).
40.Cynthia H. Finn, the Responsible Corporate Officer, Criminal Liability, and Mens Rea: Limitations on the Rco Doctrine, 46 Am. U.L. Rev. (1996).
41.Dan M. Kahan, The Theory of Value Dilemma: A Critique of the Economic Analysis of Criminal Law, 1 Ohio St. J. Crim. L (2004).
42.Dane S. Ciolino, The Mental Element of Louisiana Crimes: It Doesn’t Matter What You Think, 70 Tul. L. Rev (1996).
43.Dannye Holley, Culpability Evaluations in the State Supreme Courts from 1977 to 1999: A "Model" Assessment, 34 Akron L. Rev. (2001).
44.Dannye Holley, The Influence of the Model Penal Code’s Culpability Provision’s on State Legislatures: A Study of Lost Opportunities, Including abolishing the Mistake of fact Doctrine, 1997, 27 Sw. U. L. Rev. (1993).
45.Daniel L. Rotenberg, an Essay on Criminal Liability for Dutyless Omissions that Cause Results, 62 Brooklyn L. Rev (1996).
46.David Lanham, Felony Murder -- Ancient and Modern, 7 CRIM. L.J. (1983).
47.David A. Gordon, Protecting Public Welfare: Mens Rea Under Section 3008(d) (2) (A) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, U Chi Legal (1997).
48.David J. Seipp, the Distinction between Crime and Tort in the Early Common Law, 76 B.U. L. Rev. (1996).
49.David Friedman, an Economic Explanation of Punitive Damages, 40 Ala. L.Rev. (1989).
50.David Hardy, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act: A Historical and Legal Perspective, 17 Cumb. L. Rev. (1987).
51.David A. Strauss, Common Law Constitutional Interpretation, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev (1996).
52.David Luban, Contrived Ignorance, 87 Geo. L.J (1999).
53.Darrlk. Brown, The Jury’s Role In Administering Justice in the United States: Judicial instructions, Defendant Culpability, and Jury Interpretation of Law, Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 21 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. (2002)
54.Dale E. Bennett, the Louisiana Criminal Code: A Comparison with Prior Louisiana Criminal Law, 5 La. L. Rev. (1942).
55.Dennis Patterson, Wittgenstein and the Code: A Theory of Good Faith Performance and Enforcement under Article Nine, 137 U. PA. L. REV. (1988).
56.Deborah W. Denno December, Crime and Consciousness: Science and Involuntary Acts, 87 Minn. L. Rev. (2002)
57. Donald A. Dripps, the Constitutional Status of the Reasonable Doubt Rule, 75 Cal. L. Rev. (1987).
58.Douglas N. Husak, Varieties of Strict Liability, 8 Canadian J.L. & Jurisprudence (1995).
59.Douglas N. Husak Transferred Intent, 10 ND J. L. Ethics & Pub Pol'y (1996).
60.Douglas N. Husak & Crig a Callender, Willful Ignorance, Knowledege, and the Equal Culpability thesis: A study of The Deeper Significance of thePrinciple of Legality. 1994 Wis. L. Rev (1994).
61.Dressler, Reflections on Excusing Wrongdoers: Moral Theory, New Excuses, and the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J. (1988).
62.Edwin R. Keedy, Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law, 22 Harv. L. Rev. (1908).
63.Edwin H. Byrd, III, Comment, Reflections on Willful, Wanton, Reckless and Gross Negligence, 48 LA. L. REV. (1988).
64.Edwin R. Keedy, Criminal Attempts at Common Law, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 102, No. 4. (Feb., 1954).
65.Edward J. Imwinkelried, A More Modest Proposal than A Common Law for the Age of Statutes: Greater Reliance in Statutory Interpretation on the concept of interpretative Intention, 68 Alb. L. Rev. (2005).
66.Edwards, the Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 MOD. L. REV. (1954).
67.Elaine M. Chiu, the Challenge of Motive in the Criminal Law, 8 Buff. Crim. L. R. (2005).
68.Elizabeth F. Harris, 1995-1996: Recent Decisions: The Maryland Court of Appeals. 56 Md. L. Rev (1997).
69.Emilio S. Binavince, the Ethical Foundation of Criminal Liability, 33 Fordham L. Rev. (1964).
70.Erwin S. Barbre, Annotation, What Felonies Are Inherently or Foreseeably Dangerous to Human Life for Purposes of Felony-Murder Doctrine, 50 A.L.R.3d (1973).
71.Eugene J. Chesney, The Concept of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology(1931-1951), Vol. 29, No.5 (1939).
72.Frans J. von Kaenel, Willful Blindness: A Permissible Substitute for ActualKnowledge under the Money Laun-dering Control Act? 71 Wash. U. L. Q., (1993).
73.Francis B. Sayer, Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol.45, No. 6 (1932).
74.Francis B. Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 Colum. L. Rev. (1933).
75.Francis B. Sayre, Criminal Attempts, 41 Harv. L. Rev. (1928).
76.Francis B. Sayre, Criminal Conspiracy, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 4. (1922).
77.Frank Horack, Jr., the Multiple Consequences of a Single Criminal Act, 21 Minn. L. Rev. (1937).
78.Frank J. Remington & Orrin L. Helstad, the Mental Element in Crime--A Legislative Problem, 34 Wis. L. Rev. (1952).
79.Frederick M. Lawrence, Civil Rights and Criminal Law: the Mens Rea of Federal Civil Rights Crimes, 67 Tul. L. Rev. (1993).
80.Feinberg, Toward a New Approach to Proving Culpability: Mens Rea and the Proposed Federal Criminal Code, 18 AM. CRIM. L. REV. (1980).
81 . Fox, Physical Disorder, Consciousness, and Criminal Liability, 63 COLUM. L. REV. (1963).
82.Gary V. Dubin, Mens Rea Reconsidered: A Plea for a Due Process Concept of Criminal Responsibility, 18 Stan. L. Rev. (1966).
83.George P. Fletcher, Law, Truth, and Interpretation: A Symposium on Dennis Gerald Leonard, Towards a Legal History of American Criminal Theory: Culture and Doctrine from Blackstone to the Model Penal Code, 6 Buff. Crim. L. R. (2003).
84.George P. Fletcher, the fall and Rise of Criminal Theory, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R. (1998).
85.George P. Fletcher, Dogmas of the Model Penal Code: 2 Buff. Crim. L. R. (1998).
86.Guyora Binder, Punishment Theory: Moral or Political, 5 Buff. Crim. L. Rev. (2002).
87.Guyora Binder, the Origins of American Felony Murder Rules, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 59 (2004).
88.Guyora Binder, Felony Murder and Mens Rea Default Rules: A Study in Statutory Interpretation, 4 Buff. Crim. L. R. (2000).
89.Graham, Presumptions -- More Than You Ever Wanted to Know and Yet Were Too Disinterested to Ask, 17 CRIM. L. BULL. (1981).
90.Gary R. Ostos-Irwin, Wisconsin’s Party to a Crime Statute: The Mens Rea Element under the Abiding and Abetting Subsection, and the aiding and Abetting –Choate conspiracy Distinction. Wis. L. Rev. 769 (1984).
91.George A. Costello, Average Voting Members and Other "Benign Fictions": The Relative Reliability of Committee Reports, Floor Debates, and Other Sources of Legislative History, Duke L.J. (1990).
92.George Soros Busted: Why the Markets Can't Fix Themselves, New Republic, Sept. 18 (2002).
93.George K. Gardner, Bailey v. Richardson and the Constitution of the United States, 33 B.U. L. Rev. (1953).
94.G. H. L. Fridman, Mens Rea in Conspiracy, the Modern Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1956).
95.George P. Fletcher, Mistake in the Model Penal Code: A False False Problem, 19 Rutgers L.J. (1988).
96.Hart, The time chart of the justices, 73. Har. L.R.. (1959).
97.Hart, Social Solidarity and the Enforcement of Morality, 35 U. CHI. L. REV. (1967).
98.Hall, Negligent Behavior Should Be Excluded from Penal Lability, 63 Colum. L. Rev. (1963).
99.Henry P. Monaghan, Our Perfect Constitution, 56 NYU L Rev (1981).
100.Herbert L. Packer, Mens Rea and Super court, the Supreme Court review, Vol. (1962).
101.Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the criminal law in the United States: The model penal code, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 68. No. 8(Dec., 1968).
102.Herbert Wechsler, the Challenge of a Model Penal Code, 65 Harv. L. Rev. (1952).
103.Herbert Wechsler & Jerome Michael, a Rationale of the Law of Homicide I, 37 Colum. L. Rev. (1937).
104.Herbert Wechsler, On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 339, Crime and The American Penal (1962).
105.Herbert Wechsler; William Kenneth Jones; Harold L. Korn, Institute: Attempt, Solicitation, and Conspiracy: The Treatment of Inchoate Crimes in the Model Penal Code of the American Law, Columbia Law Review, And Vol. 61, No. 6. (1961).
103.Herbert L. Packer, the Model Penal Code and Beyond, 63 Colum. L. Rev. (1963).
104.Herbert L. Packer Aims of the Criminal Law Revisited: A Plea for a New Look at "Substantive Due Process", 44 S. Cal. L. Rev. (1971)
105 . Huaiming Wang, Chinese and American Criminal Law: Some Comparison, The Journal of Criminal law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol.46, No.6. (1956).
106.Hitcher, Motive as an Essential Element of Crime, 35. Dick. L. Rev. 105.108. (1931).
107.Irap. Robbins, the Ostrich Instruction: Delibreate Ignorance as a Criminal Mens Rea, 81 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1990).
108.J.M. Kaye, the Early History of Murder and Manslaughter - Part I, 83 Law Q. Rev. (1967).
109.J. H. Beale, Jr.Criminal Attempts, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 7. (May, 1903).
110.James B. Thayer, "Law and Fact" in Jury Trials, 4 Harv L Rev. (1890).
111.James J. Tomkovicz, the Endurance of the Felony-Murder Rule-Murder Rule: A Study of the Forces That Shape our Criminal Law, 51 Wash & Lee L. Rev. (1994).
112.James J. Hippard, Sr., the Unconstitutionality of Criminal Liability without Fault: An Argument for a Constitutional Doctrine of Mens Rea, 10 Hous. L. Rev. (1973).
113.Jay Sigler, a History of Double Jeopardy, 7 Am. J. Leg. Hist. (1963).
114.Jerome Hall, Negligent Behavior Should be Eliminated from Penal Liability, 63, Colum. L. Rev. (1963).
115.Jerome Hall, Interrelations of Criminal Law and Torts: II, 43 Colum. L. Rev. (1943).
116.Jane F. Barett & Veronica M. Clarke, Perspectives on the Knowledge Requirement of Section 6928(d) of RCRA after United States v. Dee, 59Geo. Wash. L. Rev. (1991).
117.Jeremy Waldron, Void for Vagueness: Vagueness in Law and Language: Some Philosophical Issues, 82 Calif. L. Rev (1994).
118.Jeremy M. Miller, Mens Rea Quagmire: The Conscience or Consciousness of the Criminal Law? 29 W. St. U.L. Rev (2001).
119.Jeffrey S. Parker, The Economic of Mens Rea, 79 Va. L. Rev. 741, May (1993).
120.Jo Anne C. Adlerstein, Felony-Murder in the New Criminal Codes, 4 IS. J. CRIM. L. (1976).
121.John Calvin Jeffries, Jr. Legality, Vagueness, and the Construction of Penal Statutes, 71 Va. L. Rev (1985).
122.John T. Parry, Culpability, Mistake, and Official Interpretations of Law, 25 Am. J. Crim. L. (1997).
123.John Robinson, Crime, Culpability, and Excuses, 10 ND J. L. Ethics & Pub Pol’y (1996).
124.John L. Diamond, the Myth of Morality and Fault in Criminal Law Doctrine, 34 Am. Crim. L. Rev. (1996).
125.Joel R. Cornwell, the Confusion of Causes and Reasons in Forensic Psychology: Deconstructing Mens Rea and Other Mental Events, Georgia State University Law Review, 33 U. Rich. L. Rev (1999).
126.John Shepard Wiley Jr, Not Guilty By Reason Of Blamelessness: Culpability in Federal Criminal in Interpretation, 85 Va. L. Rev(1999).
127.John Quigley, the Common Law's Theory of Criminal Liability: A Challenge from Across the Atlantic, 11 Whittier L. Rev. (1989).
128 . John H. Langbein, On the Myth of Written Constitutions: TheDisappearance of Criminal Jury Trial, 15 Harv J L & Pub Pol (1992).
129.John S. Strahorn, Jr. The Effect of Impossibility on Criminal Attempts, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 78, No. 8. (1930).
130.John M.M. Greabe, Spelling Guilt out of a Record? Harmless-Error Review of Conclusive Mandatory Presumptions and Elemental Misdescriptions, 74 B.U.L. Rev (1994).
131.John Calvin Jeffries, Jr. & Paul B. Stephan III, Defenses, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof in the Criminal Law, 88 Yale L.J. (1979).
132.Jorge L. Carro & Andrew W. Brann, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Use of Legislative Histories: A Statistical Analysis, 22 Jurimetrics J. (1982).
133.Jonathan L. Marcus, Economic Competitiveness and The Law: Note: Model Penal Code Section 2.02(7) and Willful Blindness. June, 102 Yale L.J. (1993).
134.Joseph E. Cole, Environmental Criminal Liability: What Federal Officials Know (or should Know) can Hurt Them, 54 A.F. L. Rev. (2004).
135.Joseph Hutchison, Counsel to the United States Attorney, Remarks to the Environmental Law Class, Quinnipiac College School of Law (1999).
136.Joseph W. Singer, Should Lawyers Care About Philosophy? 1989 Duke L.J. (1989).
137.Joachim Hruschka, Imputation, B.Y.U. L. Rev. (1986).
138.Kathy Diene and Teisha C. Johnson, Federal Criminal Conspiracy, 42 Am. Crim. L. Rev (2005).
139.Kevin W. Saunders, Voluntary Acts and the Criminal Law: Justifying Culpability Based on The Existences of Volition, winter, 49 U. Pitt. L.Rev. (1988).
140.Kenneth A. Shepsle, Congress is a "They," Not an "It": Legislative Intent as Oxymoron, 12 Int'l Rev. L. & Econ. (1992)
141.Kenneth W. Starr, Observations About the Use of Legislative History, DUKE L.J. (1987).
142.Kenneth W. Simons, Rethinking Mental States, 72 B.U.L. Rev (1992).
143.Kenneth W. Simons, Model Penal Code Second: Good or Bad Idea? Should the Model Penal Code's Mens Rea Provisions Be Amended? 1 Ohio St. J. Crim. L (2003).
144.Kenneth W. Simons, Culpability and Retributive Theory: The Problem of Criminal Negligence, J. Contemp. Legal Issues (1994).
145.Kenneth W. Simons, Criminal Law: When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just? 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997).
146.Kenneth Mann, Punitive Civil Sanctions: The Middle ground Between Criminal and Civil Law. 101 Yale L.J (1992).
147.Kent Greenawalt, "Uncontrollable" Actions and the Eighth Amendment: Implications of Powell v. Texas, 69 Colum. L. Rev. (1969).
148. Keith Culver, the Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 11 Can. J.L. & Juris (1998).
149.Kevin L. Keeler, Comment: Direct Evidence of State of Mind: A Philosophical Analysis of How Facts in Evidence Support Conclusions regarding Mental State, 1985 Wis. L. Rev (1985).
150.Kimberly A. Mottley, David Abrami, and Darryl K. Brown, The Jury’s Role in Administering Justice in The United States: A Over View of the American Criminal Jury , 21 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. (2002).
151.Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, Opaque Recklessness, 91 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2001).
152.Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, Don't Abandon the Model Penal Code Yet! Thinking Through Simons's Rethinking 6 Buff. Crim. L. R. (2002).
153.Kit Kinports, Rape and Force: The Forgotten Mens Rea, 4 Buff. Crim. L. R. (2001).
154.Kristen L. Chestnut, United States v. Alvarado: Reflections on a Jewell, 19 GOLDEN GATE U. L. REV. (1989).
155.Laughlin, In Support of the Thayer Theory of Presumptions, 52 MICH. L. REV. (1953).
156 . Lawrence Crocker, Justice in Criminal Liability: Decriminalizing Harmless Attempts, 53 Ohio St. L.J. (1992).
157.Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of The Federal Judicary’s Retreat From Sandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev. (1989).
158.Larry Alexander, Kimberly D Kessler, Mens Rea and Inchoate Crimes,87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1997).
159.Larry Alexander, Comment: Negligence, Crime, and Tort: Comments On Hurd And Simons,76 B.U.L. Rev (1996).
160.Larry Alexander, Insufficient Concern: A Unified Conception of Criminal Culpability, 88 Calif. L. Rev (2000).
161.Leslie J. Harris, Criminal Law: Constitutional Limits on Criminal Presumptions as an Expression of Changing Concepts of Fundamental Fairness, 77 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1986).
162.Leellen Coacher and Captain Libby Gallo, Criminal Liability: Transferredand Concurrent Intent,44 A.F. L. Rev. (1998).
163.Levinson, Law as Literature, 60 TEX. L. REV. (1982).
164.Lori L. Outzs, A Principled Use of Congressional Floor Speeches in Statutory Interpretation, 28 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs (1995).
165.M. Diane Barber, Fair Warning: The Deterioration of Scienter under Environmental Criminal Statutes, 26 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. (1992).
166.Minow and E. Spelman, "In Context," 63 S. Cal. L. Rev. (1990).
167.M. Varn Chandola, and Anoop Chandola A Cognitive Framework for Mens Rea and Actus Reas: The Application of Contactics Theory to Criminal Law, 35 Tulsa L.J (2000).
168.Martin J. McMahon, Annotation, Application of Felony Murder Doctrine Where Person Killed was Co-Felon, 89 A.L.R.4th (1991).
169.Mark Kelman, Interpretive Construction in the Substantive Criminal Law, 33 Stan. L. Rev. (1981).
170.Margaret J. Radin, Reconsidering the Rule of Law, 69 B.U. L. Rev. (1989).
171.Markus Dirk Dubber, Penal Panopticon: The Idea of a Modern Model Penal Code DOCUMENTS, 4 Buff. Crim. L. R. (2000).
172.Markus Dirk Dubber, The Historical Analysis of Criminal Codes, 18 Law & Hist. Rev (2000).
173.Martin R. Gardner, The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present, 1993 Utah L. Rev. (1993).
174.Martin T. Lefevour, 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) Requires Mens Reas as to the Physical Characteristics Of The Weapon Staples v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994),85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1995).
175.Marjorie Weinzweig, Discriminatory Impact and Intent Under the Equal Protection Clause: The Supreme Court and the Mind-Body Problem, 1 LAW & INEQ. J. (1983).
176.Matthew T. Fricker and Kelly Gilchrist, United States v. Nofziger and the Revision of 18 U.S.C. § 207: The Need for a New Approach to the Mens Rea Requirements of Federal Criminal Law, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev. (1990).
177.Manly Parks, the Public Welfare Rationale: Defining Mens Rea in RCRA, 18 Wm. & Mary J. Envtl. L. (1993).
178.Matthew Jones, Overcoming the Myth of Free Will in Criminal Law: The True Impact of the Genetic Revolution, 52 Duke L.J. 1031 (2003).
179.Michael S. Moore, Prima Facie Moral Culpability, 76 B.U. L. Rev. (1996).
180.Michael S. Moore, Philosophy of Language and Legal Interpretation: Article: A Natural Law Theory of Interpretation, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev (1985).
181.Michael D. Sherman, The Use of Legislative History: A Debate Between Justice Scalia and Judge Breyer, Admin. L. News (1991).
182.Michael A. Bishop, The Possibility of Conceptual Clarity in Philosophy, 29 IS. PHIL. Q. (1992).
183.Miguel Angel Mendez, A Sisyphean Task: The Common Law Approach to Mens Rea, U.C. Davis Law Review (1995).
184.Michael T. Cahill et al., the Five Worst (and Five Best) American Criminal Codes, 95 Nw. U. L. Rev. (2000).
185.Michael Davis, Strict Liability: Deserved Punishment for FaultlessConduct, 33 WAYNE L. REV. (1987).
186 . Michael.M. O'Hear, Sentencing The Green – Collar Offender: Punishment, Culpability, and Environmental Crime, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2004).
187.Michael S. Moore, Prima Facie Moral Culpability, 76 B.U. L. Rev. (1996).
188.Meir Dan-Cohen, Responsibility and the Boundaries of the Self, 105 Harv. L. Rev. (1992).
189.Mihajlo M. Alimovic, Conceptions of culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI.P. (1965).
190. Mihajlo M. Alimovic, culpability in contemporary American criminal law, Louisiana Law Review Vol. XXVI (1965).
191.Miguel, Angelmendez, A Sisyphean Task: The Common Law Approach to Mens Rea, 28 U.C. Davis L. Rev. (1995).
192.Mitchell Keiter, With Malice Toward All: The Increased Lethality of Violence Reshapes Transferred Intent and Attempted Murder Law 38 U.S.F. L. Rev (2004).
193.Monroe Freedman, For the Poor, Criminal Defense a Matter of Third World Justice, Legal Times (1991).
194.Mueller, On Common Law Mens Rea, 42, Minn. L. Rev. (1958).
195.M. Susan Doyle, Note, People v. Patterson: California's Second Degree Felony-Murder Doctrine at "The Brink of Logical Absurdity", 24 LOY. L.A. L. REV. (1990).
196.McMurray, California Jurisprudence, 13 CAL. L. REV. (1925).
197.Nancy J. King and Susan R. Klein May, Essential Elements, 54 Vand. L.Rev. (2001).
198.Negligence and the General Problem of Criminal Responsibility, the Yale Law Journal, Vol. 81, No 5 (1972).
199.Nelson E. Roth & Scott E. Sundby, The Felony-Murder Rule: A Doctrine at Constitutional Crossroads, 70 Cornell L. Rev. (1985).
200.Neal Kumar Katyal, Architecture as Crime Control, 111 Yale L.J. (2002).
201.Neal Kumar Katyal, Deterrence's Difficulty, 95 Mich. L. Rev. (1997).
202.Norman J. Finke, When Mistakes Happen: Commonsense Rules of Culpability March, 3 Psych. Pub. Pol. and L... (1997).
203.Norman Abrams, Criminal Liability of Corporate Officers for Strict Liability Offenses - A Comment on Dotterweich and Park, 28 UCLA L. Rev. (1981).
204.Note, A Re-evaluation of the Use of Legislative History in the Federal Courts, 52 Colum. L. Rev. (1952).
205.Norval Morris, The Felon's Responsibility for the Lethal Acts of Others, 105 U. PA. L. REV. (1956).
206.Orrin Hatch, Legislative History: Tool of Construction or Destruction, 11 Harv. J.l. & PUB. POL'Y (1988).
207.Paul H. Robinson and John M. Darley, The Utility of Desert, 91 Nw. U.L. Rev. 453 (1997).
208.Patient, Some Remarks about the Element of Voluntaries in Offenses of Absolute Liability, CRIM. L. REV. (1968).
209.Packer, Mens rea and the supreme court, supreme court Rev. (1962).
210.Packer, The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 63 COLUM. L. REV. (1963).
211.Paul H. Robinson, Rethinking Federal Criminal Law: Reforming theFederal Criminal Code: A Top Ten List, 1 Buff. Crim. L. R. (1997).
212.Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 STAN. L. REV. (1983).
213 . Paul H. Robinson, Criminal Law Scholarship: Three Illusions, 2 Theoretical Inq. L (2001).
214.Paul Campos, That Obscure Object of Desire: Hermeneutics and the Autonomous Legal Text, 77 Minn. L. Rev. (1993).
215.Paul H. Robinson, Michael T. Cahill, and Usman Mohammad, The Five Worst (And Five Best) American Criminal Codes, 95 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1(2000).
216.Paul H.Robinson, Michael T. Cahill, The Accelerating Degradation of American Criminal Codes, 56 Hastings L.J (2005).
217.Paul H. Robinson, A Functional Analysis of Criminal Law, Spring, 88 Nw. U.L. Rev. (1994).
218.Paul H. Robinson, Rules of Conduct and Principles of Adjudication, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev. (1990).
219.Paul H. Robinson, Are Criminal Codes Irrelevant? November , 68 S. Cal. L. Rev. (1994).
220.Paul H. Robinson, A Brief History of Distinctions in Criminal Culpability, 31 HASTINGS L.J. (1980).
221.Paul H. Robinson, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond April, 35 Stan. L. Rev. (1983).
222.Patricia M. Wald, The Sizzling Sleeper: The Use of Legislative History in Construing Statutes in the 1988-89 Term of the United States Supreme Court, 39 Am. U.L. Rev. (1990).
223.Patrick M. O'Neil, the Moral Blindness of The Positivistic Legal Hermeneutic And the Non-Proximate Mens Rea In The Law Of Criminal Negligence, 41 Am. J. Juris. (1996).
224.Pamela S. Karlan, Discriminatory Purpose and Mens Rea: The Tortured Argument of Invidious Intent, 93 Yale L.J. 111 (1983).
225.Percy H. Winfield, The Myth of Absolute Liability, 42 Law Q. Rev. (1926)
226.Peter W. Low, The Model Penal Code, The Common Law, and Mistakes of Fact: Recklessness, Negligence, or Strict Liability? 19 Rutgers L.J. (1988).
227.Peter Arenella, Convicting the Morally Blameless: Reassessing the Relationship Between Legal and Moral Accountability, 39 UCLA L. Rev (1991).
228.Peter J. Henning, Supreme Court Review: Foreword: Statutory in Interpretation And The Federalization of Criminal law, Summer, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (1996).
229.Pinkerton, Developments in the Law: Criminal Conspiracy, 72 HARV. L. REV. (1959).
230.Posner, Legislation and Its Interpretation: A Primer, 68 NEB. L. REV. (1989).
231.Philip E. Johnson, The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy, 61 Cal. L. Rev. (1973).
232.P.H.Winfield, The History of Conspiracy and Abuse of Legal Procedure, 35 Harv. L. Rev. (1921).
233.Randolph N. Jonakait, The Mens Rea for the Crime of Providing Material Resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization Fall, 6 Baylor L. Rev.(2004).
234.Reed Dickerson, Statutory Interpretation: A Peek into the Mind and Will of a Legislature, 50 Ind. L.J. (1975).
235.Remington and Helstad, The Mental Element in Crime-A Legislative Problem, Wis. L. Rev. (1952).
236.Rollin M. Perkins, Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law, 88 U. Pa. L. Rev. (1939).
237.Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Liability Without Fault: A Disquieting Trend 68 Iowa L. Rev (1983).
238.Robert H. Gault; James W. Garner; Edwin R. Keedy; John H. Wigmore, The Progress of Penal Law in the United States of America, 1874-1924,. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol.
15, No.2 (1924).
239.Robert Batey, Judicial Exploitation of Mens Rea Conclusion, At Common Law and Under The Model Penal Code, 18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev (2001).
240.Robert G. Lawson, Criminal Law Revision in Kentucky: Part I - Homicide and Assault, 58 Ky. L.J. (1970).
241.Robert W. Adler & Charles Lord, Environmental Crimes: Raising the Stakes, 59 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. (1991).
242.Robinson, A Brief History of Distinctions in Criminal Culpability, 31 HASTINGS L.J (1980)
243.Rollin M. Perkins, A rationale of Mens rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 52. No.6 (1939).
244.Ronald L. Gainer, The Culpability Provisions of the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J. (1988).
245.Ronald J. Allen, Common Sense, Rationality, and the Legal Process, 22 Cardozo L. Rev. (2001).
246.Ronald J. Allen, Structuring Jury Decision-making in Criminal Cases: A Unified Constitutional Approach to Evidentiary Devices, 94 Harv. L. Rev. (1980)
247.Ronald L. Gainer, Federal Criminal Code Reform: Past and Future, 2 Buff. Crim. L. R. (1998).
248.Richard A. Posner, The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline: 1962-1987, 100 Harv. L. Rev. (1987).
249.Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of The Criminal Law, Oct, 85 Colum. L. Rev. (1985).
250.Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law? 63 S. Cal. L. Rev. (1990)
251.Richard G. Singer, The Resurgence of Mens Rea: I--Provocation, Emotional Disturbance, and the Model Penal Code, 27 B.C. L. Rev. (1986).
252.Richard G. Singer, Foreword to Symposium, the 25th Anniversary of the Model Penal Code, 19 Rutgers L.J. (1988).
253.Richard Singer & Douglas Husak, Of Innocence and Innocents: The Supreme Court and Mens Rea Since Herbert Packer, 3 Buff. Crim. L. Rev. (1999)
254.Richard Wasserstrom, Strict Liability in the Criminal Law, 12 Stan. L. Rev. 731 (1960).
255.V.F. Nourse, Hearts and Minds: Understanding the New Culpability, Buffalo Criminal Law Review (2002).
256.Richard Singer, Strict Criminal Liability: Alabama State Courts Lead the Way into the Twenty-First Century, 46 Ala. L. Rev(1994).
257.Richard T. Bowser, Spring, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Court and the Law, 19 Campbell L. Rev. (1997).
258.Richard Lowell Nygaard, Free Will, Determinism, Penology and the Human Genome: Where's a New Leibniz When We Really Need Him?, 3 U. Chi. L. Sch. Roundtable (1996).
259.Richard C. Bold, The Construction of Responsibility in the Criminal Law, 140 U. Pa. L. Rev. (1992).
260.Ronald Dworkin, How to Read the Civil Rights Act, N.Y. Review, Dec. 20 (1979).
261.Richard K. Sueyoshi, G. Staples v. United States: Supreme Court Determines the Mens Rea Required Convicting an Individual for Possession of an Unregistered Machinegun 114 S. Ct. (1994). 21 J. Contemp. L. (1995).
262.R.M. Jackson, Absolute Prohibition in Statutory Offences, 6 Cambridge L.J. (1938)
263.Robin Charlow, Willful Ignorance and Criminal Culpability, 70 TEX. L. REV. (1992).
264.Ruth Anna Putnam, Justice in Context, 63 S. Cal. L. Rev. (1990).
265.Sayre, The Present Signification of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law, Harvard Legal Essays (1934).
266.Saltzburg, Burdens of Persuasion in Criminal Cases: Harmonizing the Views of the Justices, 20 AM. CRIM. L. REV. (1983).
267.Sanford Kadish, The Decline of Innocence, 26 Cambridge L.J. (1968).
268.Sanford H. Kadish, Fifty Years of Criminal Law: An Opinionated Review, 87 Calif. L. Rev (1999).
269.Sanford H. Kadish, the Model Penal Code's Historical Antecedents, 19 Rutgers. L.J. (1988).
270.Sanford H. Kadish, Codifiers of Criminal Law: Wechsler's Predecessors, 78 Colum. L. Rev. (1978).
271.Schmolesky, County Court of Ulster v. Allen and Sandstrom v. Montana: The Supreme Court Lends an Ear but Turns Its Face, 33 RUTGERS L. REV. (1981).
272.Schulofer, harm and punishment: A critical of emphasis on the result of conduct in the criminal law, 122 U. Pa. L.Rev. (1974).
273.Stephen B. Chapman, Are Obnoxious Wastes More like Machineguns or Hand Grenades?: Mens Rea Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act After Staples v. United States,43 Kan. L. Rev (1995).
274.Susan F. Mandiberg, The Dilemma of Mental State in Federal Regulatory Crimes: The Environmental Example, 25 Envtl. L. (1995).
275.Susan Estrich, Rape, 95 Yale L.J. (1986).
276.Susan Haack, On Legal Pragmatism: Where Does "The Path Of the Law” Lead US? 50 Am. J. Juris. (2005).
277.Stephen J. Morse. the Twenty-Second Annual National Student Federalist Society Symposium on Law and Public Policy--2003: Inevitable Mens Rea, 27 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y (2003).
278 . Steven S. Nemerson, Note, Criminal Liability Without Fault: A Philosophical Perspective, 75 Colum. L. Rev. (1975).
279.Stephanos Bibas, Judicial Fact-Finding and Sentence-Enhancements in aWorld of Guilty Pleas, 110 Yale L.J. (2001).
280.Stanislaw Frankowski, Mens Rea and Punishment in England: In Search of Interdependence of the Two Basic Components of Criminal Liability (A Historical Perspective), 63 U. Det. L. Rev. (1986).
281.Schauer, An Essay on Constitutional Language, 29 UCLA L. REV. (1982).
282.Stuart P. Green, Why It's A Crime to Tear the Tag Off a Mattress: Overcriminalization and the Moral Content of Regulatory Offenses, 46 Emory L.J. (1997).
283.Smith, the element of chance in criminal liability, crim.L.R (1971).
284.Tanya K. Hernandez, Note, Bias Crimes: Unconscious Racism in the Prosecution of "Racially Motivated Violence," 99 Yale L.J. (1990).
285.Toni M. Massaro, Shame, Culture, and American Criminal Law Length, 89 Mich. L. Rev. (1880).
286.Thomas C. Grey, Holmes and Legal Pragmatism. 41 Stan. L. Rev. (1989).
287.Tracey L. Meares, It's a Question of Connections, 31 Val. U. L. Rev (1997).
288.Thomas F. Cotter, Legal Pragmatism and the Law and Economics Movement,84 Geo. L.J (1996).
289.Thomas C. Grey, Holmes and Legal Pragmatism, 41 Stan. L. Rev (1989).
290.Walter E. Oberer, The Deadly Weapon Doctrine--Common Law Origin, 75 HARV. L. REV. (1962).
291.Walter Wheeler Cook, ct, Intention, and Motive in Criminal law, The Yale Law Journal, Vol.26, No.8 (1917).
292.Wasserstrom, Strict Liability in Criminal Law, 12, Stan. L. Rev. (1960).
293.William E. Shipley, Annotation, Mistake or Lack of Information as to Victim's Age as Defense to Statutory Rape, 8 A.L.R.3d (1966).
294.Williams, More on the Paradigm Case Argument, 39 AUSTL. J. PHIL. (1961).
295.William J. Stuntz, Substance, Process, and the Civil-Criminal Line, 7 J. Contemp. Legal Issues (1996).
296.William N. Eskridge, Jr., Dynamic Statutory Interpretation, 135 U. Pa. L. Rev. (1987).
297.William E. Mikell, the Proposed Criminal Code of Pennsylvania, 71 U. Pa. L. Rev. (1923).
298.William S. Fields, Assessing the Performance of the Burger Court: The Ascent of Pragmatism, 129 Mil. L. Rev. (1990).
299.Williams, Language and the Law 62 LAW Q. REV. (1946).
300.Winfield, the Myth of Absolute Liability, 42 L.Q.Rev (1926).