【摘要】：對我國大陸地區(qū)犯罪參與體系歸屬的證成需要從解釋論與立法論兩個維度展開。在解釋論上,我國學(xué)界形成了"單一制說""區(qū)分制說"與"既非單一又非區(qū)分制說"三種觀點。"既非單一又非區(qū)分制說"沒有把握犯罪參與體系的本質(zhì),不具有妥當(dāng)性。"單一制說"與"區(qū)分制說"在現(xiàn)有的刑法體系下均能夠自圓其說,不違反罪刑法定原則。在立法論上,單一制與區(qū)分制的價值比較以犯罪論和刑罰論為核心。在犯罪論的功能評價上,二者平分秋色。但是單一制缺少規(guī)范化的量刑準(zhǔn)據(jù),難以確保法律適用的平等性。就我國現(xiàn)實狀況而言,采用單一正犯體系的效果弊大于利,正犯與共犯區(qū)分體系依然值得提倡。
[Abstract]:The evidence of the ownership of the crime participation system in mainland China needs to be carried out from two dimensions: interpretation theory and legislation theory. On the theory of interpretation, Chinese academic circles have formed three kinds of views: the theory of monism, the doctrine of differentiation and the theory of neither a single nor a system of distinction. The theory of neither a single nor a distinction "does not grasp the essence of the system of criminal participation and does not have the appropriateness." Under the existing criminal law system, both the unitary doctrine and the distinguishing system can justify themselves and do not violate the principle of legality of crime and punishment. In the theory of legislation, the value comparison between the unitary system and the discriminating system is centered on the theory of crime and the theory of punishment. On the function evaluation of crime theory, the two are equally divided. However, it is difficult to ensure the equality of the application of the law because of the lack of standardized sentencing standards in the unitary system. As far as the reality of our country is concerned, the effect of adopting a single principal crime system is more harmful than good, and the distinguishing system between the principal offender and the accomplice still deserves to be advocated.
【作者單位】： 中國人民大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【基金】：中國人民大學(xué)科學(xué)研究基金(14XNH009) 南開大學(xué)資助項目(14BFX064)
【分類號】：D917
，

本文編號：2431619