發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-01 03:29

  本文選題：風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法 + 民生刑法　； 參考：《南京師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國(guó)學(xué)者所論述的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法因其在根源上與風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)存在斷裂,兩者所指的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)在內(nèi)涵上存在區(qū)別。風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)最本質(zhì)的特征在于人為的不確定性,而我國(guó)食品安全犯罪針對(duì)的則是傳統(tǒng)工業(yè)社會(huì)中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。因此,風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法理論不能作為食品安全犯罪的指導(dǎo)理念。民生刑法觀因其本身未突破法益保護(hù)觀的范疇,只是概念上的創(chuàng)新而非實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)涵上的創(chuàng)新。民生刑法的概念雖具正當(dāng)性,但不具有必要性。因此無(wú)論是風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法還是民生刑法都不適宜作為食品安全犯罪的指導(dǎo)理念,也都不能作為生產(chǎn)、銷售不符合安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的食品罪犯罪圈擴(kuò)大的正當(dāng)性依據(jù)。立法雖需質(zhì)疑與審視,但更重要的是善意地解釋法律。隨著食品安全問(wèn)題頻發(fā),也引發(fā)了刑法學(xué)者們的思考。理論上有很多觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為,應(yīng)擴(kuò)大生產(chǎn)、銷售不符合安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)食品罪的犯罪圈。但在現(xiàn)行法律尚可有效地規(guī)制犯罪,有效地保護(hù)法益時(shí),無(wú)須主張?jiān)诹⒎ㄉ线M(jìn)行修改,擴(kuò)大犯罪圈�，F(xiàn)行《刑法》第143條的規(guī)定可以有效地保護(hù)舌尖上的安全,保護(hù)不特定或者多數(shù)人的生命權(quán)、健康權(quán)。在行為對(duì)象上,食品包含食用農(nóng)產(chǎn)品和含有食品添加劑的食品;在行為方式上,無(wú)須將“生產(chǎn)、銷售”修改為“生產(chǎn)、經(jīng)營(yíng)”;在主觀罪過(guò)上,既包含直接故意又包含間接故意,但無(wú)須另設(shè)本罪的過(guò)失犯罪。刑法理論通說(shuō)認(rèn)為本罪屬于具體危險(xiǎn)犯。司法實(shí)踐中有觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為以銷售為目的的生產(chǎn)行為只成立本罪的未遂犯。但是這種觀點(diǎn)勢(shì)必和本罪屬于選擇性罪名相矛盾,意味著生產(chǎn)不符合安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的食品罪不能達(dá)到既遂的犯罪形態(tài)。風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法與民生刑法雖然不適宜作為生產(chǎn)、銷售不符合安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的食品罪的指導(dǎo)理念,但仍有可取之處,即傳遞出了對(duì)食品安全的重視和對(duì)食品安全風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的防范。為了一方面解決具體危險(xiǎn)犯與選擇性罪名之間的矛盾,另一方面體現(xiàn)對(duì)安全價(jià)值和民本價(jià)值的重視,可在刑法理論上認(rèn)為本罪屬于抽象危險(xiǎn)犯。將本罪理解成抽象危險(xiǎn)犯正是對(duì)安全價(jià)值和民本價(jià)值作出的積極回應(yīng)。
[Abstract]:The risk criminal law discussed by the scholars of our country is different from the risk criminal law in connotation because of the breakage between the risk criminal law and the risk society. The most essential feature of risk in risk society lies in the artificial uncertainty, while the crime of food safety in our country is aimed at the risk in traditional industrial society. Therefore, the theory of risk criminal law cannot be regarded as the guiding concept of food safety crime. The concept of people's livelihood criminal law has not broken through the scope of the concept of legal interest protection, but only the innovation of concept, not the innovation of essence. Although the concept of people's livelihood criminal law is legitimate, it is not necessary. Therefore, neither the risk criminal law nor the people's livelihood criminal law is suitable as the guiding concept of food safety crime, nor can it be used as the legitimate basis for the expansion of the crime circle of food crimes which does not meet the safety standards. Although legislation needs to be questioned and examined, it is more important to interpret the law in good faith. With the frequent occurrence of food safety problems, it has also aroused the thinking of the scholars of criminal law. In theory, there are many views that should be expanded production, marketing of food not in accordance with safety standards of crime circle. However, when the current law can effectively regulate crime and protect the interests effectively, there is no need to advocate legislative amendment to expand the crime circle. Article 143 of the present Criminal Law can effectively protect the safety on the tip of the tongue and protect the right to life and health of non-specific or majority people. In terms of behavior objects, food contains edible agricultural products and food containing food additives; in behavior, there is no need to change "production and sale" to "production and operation"; and in the case of subjective guilt, Including both direct intent and indirect intent, but without the need for this crime of negligence. The general theory of criminal law holds that this crime belongs to specific dangerous crime. In judicial practice, there is a view that the production behavior for the purpose of sale is only the attempted crime of this crime. But this view is bound to conflict with the crime of selectivity, meaning that the production of food that does not meet the safety standards can not achieve the completed form of crime. Although the risk criminal law and the people's livelihood criminal law are not suitable for the guidance idea of the crime of producing and selling the food that does not meet the safety standard, there are still some merits, that is, the importance of food safety and the prevention of the food safety risk are transferred. In order to solve the contradiction between the specific dangerous crime and the selective charge on the one hand, on the other hand, to embody the value of security and the value of the people, we can think that this crime belongs to the abstract dangerous crime in the theory of criminal law. To understand this crime as an abstract dangerous crime is a positive response to the value of security and the value of the people.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳洪兵;;準(zhǔn)抽象危險(xiǎn)犯概念之提倡[J];法學(xué)研究;2015年05期

2 邵彥銘;;我國(guó)食品安全犯罪治理刑事政策的反思與重構(gòu)[J];河北法學(xué);2015年08期

3 左袖陽(yáng);;關(guān)于當(dāng)前食品安全刑事立法政策的反思[J];中國(guó)人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年03期

4 李宏杰;;“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”理論紛爭(zhēng)的反思與出路[J];山東社會(huì)科學(xué);2015年S1期

5 伊海燕;;民生刑法視域下危害食品安全犯罪的刑法規(guī)制研究[J];長(zhǎng)春大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2015年03期

6 張旭;王曉濱;;食品安全犯罪刑事立法的反思與完善——以體系性思維為視閾[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)戰(zhàn)線;2014年10期

7 魏東;;論生產(chǎn)、銷售不符合安全標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的食品罪之客觀方面要件——基于刑法解釋的保守性立場(chǎng)之分析研討[J];法治研究;2014年09期

8 吳玉萍;;食品安全犯罪之刑罰配置——以民生刑法為視角[J];政法論叢;2014年04期

9 吳玉萍;;民生刑法視角下食品安全犯罪之刑法規(guī)制[J];齊魯學(xué)刊;2014年04期

10 吳鵬;;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)語(yǔ)境中食品藥品安全之刑法保護(hù)——以抽象危險(xiǎn)犯為切入點(diǎn)[J];學(xué)習(xí)論壇;2014年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：1827548