本文選題：基本原則 + 法益�。� 參考：《山東大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：由德國(guó)學(xué)者烏爾里�！へ惪说摹帮L(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)”理論引申出的“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”理論從誕生之初就毀譽(yù)參半,爭(zhēng)議不斷。在德日等國(guó)家,刑法理論經(jīng)歷了一系列的轉(zhuǎn)變,立法實(shí)踐上進(jìn)行了相應(yīng)的修改。迨引入我國(guó),在經(jīng)過最初的盲目追捧,急于表白后,更多的學(xué)者意識(shí)到國(guó)內(nèi)學(xué)者對(duì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法理論的認(rèn)識(shí)不乏誤解和臆斷。在理論基礎(chǔ)上,“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”不能實(shí)現(xiàn)與“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)”理論的對(duì)接；在實(shí)際運(yùn)用上,復(fù)雜的國(guó)情與固有的刑法體系限制其作用的發(fā)揮。另外,“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”理論自身存在的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)使得其在控制風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的同時(shí)不免有違背刑法謙抑性、罪責(zé)范圍過度擴(kuò)張、處罰界限不明等侵犯人權(quán)之隱憂。理論的爭(zhēng)議如果不能深入本質(zhì),充分了解“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”的本來面目,則不管結(jié)果如何,都可能導(dǎo)致負(fù)面的結(jié)果：支持者的勝利可能讓一種錯(cuò)誤的、激進(jìn)的刑法理論主導(dǎo)刑事立法和司法,反對(duì)者的勝利則可能剝奪刑法在應(yīng)對(duì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)危機(jī)中原本存在的機(jī)會(huì)。處在社會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)型期的中國(guó),在不可避免卷入世界“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)”的浪潮中時(shí),面對(duì)新型法益類型無法處理,“有組織的不負(fù)責(zé)任”的責(zé)任主體的缺位及處罰的滯后性等問題,是引入新的理論代替現(xiàn)有刑法還是發(fā)展現(xiàn)代刑法以獨(dú)善其身,抑或兩者互動(dòng)共生是我國(guó)刑法學(xué)者亟需思考的問題及本課題的研究意義所在。故本文通過規(guī)范研究的方法,比較借鑒國(guó)外研究現(xiàn)狀,同時(shí)結(jié)合立法例的實(shí)證分析,以批判的態(tài)度探究爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)背后的理論問題,明晰風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法的定位,為理論的創(chuàng)新與發(fā)展提供借鑒。我國(guó)學(xué)者對(duì)“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”的論爭(zhēng)主要集中在：“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”是否違背傳統(tǒng)刑法的基本原則與價(jià)值；“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”的理論依據(jù)為何及如何協(xié)調(diào)“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”與傳統(tǒng)刑法的關(guān)系等。支持的學(xué)者認(rèn)為“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”彌補(bǔ)了現(xiàn)代刑法無法調(diào)整的法益類型；改變了現(xiàn)代刑法對(duì)某些罪行處罰過于滯后的做法；解決了現(xiàn)代刑法的歸責(zé)難題,契合了立法實(shí)踐的客觀趨勢(shì)。反對(duì)的聲音則將矛頭對(duì)準(zhǔn)了“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”對(duì)現(xiàn)代刑法的背離：風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法在價(jià)值觀念、功能定位、刑事歸責(zé)等方面與現(xiàn)代刑法存在顯著不同,對(duì)現(xiàn)代刑法所主張的罪刑法定、責(zé)任主義、罪刑均衡等基本原則構(gòu)成了重大挑戰(zhàn)�！帮L(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”通過規(guī)制行為來預(yù)防風(fēng)險(xiǎn),以處罰風(fēng)險(xiǎn)犯罪的方式實(shí)現(xiàn)刑罰的積極一般預(yù)防目的,更早期、更周延的保護(hù)法益。在犯罪理論上,“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”認(rèn)為犯罪的本質(zhì)在于規(guī)范的違反,為防范風(fēng)險(xiǎn)發(fā)生,不再預(yù)設(shè)法益的特定內(nèi)容,將刑法從規(guī)制實(shí)害前移至規(guī)制風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。這極大沖擊了“法益侵害”之犯罪本質(zhì)的地位。法益概念的抽象化和模糊化會(huì)導(dǎo)致無法確定法益的邊界,造成犯罪圈的擴(kuò)張,減弱了其制約刑罰權(quán)發(fā)動(dòng)的作用。在責(zé)任理論上,為了防范“有組織的不負(fù)責(zé)任”,“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”簡(jiǎn)化了因果認(rèn)定,倡導(dǎo)歸責(zé)的功能化與客觀化,這既是對(duì)責(zé)任主義的偏離,也容易走向“負(fù)責(zé)主義”的極端,制約行動(dòng)自由和社會(huì)發(fā)展進(jìn)步。在刑罰理論上,“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”倡導(dǎo)積極的一般預(yù)防,旨在通過刑罰訓(xùn)練公眾的規(guī)范意識(shí)和對(duì)法的認(rèn)同。這種刑罰目的忽略了刑罰本質(zhì),將人作為工具,極易造成處罰范圍的擴(kuò)大,量刑過重。在法律制裁體系上,由于我國(guó)的行政處罰權(quán)權(quán)利較大,刑法應(yīng)保持其謙抑性,不能與國(guó)外做法簡(jiǎn)單類比。批判的目的在于審視與進(jìn)步。“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”關(guān)注社會(huì)發(fā)展的前沿陣地,提出了許多創(chuàng)新性的理論,映射出現(xiàn)代刑法在應(yīng)對(duì)社會(huì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)上的不足,為現(xiàn)代刑法的反思提供對(duì)照的鏡子,但其現(xiàn)實(shí)根基的不符與理論根基的不穩(wěn)使其在短時(shí)間內(nèi)無法動(dòng)搖現(xiàn)代刑法的地位,其理論的借鑒意義遠(yuǎn)大于其對(duì)刑法理論的建構(gòu)意義。在價(jià)值觀念上,“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”與我國(guó)現(xiàn)行刑法的價(jià)值理念在某些方面還有相當(dāng)?shù)木嚯x。在實(shí)際操作上,“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”最多只能用來規(guī)制那些真正危及人類或者整體社會(huì)生存的具有全球性、整體性、毀滅性特征的現(xiàn)代風(fēng)險(xiǎn)領(lǐng)域,同時(shí)不能突破手段必要性或最小侵害原則。理論需要與時(shí)俱進(jìn)的品格,現(xiàn)代刑法應(yīng)以包容的態(tài)度對(duì)待“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”。在“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”的定位上,構(gòu)建“原則與例外”的關(guān)系模型�，F(xiàn)代刑法理論自身也應(yīng)根據(jù)社會(huì)變化進(jìn)行相應(yīng)的自我調(diào)整：首先,正義、謙抑、文明等是刑法的精神實(shí)質(zhì)必須堅(jiān)定不移的堅(jiān)守。刑法的基本原則,如罪刑法定、刑法的謙抑性、責(zé)任主義原則、保護(hù)法益在任何時(shí)代都不會(huì)過時(shí)；其次,現(xiàn)代刑法可以適當(dāng)借鑒“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”理論的前沿思想,進(jìn)行有益的嘗試,如適當(dāng)擴(kuò)大法益的保護(hù)范圍,擴(kuò)展因果關(guān)系鏈條,積極的一般預(yù)防的犯罪目的傾向,完善刑罰制裁體系等。最后,在立法和司法等層面,可以通過借鑒國(guó)外立法經(jīng)驗(yàn),建立多元雙軌的立法模式；發(fā)揮刑事政策的指導(dǎo)作用,適用寬嚴(yán)相濟(jì)的刑事政策；堅(jiān)持司法認(rèn)定上的謙抑能動(dòng),保障個(gè)案公平來實(shí)現(xiàn)“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”的進(jìn)一步預(yù)防。
[Abstract]:The theory of "risk criminal law" derived from the theory of "risk society" by Ulrich Beck, a German scholar, has been disputed and disputed continuously from the beginning of its birth. In the countries of Germany and Japan, the theory of criminal law has undergone a series of changes and the legislative practice has been revised accordingly. After that, more scholars have realized that domestic scholars have no lack of misunderstanding and speculation about the theory of risk criminal law. On the basis of theory, "risk criminal law" can not be butted with the theory of "risk society"; in practical application, complex national conditions and inherent criminal law system restrict its role. In addition, "risk criminal law" theory. The risk of its own existence, while controlling the risk, is incompatible with the humility of the criminal law, the overexpansion of the scope of the crime and the unidentified limits of the penalty. The victory of the holder may make a mistake. The radical criminal law theory dominates the criminal legislation and the judiciary. The victories of the opponents may deprive the original opportunity of the criminal law in dealing with the risk social crisis. In the period of social transformation, China is confronted with the new type of legal benefit in the tide of inevitable involvement in the world "risk society". The problem of the absence of the subject of "organized irresponsibility" and the lag of the punishment is the problem that the introduction of the new theory or the development of the modern criminal law, or the mutual symbiosis between the two is the problem which our criminal law scholars need to think and the significance of the study. In this way, we compare the status of foreign research, and combine the empirical analysis of legislation, explore the theoretical problems behind the focus of the dispute with a critical attitude, clarify the location of the risk criminal law, and provide reference for the innovation and development of the theory. The basic principles and values of the traditional criminal law, the theoretical basis of the "risk criminal law" and how to coordinate the relationship between the "risk penal code" and the traditional criminal law. The scholars in support think that the "risk criminal law" makes up for the legal type of legal interest that the modern criminal law can not adjust; it has changed the practice of the modern criminal law too lags behind the punishment of some crimes; The problem of imputation in modern criminal law coincides with the objective trend of legislative practice. The voice of opposition aims at the departure of the "risk criminal law" to the modern criminal law: the risk criminal law has a distinct difference from the modern criminal law in the value concept, the function orientation, the criminal responsibility and so on, and the main responsibility for the crime and punishment advocated by the modern criminal law. The basic principles of justice, the balance of crime and punishment constitute a major challenge. "Risk criminal law" prevents risk by regulating behavior, and realizes the positive general prevention of the penalty by means of punishing the crime of risk. In the theory of crime, "the criminal law" thinks that the essence of the crime lies in the violation of the standard and is the precaution. The occurrence of the risk, no longer presupposes the specific content of the legal interest, and moves the criminal law from the regulation to the regulation risk. This greatly impacted the status of the criminal essence of "the infringement of legal interests". The abstraction and fuzzification of the concept of legal interest will lead to the inability to determine the boundary of the legal interest, the expansion of the criminal circle, and the effect of its restriction on the penalty power. In the theory of responsibility, in order to prevent the "organized irresponsibility", "the risk criminal law" simplifies the causal identification, advocates the functionalization and objectification of the imputation, which is not only a deviation from the responsibility doctrine, but also easy to go to the extreme of "responsible", and restrict the freedom of action and the progress of social development. In the penalty theory, the "risk criminal law" advocates the product. The purpose of extreme general prevention is to train the public's standard consciousness and the identification of the law through punishment. The purpose of this penalty is to ignore the essence of the penalty and to use the person as a tool, which will easily cause the expansion of the scope of punishment and the heavy sentencing. In the legal sanctions system, the criminal law should keep its modesty and cannot be with the country because of the greater right of the administrative punishment right in our country. The objective of the external practice is simple analogy. The purpose of criticism is to examine and progress. "Risk criminal law" pays attention to the frontier of social development, and puts forward many innovative theories, mapping the shortcomings of the generation of criminal law in dealing with social risks, providing a mirror for the reflection of modern criminal law, but the inconsistency of its real foundation and the instability of the theoretical foundation. In a short time, it can not shake the status of modern criminal law, and its theoretical significance is far greater than its meaning to the theory of criminal law. In the value concept, the "risk criminal law" and the value concept of the current criminal law of our country still have a considerable distance. In practice, the "risk criminal law" can only be used to regulate those in the actual operation. The modern risk field that truly endanger the human or the whole social existence with global, integral and destructive characteristics can not break through the necessity of means or the principle of minimum infraction. The theory needs the character of keeping pace with the times, and the modern criminal law should treat the "risk criminal law" with an inclusive attitude. The modern criminal law theory itself should also adjust itself according to the social changes: first, justice, modesty, civilization and so on are the spiritual essence of the criminal law must be firmly adhered to. The basic principles of criminal law, such as the legality of crime, the modesty of the criminal law, the principle of responsibility, the protection of legal interest in any era. Neither will be out of date; secondly, the modern criminal law can properly draw on the frontiers of the "risk criminal law" theory and make useful attempts, such as expanding the scope of the protection of the legal interest, extending the chain of causality, the positive tendency of the general prevention of the criminal purpose, and perfecting the penalty sanction system. Finally, it can be passed on the legislative and judicial levels. We should use the experience of foreign legislation to establish the legislative mode of multiple double track; give play to the guiding role of the criminal policy and apply the criminal policy of tempering justice with mercy; adhere to the modesty and activism of the judicial cognizance, and ensure the further prevention of the "risk".
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D914

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 熊琦;;論法益之“益”[J];刑法論叢;2008年03期

2 李巖;;民事法益與權(quán)利、利益的轉(zhuǎn)化關(guān)系[J];社科縱橫;2008年03期

3 董興佩;;法益:法律的中心問題[J];北方法學(xué);2008年03期

4 李巖;;民事法益的界定[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2008年03期

5 劉芝祥;;法益概念辨識(shí)[J];政法論壇;2008年04期

6 孟罡;;淺析權(quán)利與法益[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年26期

7 舒洪水;張晶;;近現(xiàn)代法益理論的發(fā)展及其功能化解讀[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2010年09期

8 王拓;;法益理論的危機(jī)與出路[J];西南科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年04期

9 黨莉;;法益概念及特征問題研究[J];安徽警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年05期

10 李可;;法益衡量的方法論構(gòu)造——一項(xiàng)對(duì)被忽視或混淆之問題的微觀研究[J];法律方法;2012年00期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前4條

1 許建兵;薛忠勛;;論“民事法益”的司法救濟(jì)及其限度——基于法益、權(quán)利的二元關(guān)系維度[A];探索社會(huì)主義司法規(guī)律與完善民商事法律制度研究——全國(guó)法院第23屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)撐募ㄉ希C];2011年

2 焦艷鵬;戚道孟;;論核心生態(tài)法益及其刑事保護(hù)[A];生態(tài)安全與環(huán)境風(fēng)險(xiǎn)防范法治建設(shè)——2011年全國(guó)環(huán)境資源法學(xué)研討會(huì)（年會(huì)）論文集（第三冊(cè)）[C];2011年

3 王亞楠;;受賄行為侵害法益之新探[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（二○一○年第3輯）[C];2010年

4 蔣蘭香;周訓(xùn)芳;;從傳統(tǒng)法益到生態(tài)法益——20世紀(jì)各國(guó)環(huán)境刑法法益保護(hù)觀的變遷[A];全國(guó)外國(guó)法制史研究會(huì)學(xué)術(shù)叢書——20世紀(jì)外國(guó)刑事法律的理論與實(shí)踐[C];2005年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 西南政法大學(xué)博士生 邵棟豪;走進(jìn)社會(huì)法益保護(hù)的新時(shí)代[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

2 張繼青;權(quán)利邊緣上的“法益”也需保護(hù)[N];中國(guó)改革報(bào);2006年

3 周軍邋胡渝;共同犯罪定性應(yīng)引入“法益衡量”理念[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

4 劉繼峰;反壟斷法的法益結(jié)構(gòu)[N];國(guó)際商報(bào);2010年

5 遼寧大學(xué)法學(xué)院 李巖;法益：權(quán)利之外的新視域[N];光明日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

6 江蘇省南通市人民檢察院 徐清;駕車“碰瓷”：侵犯法益有差異[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

7 田甘霖;濫伐林木罪的法益分析[N];中國(guó)綠色時(shí)報(bào);2004年

8 西南政法大學(xué) 邵棟豪;侵犯社會(huì)法益犯罪的修法方向[N];社會(huì)科學(xué)報(bào);2012年

9 河南省確山縣人民檢察院 蘇建召;財(cái)產(chǎn)罪法益范圍應(yīng)作寬泛理解[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

10 劉海紅;連續(xù)傷害多人構(gòu)成同種數(shù)罪[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2001年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 李巖;民事法益研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 劉翔;法益淺論[D];山東大學(xué);2007年

2 覃斌武;法益范疇的法理學(xué)改造[D];湘潭大學(xué);2007年

3 劉韓;侵權(quán)法上的法益研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2015年

4 楊世平;刑法中被害人危險(xiǎn)接受問題研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2015年

5 黃勁;預(yù)備犯處罰的立法完善研究[D];安徽財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2015年

6 楊新鵬;論未成年人性權(quán)利的刑法保護(hù)[D];中南林業(yè)科技大學(xué);2015年

7 楊海燕;暴力追債行為的刑法應(yīng)對(duì)[D];中國(guó)海洋大學(xué);2015年

8 劉麗;介紹賣淫罪的疑難問題探究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

9 鄭蔚;生態(tài)法益的刑法保護(hù)[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2015年

10 張運(yùn)坦;盜竊土壤行為刑法規(guī)制研究[D];海南大學(xué);2016年

，

本文編號(hào)：1959367