不能犯理論研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-01 12:37
【摘要】：我國現(xiàn)行刑法一直沒有關(guān)于不能犯的規(guī)定，理論界和司法實(shí)踐中也長時期將不能犯作為未遂犯的一種來處理。近年來，開始有越來越多的學(xué)者對此進(jìn)行反思，并研究我國究竟應(yīng)該采取怎樣的不能犯理論。雖然不能犯是刑法中很小的一個問題，但是對于不能犯的可罰性的態(tài)度，反映了一個學(xué)者所持的刑法主客觀立場，不能犯理論的發(fā)展，最能代表刑法基本立場的發(fā)展，有鑒于此，本文將對不能犯理論的發(fā)展、概念、特征，以及各種不能犯可罰性判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的危險性學(xué)說進(jìn)行對比研究，并提出筆者所支持的由日本學(xué)者山口厚教授主張的假定事實(shí)說。 不能犯理論是由近代刑法學(xué)之父費(fèi)爾巴哈提出來的，不能犯的理論就是關(guān)于不能犯是否可罰的理論，對此自費(fèi)爾巴哈之后產(chǎn)生了許多不同的學(xué)說，主要有主觀的危險性學(xué)說中的純粹的主觀說、抽象的危險說、印象說等等，客觀的危險說主要有具體危險說、客觀危險說以及各種修正的客觀危險說。 筆者認(rèn)為不能犯就是指行為人由于對事實(shí)認(rèn)識錯誤，自以為已經(jīng)著手實(shí)行犯罪行為，但由于根本不可能既遂而否定其成立未遂犯而成為不可罰的情況。其具體特征主要有兩個方面：（一）具有外觀上的著手實(shí)行，因?yàn)榉申P(guān)注的是外部行為，不能犯是“沒能犯”而不是“沒去犯”，因此必須要有一定的行為才能支撐其存在的可能性，但是又由于不能犯的本質(zhì)上是不能對法益造成侵害或者威脅的，故其與刑法所規(guī)范的犯罪行為中的實(shí)行行為又有所差異，也就是其僅僅具備外觀上的著手實(shí)行；（二）既遂不能性，不能犯行為人的行為，不具備導(dǎo)致外界發(fā)生具有刑法重要性的變動的可能性，因此絕不可能構(gòu)成犯罪。對于其不能的原因必須與認(rèn)識錯誤區(qū)別開來，認(rèn)識錯誤是對存在故意與否的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，而不能犯則是存在明確的犯罪故意的，只不過因行為的性質(zhì)或者行為對象的性質(zhì)等原因?qū)е虏豢赡茉斐煞ㄒ媲趾Α?主觀主義的危險性學(xué)說把行為人作為犯罪的核心要素，將行為的危險性格作為認(rèn)罪基礎(chǔ)，強(qiáng)調(diào)社會本位。而客觀主義的危險性學(xué)說注重行為或者結(jié)果，強(qiáng)調(diào)個人本位，主張對國家權(quán)力進(jìn)行限制，以保障個人自由。在客觀主義陣營中又有行為無價值與結(jié)果無價值的爭論，體現(xiàn)在具體學(xué)說上表現(xiàn)為具體危險說主張行為無價值，，其他的客觀危險說主張結(jié)果無價值，筆者贊成結(jié)果無價值的觀點(diǎn)，認(rèn)為行為只有具備造成法益侵害的危險性才具有可罰性，僅僅具備規(guī)范違反性的行為是不可罰的，因?yàn)樾谭ㄒ?guī)范的最終目的是保護(hù)法益。在此基礎(chǔ)上，筆者認(rèn)為山口厚教授的假定事實(shí)說是最適合我國刑法的危險性學(xué)說，該學(xué)說認(rèn)為對于危險性的判斷首先要查明未發(fā)生結(jié)果的原因，進(jìn)而科學(xué)的探明何種事實(shí)存在的情況下結(jié)果會發(fā)生，然后判斷該假定的事實(shí)存在的可能性。我國現(xiàn)在對于不能犯的處理實(shí)際上和抽象危險說是一致的，但是我國現(xiàn)行刑法的基本立場是客觀的，抽象危險說明顯不能滿足刑法發(fā)展的要求，而假定事實(shí)說堅(jiān)持客觀主義立場，貫徹徹底的結(jié)果無價值論，能夠滿足刑法謙抑性的要求，因此是與我國刑法相適應(yīng)的危險性判斷學(xué)說，故筆者贊成假定事實(shí)說。
[Abstract]:In recent years, more and more scholars have begun to reflect on this, and to study what kind of theory we should adopt. Although impossibility is a very small one in criminal law. However, the attitude towards the punishability of impossibility reflects a scholar's subjective and objective standpoint of criminal law, the development of the theory of impossibility of crime, and the development of the basic standpoint of criminal law. In view of this, this paper will carry out the development of the theory of impossibility of crime, the concept, the characteristics, and the danger theory of the judgment standard of impossibility of punishment. Comparative study, and put forward the author supported by the Japanese scholar Yamaguchi Hou advocated the assumption that the fact that.
The theory of impossibility of crime was put forward by Feuerbach, the father of modern criminal jurisprudence. The theory of impossibility of crime is the theory of whether impossibility of crime is punishable. Since Feuerbach, there have been many different theories, such as the pure subjective theory in the subjective danger theory, the abstract danger theory, the impression theory and so on, the objective danger theory. There are mainly concrete dangers, objective danger and various objective dangers.
The author holds that impossibility refers to the situation in which the perpetrator, because of his misunderstanding of the facts, assumes that he has already begun to commit a crime, but negates his attempted crime because it is impossible to accomplish it at all. The specific characteristics of impossibility include two main aspects: (1) the appearance of the implementation of the proceeding, because the law is concerned about the external environment. Behavior, can not commit is "unable to commit" rather than "not to commit", so there must be a certain act to support its existence possibility, but also because the essence of can not commit an infringement or threat to the legal interests, so it is different from the criminal law in the practice of criminal acts, that is, it is only It is impossible to commit a crime because of its appearance; (2) accomplished impossibility, impossibility of committing the act of the perpetrator, and impossibility of causing changes of criminal law importance to the outside world. The reason for its impossibility must be distinguished from the mistake of cognition, which is the criterion of judging whether there is intent or not, but not. The enabled offender has a clear criminal intent, but because of the nature of the act or the nature of the object of the act, it is impossible to cause infringement of legal interests.
The dangerous doctrine of subjectivism regards the actor as the core element of crime, the dangerous character of behavior as the basis of confession, and stresses the social standard. Debate for worthlessness and worthlessness of consequence is manifested in concrete doctrine that behavior is worthless and other objective danger doctrine that result is worthless. The author agrees with the view that behavior is punishable only if it has the danger of causing infringement of legal interests and only has the practice of violating norms. On this basis, the author thinks that Professor Yamaguchi's hypothetical facts theory is the most suitable dangerous theory for our country's criminal law. The theory holds that the judgment of danger should first find out the reason why no result has occurred, and then scientifically find out what facts exist. The following results will occur and then the possibility of the existence of the hypothetical facts will be judged.The treatment of impossibility in China is in fact consistent with the abstract danger theory,but the basic position of the current criminal law in China is objective.The abstract danger statement obviously can not meet the requirements of the development of the criminal law. The thorough and thorough theory of the value of consequence can satisfy the requirement of modesty and restraint of criminal law, so it is a theory of danger judgment adapted to our criminal law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924
本文編號：2217220
[Abstract]:In recent years, more and more scholars have begun to reflect on this, and to study what kind of theory we should adopt. Although impossibility is a very small one in criminal law. However, the attitude towards the punishability of impossibility reflects a scholar's subjective and objective standpoint of criminal law, the development of the theory of impossibility of crime, and the development of the basic standpoint of criminal law. In view of this, this paper will carry out the development of the theory of impossibility of crime, the concept, the characteristics, and the danger theory of the judgment standard of impossibility of punishment. Comparative study, and put forward the author supported by the Japanese scholar Yamaguchi Hou advocated the assumption that the fact that.
The theory of impossibility of crime was put forward by Feuerbach, the father of modern criminal jurisprudence. The theory of impossibility of crime is the theory of whether impossibility of crime is punishable. Since Feuerbach, there have been many different theories, such as the pure subjective theory in the subjective danger theory, the abstract danger theory, the impression theory and so on, the objective danger theory. There are mainly concrete dangers, objective danger and various objective dangers.
The author holds that impossibility refers to the situation in which the perpetrator, because of his misunderstanding of the facts, assumes that he has already begun to commit a crime, but negates his attempted crime because it is impossible to accomplish it at all. The specific characteristics of impossibility include two main aspects: (1) the appearance of the implementation of the proceeding, because the law is concerned about the external environment. Behavior, can not commit is "unable to commit" rather than "not to commit", so there must be a certain act to support its existence possibility, but also because the essence of can not commit an infringement or threat to the legal interests, so it is different from the criminal law in the practice of criminal acts, that is, it is only It is impossible to commit a crime because of its appearance; (2) accomplished impossibility, impossibility of committing the act of the perpetrator, and impossibility of causing changes of criminal law importance to the outside world. The reason for its impossibility must be distinguished from the mistake of cognition, which is the criterion of judging whether there is intent or not, but not. The enabled offender has a clear criminal intent, but because of the nature of the act or the nature of the object of the act, it is impossible to cause infringement of legal interests.
The dangerous doctrine of subjectivism regards the actor as the core element of crime, the dangerous character of behavior as the basis of confession, and stresses the social standard. Debate for worthlessness and worthlessness of consequence is manifested in concrete doctrine that behavior is worthless and other objective danger doctrine that result is worthless. The author agrees with the view that behavior is punishable only if it has the danger of causing infringement of legal interests and only has the practice of violating norms. On this basis, the author thinks that Professor Yamaguchi's hypothetical facts theory is the most suitable dangerous theory for our country's criminal law. The theory holds that the judgment of danger should first find out the reason why no result has occurred, and then scientifically find out what facts exist. The following results will occur and then the possibility of the existence of the hypothetical facts will be judged.The treatment of impossibility in China is in fact consistent with the abstract danger theory,but the basic position of the current criminal law in China is objective.The abstract danger statement obviously can not meet the requirements of the development of the criminal law. The thorough and thorough theory of the value of consequence can satisfy the requirement of modesty and restraint of criminal law, so it is a theory of danger judgment adapted to our criminal law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 趙秉志;;論不能犯與不能犯未遂問題[J];北方法學(xué);2008年01期
2 陳家林;;為我國現(xiàn)行不能犯理論辯護(hù)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2008年04期
3 劉曉山;劉光圣;;不能犯的可罰性判斷——印象說之提倡[J];法學(xué)評論;2008年03期
4 顧肖榮;危險性的判斷與不能犯未遂犯[J];法學(xué)研究;1994年02期
5 陳興良;社會危害性理論——一個反思性檢討[J];法學(xué)研究;2000年01期
6 張德友;不能犯的判斷方法——危險概念的理性探析[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2002年05期
7 陳興良;;不能犯與未遂犯——一個比較法的分析[J];清華法學(xué);2011年04期
8 許恒達(dá);;論不能未遂——舊客觀說的古酒新釀[J];清華法學(xué);2011年04期
9 周光權(quán);;區(qū)分不能犯和未遂犯的三個維度[J];清華法學(xué);2011年04期
10 錢葉六;;未遂犯與不能犯之區(qū)分[J];清華法學(xué);2011年04期
本文編號：2217220
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2217220.html
