罪过基本问题研究

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者:

张波

归属院系:

法学院

作者:

张波

导师:

陈忠林

导师单位:

西南政法大学

学位:

博士

语种:

中文

摘要:

犯罪同人类的其他活动一样,都是人类改造世界满足自身需要的实践活动,刑法学关于犯罪的研究应当以人类一般实践活动的基本原理为指导。 本文从马克思主义的主体性理论出发,认为犯罪不仅仅是客观的事实性存在,它更是行为人满足自身需要的一种价值活动,是客观性和能动性、事实性和价值性的统一,犯罪的事实性内在于价值性当中,是属人的事实,价值才是事实的灵魂,能动性才是客观性的本质。犯罪的事实性只能放在价值结构的系统中理解,放在对人的关系和意义中来说明。 人的行为总是在一定的思想支配下进行的,犯罪就是在罪过的支配下实施的。正是罪过将实施犯罪的行为人与犯罪连结起来。犯罪是主观见之于客观的行为,是行为人的自我确证,就是指犯罪是行为人主观罪过的实现,正是罪过赋予了犯罪行为的能动性和价值性。因为有了罪过,犯罪行为才能够归属于行为人,成为其“自己”的行为;因为有了罪过,犯罪行为才具有了反社会的性质,为国家整体法秩序所否定;因为有了罪过,作为一种社会行为的犯罪才与纯粹外在于人的自然事实不同,不能通过精确的自然科学的公式进行说明,而必须通过神入式的理解,认知其价值意义。对行为人与客观危害行为及其后果之间纯因果性的说明,只是刑法的基础性工作,在此基础上对危害行为及其后果意义的理解,也就是对罪过的理解,才是刑法关注的核心和焦点。 作为支配行为人选择和实施犯罪的心理过程,罪过包括行为人对其所实施的客观的危害行为本身的态度和通过这种行为体现出的行为人对整体法秩序的态度。罪过既是一个事实结构,也是一个价值结构。同人类一般行为的心理过程一样,罪过包括认识、情感和意志三方面的因素。认识和意志都具有一定的实体性,即都能够通过一定的形式表现出来,而情感则是更为主观的一种精神体验,往往没有比较固定的表现形式,其价值通过对认识和意志的影响而得以体现。因此,认识因素和意志因素是罪过的基本因素。作为一种事实性存在,罪过的认识因素和意志因素分别包括行为人对其实施的危害事实的认识和意志;作为一种价值现象,罪过的认识因素和意志因素分别包括行为人对违法性的认识和违法的意志。罪过的认识因素意味着犯罪人认识到了自身处于匮乏状态,需要尚没有得到满足,自己采取怎样的手段来改善这种状态,满足自身需要,以及这种手段将会导致什么样的自然结果,同时也认识到了这样的手段是为国家法秩序所否定和不能容忍的,情感因素反映了犯罪人对现实状况的不满的态度,而意志因素则意味着犯罪人能够在法秩序所允许和容忍的范围内,采取行动,改善现实状况,满足自身需要,而他却自愿选择了法秩序所否定和不能容忍的手段,在本质上行为人与刑法所保护的价值或者利益相对立的心理态度。人的使命不仅在于认识世界,更在于改造世界。罪过的认识因素和情感因素都属于认识世界的范畴,都表现为相对静止的状态,意志属于改造世界的范畴,表现形式相对活跃。意志活动不仅是一种观念性的活动,更总是意向地为人们指出要追求什么,并进而要通过调控人们的对象性活动来实现既定价值目标,使自身得到外化、对象化,表现为一种行为,没有意志的行为是盲目的、缺乏方向感,从根本上讲不能称之为人的行为;没有表现为行为的意志则是虚无缥缈和苍白无力的,从根本上讲不能叫做意志。在认识因素和意志因素当中,意志因素决定着罪过的本质,也决定了罪过是观念性和行为性的统一体。罪过总是要体现在一定的犯罪行为当中,而犯罪也一定是罪过支配下的犯罪,脱离犯罪行为的罪过和脱离罪过的犯罪行为都是不可理解的。 罪过的意志因素包括对事实的意志和违法的意志,对事实的意志承载着违法意志,违法意志寓于对事实的意志当中。犯罪是是反社会的行为,是孤立的个人反对统治关系的斗争,是蔑视社会秩序的最明显最极端的表现,刑罚不外是社会对付违犯它的生存条件的行为的一种自卫手段。但无论“统治关系”、“社会”还是“国家”都只能通过法规范、法秩序的形式体现出来,犯罪的反社会、反国家、反统治关系,总是表现为反法规范、法秩序。也正因为如此,行为人的违法意志集中体现其犯罪的本质。 正因为犯罪是犯罪人的自我确证,罪过是犯罪人在犯罪中的体现,罪过及其实现程度对一个行为的刑法意义起决定作用,它不仅决定罪与非罪,也决定此罪与彼罪、重罪与轻罪、犯罪的形态,也是对犯罪人裁量刑罚的内在依据,并对刑罚的执行有着重要的影响。因此,罪过原则是贯穿犯罪、刑事责任和刑罚的一个基本原则,在刑法当中具有全局性和根本性。刑法学界倡导的主客观相统一原则解决了犯罪是主客观因素的结合,任何仅凭主观因素和客观因素定罪量刑的观点都是片面的、错误的。但是,主客观相统一原则始终没有解决主客观相统一的方式问题,就是谁统一谁,谁是核心,谁是灵魂,谁是本质的问题,始终没有得到解决。罪过原则在坚持认为犯罪是主客观因素相统一的原则下,以犯罪的客观性、事实性是基础,价值性、能动性是本质的理论为基础,主张主客观相统一应是主观统一客观,罪过统一行为,提出罪过原则应当成为刑法的基本原则。 罪过一方面是观念性的存在,表现为犯罪人内在的心理过程;另一方面也是一种事实性存在,表现为客观的犯罪行为。因此,在司法实践中对罪过的认定主要有两种方法,一是审查判断被告人、犯罪嫌疑人的口供,二是通过事实推定的方式确定罪过。在现实的司法实践中,着眼于犯罪的客观表现及其危害后果,对被告人、嫌疑人进行客观归罪的现象比较普遍地存在。究其原因,一是因为长期以来,传统的刑法理论主流观点认为犯罪的本质特征是严重的社会危害性,不适当地降低了罪过在犯罪构成中的核心地位;二是认为罪过是主观态度存在于行为人内心,难以认知、难以查明的思想广泛存在,导致司法人员对于罪过望而生畏;三是刑法学对罪过的研究本身没有能够为正确认定罪过提供技术支持。

学科:

刑法学

提交日期

2018-01-11

引用参考

张波. 罪过基本问题研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2008.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 罪过基本问题研究
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • b200500059
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 张波
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 博士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2008
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 陈忠林
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 犯罪同人类的其他活动一样,都是人类改造世界满足自身需要的实践活动,刑法学关于犯罪的研究应当以人类一般实践活动的基本原理为指导。 本文从马克思主义的主体性理论出发,认为犯罪不仅仅是客观的事实性存在,它更是行为人满足自身需要的一种价值活动,是客观性和能动性、事实性和价值性的统一,犯罪的事实性内在于价值性当中,是属人的事实,价值才是事实的灵魂,能动性才是客观性的本质。犯罪的事实性只能放在价值结构的系统中理解,放在对人的关系和意义中来说明。 人的行为总是在一定的思想支配下进行的,犯罪就是在罪过的支配下实施的。正是罪过将实施犯罪的行为人与犯罪连结起来。犯罪是主观见之于客观的行为,是行为人的自我确证,就是指犯罪是行为人主观罪过的实现,正是罪过赋予了犯罪行为的能动性和价值性。因为有了罪过,犯罪行为才能够归属于行为人,成为其“自己”的行为;因为有了罪过,犯罪行为才具有了反社会的性质,为国家整体法秩序所否定;因为有了罪过,作为一种社会行为的犯罪才与纯粹外在于人的自然事实不同,不能通过精确的自然科学的公式进行说明,而必须通过神入式的理解,认知其价值意义。对行为人与客观危害行为及其后果之间纯因果性的说明,只是刑法的基础性工作,在此基础上对危害行为及其后果意义的理解,也就是对罪过的理解,才是刑法关注的核心和焦点。 作为支配行为人选择和实施犯罪的心理过程,罪过包括行为人对其所实施的客观的危害行为本身的态度和通过这种行为体现出的行为人对整体法秩序的态度。罪过既是一个事实结构,也是一个价值结构。同人类一般行为的心理过程一样,罪过包括认识、情感和意志三方面的因素。认识和意志都具有一定的实体性,即都能够通过一定的形式表现出来,而情感则是更为主观的一种精神体验,往往没有比较固定的表现形式,其价值通过对认识和意志的影响而得以体现。因此,认识因素和意志因素是罪过的基本因素。作为一种事实性存在,罪过的认识因素和意志因素分别包括行为人对其实施的危害事实的认识和意志;作为一种价值现象,罪过的认识因素和意志因素分别包括行为人对违法性的认识和违法的意志。罪过的认识因素意味着犯罪人认识到了自身处于匮乏状态,需要尚没有得到满足,自己采取怎样的手段来改善这种状态,满足自身需要,以及这种手段将会导致什么样的自然结果,同时也认识到了这样的手段是为国家法秩序所否定和不能容忍的,情感因素反映了犯罪人对现实状况的不满的态度,而意志因素则意味着犯罪人能够在法秩序所允许和容忍的范围内,采取行动,改善现实状况,满足自身需要,而他却自愿选择了法秩序所否定和不能容忍的手段,在本质上行为人与刑法所保护的价值或者利益相对立的心理态度。人的使命不仅在于认识世界,更在于改造世界。罪过的认识因素和情感因素都属于认识世界的范畴,都表现为相对静止的状态,意志属于改造世界的范畴,表现形式相对活跃。意志活动不仅是一种观念性的活动,更总是意向地为人们指出要追求什么,并进而要通过调控人们的对象性活动来实现既定价值目标,使自身得到外化、对象化,表现为一种行为,没有意志的行为是盲目的、缺乏方向感,从根本上讲不能称之为人的行为;没有表现为行为的意志则是虚无缥缈和苍白无力的,从根本上讲不能叫做意志。在认识因素和意志因素当中,意志因素决定着罪过的本质,也决定了罪过是观念性和行为性的统一体。罪过总是要体现在一定的犯罪行为当中,而犯罪也一定是罪过支配下的犯罪,脱离犯罪行为的罪过和脱离罪过的犯罪行为都是不可理解的。 罪过的意志因素包括对事实的意志和违法的意志,对事实的意志承载着违法意志,违法意志寓于对事实的意志当中。犯罪是是反社会的行为,是孤立的个人反对统治关系的斗争,是蔑视社会秩序的最明显最极端的表现,刑罚不外是社会对付违犯它的生存条件的行为的一种自卫手段。但无论“统治关系”、“社会”还是“国家”都只能通过法规范、法秩序的形式体现出来,犯罪的反社会、反国家、反统治关系,总是表现为反法规范、法秩序。也正因为如此,行为人的违法意志集中体现其犯罪的本质。 正因为犯罪是犯罪人的自我确证,罪过是犯罪人在犯罪中的体现,罪过及其实现程度对一个行为的刑法意义起决定作用,它不仅决定罪与非罪,也决定此罪与彼罪、重罪与轻罪、犯罪的形态,也是对犯罪人裁量刑罚的内在依据,并对刑罚的执行有着重要的影响。因此,罪过原则是贯穿犯罪、刑事责任和刑罚的一个基本原则,在刑法当中具有全局性和根本性。刑法学界倡导的主客观相统一原则解决了犯罪是主客观因素的结合,任何仅凭主观因素和客观因素定罪量刑的观点都是片面的、错误的。但是,主客观相统一原则始终没有解决主客观相统一的方式问题,就是谁统一谁,谁是核心,谁是灵魂,谁是本质的问题,始终没有得到解决。罪过原则在坚持认为犯罪是主客观因素相统一的原则下,以犯罪的客观性、事实性是基础,价值性、能动性是本质的理论为基础,主张主客观相统一应是主观统一客观,罪过统一行为,提出罪过原则应当成为刑法的基本原则。 罪过一方面是观念性的存在,表现为犯罪人内在的心理过程;另一方面也是一种事实性存在,表现为客观的犯罪行为。因此,在司法实践中对罪过的认定主要有两种方法,一是审查判断被告人、犯罪嫌疑人的口供,二是通过事实推定的方式确定罪过。在现实的司法实践中,着眼于犯罪的客观表现及其危害后果,对被告人、嫌疑人进行客观归罪的现象比较普遍地存在。究其原因,一是因为长期以来,传统的刑法理论主流观点认为犯罪的本质特征是严重的社会危害性,不适当地降低了罪过在犯罪构成中的核心地位;二是认为罪过是主观态度存在于行为人内心,难以认知、难以查明的思想广泛存在,导致司法人员对于罪过望而生畏;三是刑法学对罪过的研究本身没有能够为正确认定罪过提供技术支持。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Just as other human activities, crimes are also conducts for the human to change the world and meet their needs, so study on crimes should be based on the basic principles for general human activities. From the Marxist corpus theories, the author holds that crimes are not only pure objective existence, they are conducts combining the objectivity and dynamism, the objectivity just represents the outer forms of crimes, the value constitutes their nature. So the objectivity of crimes should be understood mainly from their valuable meanings, from their sense to the behaviors. Human activities are also controlled by some certain state of mind for criminals who conduct any crimes; the state of mind is defined as the mens rea, which connects the criminals and their crimes. The crimes are the external forms of the mens rea, it is just the mens rea which makes crimes belong to the criminals and become valuable, it is just the mens rea which makes the crimes anti-social and prohibited by the States, it is also just the mens rea which makes the crimes different from natural events. We can explain the natural events by mastering the causality, but for the crimes, we can only understand them, because the nature of crimes lies not on their objectivity, but on their meanings to the conductors and the society. So it is just the basic work to find out the causalities for understand crimes, relatively, the criminal law should focus more on value of crimes, that is to say, it is the key job to understand the mens rea of crimes. As the psychological process which promotes the criminals to choose and implementing crimes, the mens rea contains not only the conductors' attitudes towards the objective harmful conducts themselves and their consequences, but also their attitudes towards the law and the social order. So, mens rea is not only a structure of pure objective facts, but also a structure of value. The same as the general psychological process of human activities, mens rea includes three factors: cognition, emotion and will. Both cognition and will can be embodied as an entity, relatively, emotion takes its form as subjective spiritual experience with no stability form, the function of emotion can not be exist independently, so cognition and will consists of the two main factors of mens rea. As an objective entity, cognition and will contains the conductors' cognition and will towards the objective harmful conducts themselves and their consequences respectively, as a valuable entity, cognition and will contains the conductors' cognition and will towards law and social order respectively. The cognition factor includes that the conductors have recognized they are in some states of scarcity, what kind of methods can be taken to change the status, and they have also recognized that the methods are forbidden by the law. The emotion means that the conductors feel unsatisfied with their status. The will factor means that although the conductors can take action to change their state, to meet their needs within the framework of the law, while they will choose and implement the actions prohibited by law. The mission of human beings is not only to understand the world, but also to change the world to meet his needs. The cognition and emotion are factors belong to the area of understanding the world, while the will belongs to changing the world., it is not merely a conceptive process, it always embody itself by forms of actions. Human activities without will can not be called action; they are mere behavior with no legal significance. In some sense, we can say that the state of mind is the soul of human activities, mens rea is the soul of crimes, and the will is the soul of mens rea. The will of mens rea includes the conductors' will towards the harmful behaviors and the law, the former embodied the later, the later makes the former meaningful. The nature of a crime depends on the conductor's will. Crimes are anti-social actions, are struggles between individual person and the government are actions despising the social order, so penalty is only the self-defense means for the social and the state to tackle the actions which damage her living conditions. No matter society , social order or the state, they can only exist by law, law order, when we say that crimes are anti-social actions, are actions despising the social order, despising the state, we mean the actions embody the conductors' will not obey the law ,will not take actions within the law order. So the will of mens rea represents the nature of a crime. Mens rea and the degree of its realizing plays the decisive role in distinguishing conducts in criminal law, it not only determines a conduct criminal or innocent, determines the boundaries of crimes, determines the shape of a crime, but also decisive in applying the penalty. So, mens rea constitutes a basic rule within the whole field of criminal law. The rule of uniting objectivity and subjectivity have solved the problem of judging a conduct only by the harmful consequence or only by the intent of the conductor, both of these ideas are one-sided. But the problem of which factor plays the leading role, the objectivity or the subjectivity, is still to be solved. The author hold the idea that although both the harmful conducts and mens rea are needed to form a crime, while the later represents the nature of the crimes. In some sense, it can be said that between the objectivity or the subjectivity, the former is unified by the later, the later unified the former. The rule of mens rea should be advocated as a basic and key rule of criminal law. On one hand, mens rea can be taken as a conceptual fact, which exists as the psychological process, on the other hand, it is also takes the form of a natural conduct. So we can take two main approaches to judge mens rea, one is to review the statements of the suspects and the defendant, the other is to presumpt mens rea by checking the conducts. But in judicial practice, it is relatively common only to judge a crime by the conducts and harmful consequence, while neglecting the leading role of mens rea, the root lies in that the traditional main theories of criminal law takes serious harm to the society as the nature of a crime, neglecting the key role of mens rea in forming a crime, many scholars hold that mens rea is only a psychological phenomena, so it is too hard for the judge to grasp, the research for mens rea is just in an initial stage, we do not have effective technical support.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D914;D917
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2008-03-28
回到顶部