摘要
在英美刑法中,正当事由与宽宥事由同为出罪事由,在早期,二者因司法效果的差异被严格区分,但随后,二者因出罪效果形式上相似而逐渐被混同。现今,美国仅有约40%的州在立法上区分正当事由与宽宥事由。然而,区分正当事由与宽宥事由能有效发挥刑法之规制机能、合理认定共犯刑事责任、界定第三者的行为性质、公正解决举证责任分配和溯及力等问题。关于区分基准,众说纷纭,但以正当事由与宽宥事由的性质和体系地位观之,应重点考察行为是否引起了刑法上的危害、是否违法。
Boththe justification and theexcuse arethe criminal defenses in American criminal law.In early days,the two were strictly distinguished by their differences in judicial effect.But later,these two have been mixed due to their similar effects in form.Today,only about 40 percent of U.S.states have laws that distinguish the two.However,the distinction between them is important to solve the problems such as showing the criminal law’s regulation functions,determining the third person’s behavior,solving the burden of proof’s distribution and retrospective effect.Views arevariouson their distinctionstandard,but on nature and system status of justification and excuse,we should focus on whether the act has caused harm in criminal law and whether the actis illegal.
作者
陆凌
姜娇
LU Ling;JIANG Jiao(Guangxi university,Nanning,Guangxi,530004)
出处
《湖南警察学院学报》
2018年第5期77-84,共8页
Journal of Hunan Police Academy
关键词
正当事由
宽宥事由
违法
有责
justification
excuse
illegal
accountability
