随着研究的深入,风险预防理论的适用范围拓展至刑法领域。考虑到该理论的特性及刑法的立场,将其作为原则适用于刑法领域更为妥当。相较于古典刑法的结果本位主义,采用风险预防原则更有利于应对风险社会的挑战,实现国家对公众安全的保护...随着研究的深入,风险预防理论的适用范围拓展至刑法领域。考虑到该理论的特性及刑法的立场,将其作为原则适用于刑法领域更为妥当。相较于古典刑法的结果本位主义,采用风险预防原则更有利于应对风险社会的挑战,实现国家对公众安全的保护,强化刑法的一般预防效果。风险预防原则只能在环境犯罪、恐怖主义犯罪等侵犯国家、社会等超个人法益的范围内适用,对于纯粹侵犯个人法益的行为,不能采取该原则进行规制。同时,风险需具备向现实危险转化的可能性,对于完全不可能转化成现实危险的风险,刑法应保持谦抑性。风险预防措施的制定与采取需严格遵循比例原则,力求达到权利保护与人权保障的动态平衡。With the deepening of research, the scope of application of the risk prevention theory has expanded to the field of criminal law. Considering the characteristics of this theory and the stance of criminal law, it is more appropriate to apply it as a principle in the field of criminal law. Compared with the result-based approach of classical criminal law, adopting the principle of risk prevention is more conducive to addressing the challenges of a risk society, realizing the state’s protection of public safety, and strengthening the general preventive effect of criminal law. The principle of risk prevention can only be applied within the scope of crimes that infringe upon supra personal legal interests such as the state and society, including environmental crimes and terrorist crimes. It cannot be used to regulate acts that purely infringe upon individual legal interests. At the same time, risks must possess the potential to transform into actual dangers. For risks that are completely impossible to transform into actual dangers, criminal law should maintain its modesty. The formulation and adoption of risk prevention measures must strictly follow the principle of proportionality, striving to achieve a dynamic balance between rights protection and human rights safeguards.展开更多
近年来,多起低龄未成年人恶性犯罪事件引起了社会舆论的强烈关注。民众支持报应主义的观念背后是源于未成年被害人法律角度的缺失以及民众内心的安全需求需要刑法保障,修法背后也要保证刑法的谦抑性。对于最低刑事年龄争论不休的各种观...近年来,多起低龄未成年人恶性犯罪事件引起了社会舆论的强烈关注。民众支持报应主义的观念背后是源于未成年被害人法律角度的缺失以及民众内心的安全需求需要刑法保障,修法背后也要保证刑法的谦抑性。对于最低刑事年龄争论不休的各种观点,可以从理论层面进行梳理,不同理论的发展变迁,从最早报应主义的同态复仇,刑事古典法学派认为犯罪人是由自由意志决定是否实施犯罪行为,未成年犯和成年犯几乎一致对待。到后来的矫正主义,实证法学派认为犯罪和其他自然现象一样都有其原因,对低龄未成年犯应采取以教育手段代替刑事处罚,将未成年犯和成年犯相区别,再到近代的保护–惩罚二元论,对于未成年人应当是保护和惩罚并重,被害人理论的发展引发了对“犯罪行为中心主义”的思考。为了应对低龄未成年人因为没有达到刑事责任年龄而不承担刑事责任的问题,首先还是应当坚持对于未成年人的特殊保护,不仅是要保护未成年被害人,也要对其进行平等地保护,避免二次伤害。其次建立相对确定的刑事责任年龄制度,可以借鉴英美法系的“恶意年龄补足规则”,由最高检察院根据个案核准是否提起诉讼,由人民法院来裁判没有达到刑事责任年龄犯罪人是否具备了刑事责任能力。In recent years, a number of violent crimes committed by young minors have attracted strong attention from public opinion. The people’s support for the concept of retributivism is due to the lack of legal perspective of juvenile victims and the people’s inner security needs need criminal law protection, and the modesty of criminal law should be ensured behind the revision of the law. Various views on the minimum criminal age can be sorted out from the theoretical level. The development and changes of different theories, from the homomorphic revenge of the earliest retributionist, the classical school of criminal law believes that criminals decide whether to commit crimes by free will, and juvenile offenders and adult offenders are treated almost the same. In the later correctionalism, the positivist school of the law believed that crime, like other natural phenomena, had its own causes, that juvenile offenders should be replaced with criminal punishment by educational means, and that juvenile offenders should be distinguished from adult offenders. In the modern protection-punishment dualism, both protection and punishment should be placed on minors. The development of victim theory has triggered the thinking of “crime behavior centralism”. In order to deal with the problem that young minors do not bear criminal responsibility because they have not reached the age of criminal responsibility, first of all, we should adhere to the special protection of minors, not only to protect minor victims, but also to provide equal protection for minor victims to avoid secondary injuries. Secondly, a relatively certain age system of criminal responsibility can be established, which can draw on the “malicious age supplement rule” of the Anglo-American law system. The Supreme Procuratorate can approve whether to initiate a lawsuit on a case-by-case basis, and the People’s Court can judge whether a criminal who has not reached the age of criminal responsibility has the capacity for criminal responsibility.展开更多
文摘随着研究的深入,风险预防理论的适用范围拓展至刑法领域。考虑到该理论的特性及刑法的立场,将其作为原则适用于刑法领域更为妥当。相较于古典刑法的结果本位主义,采用风险预防原则更有利于应对风险社会的挑战,实现国家对公众安全的保护,强化刑法的一般预防效果。风险预防原则只能在环境犯罪、恐怖主义犯罪等侵犯国家、社会等超个人法益的范围内适用,对于纯粹侵犯个人法益的行为,不能采取该原则进行规制。同时,风险需具备向现实危险转化的可能性,对于完全不可能转化成现实危险的风险,刑法应保持谦抑性。风险预防措施的制定与采取需严格遵循比例原则,力求达到权利保护与人权保障的动态平衡。With the deepening of research, the scope of application of the risk prevention theory has expanded to the field of criminal law. Considering the characteristics of this theory and the stance of criminal law, it is more appropriate to apply it as a principle in the field of criminal law. Compared with the result-based approach of classical criminal law, adopting the principle of risk prevention is more conducive to addressing the challenges of a risk society, realizing the state’s protection of public safety, and strengthening the general preventive effect of criminal law. The principle of risk prevention can only be applied within the scope of crimes that infringe upon supra personal legal interests such as the state and society, including environmental crimes and terrorist crimes. It cannot be used to regulate acts that purely infringe upon individual legal interests. At the same time, risks must possess the potential to transform into actual dangers. For risks that are completely impossible to transform into actual dangers, criminal law should maintain its modesty. The formulation and adoption of risk prevention measures must strictly follow the principle of proportionality, striving to achieve a dynamic balance between rights protection and human rights safeguards.
文摘近年来,多起低龄未成年人恶性犯罪事件引起了社会舆论的强烈关注。民众支持报应主义的观念背后是源于未成年被害人法律角度的缺失以及民众内心的安全需求需要刑法保障,修法背后也要保证刑法的谦抑性。对于最低刑事年龄争论不休的各种观点,可以从理论层面进行梳理,不同理论的发展变迁,从最早报应主义的同态复仇,刑事古典法学派认为犯罪人是由自由意志决定是否实施犯罪行为,未成年犯和成年犯几乎一致对待。到后来的矫正主义,实证法学派认为犯罪和其他自然现象一样都有其原因,对低龄未成年犯应采取以教育手段代替刑事处罚,将未成年犯和成年犯相区别,再到近代的保护–惩罚二元论,对于未成年人应当是保护和惩罚并重,被害人理论的发展引发了对“犯罪行为中心主义”的思考。为了应对低龄未成年人因为没有达到刑事责任年龄而不承担刑事责任的问题,首先还是应当坚持对于未成年人的特殊保护,不仅是要保护未成年被害人,也要对其进行平等地保护,避免二次伤害。其次建立相对确定的刑事责任年龄制度,可以借鉴英美法系的“恶意年龄补足规则”,由最高检察院根据个案核准是否提起诉讼,由人民法院来裁判没有达到刑事责任年龄犯罪人是否具备了刑事责任能力。In recent years, a number of violent crimes committed by young minors have attracted strong attention from public opinion. The people’s support for the concept of retributivism is due to the lack of legal perspective of juvenile victims and the people’s inner security needs need criminal law protection, and the modesty of criminal law should be ensured behind the revision of the law. Various views on the minimum criminal age can be sorted out from the theoretical level. The development and changes of different theories, from the homomorphic revenge of the earliest retributionist, the classical school of criminal law believes that criminals decide whether to commit crimes by free will, and juvenile offenders and adult offenders are treated almost the same. In the later correctionalism, the positivist school of the law believed that crime, like other natural phenomena, had its own causes, that juvenile offenders should be replaced with criminal punishment by educational means, and that juvenile offenders should be distinguished from adult offenders. In the modern protection-punishment dualism, both protection and punishment should be placed on minors. The development of victim theory has triggered the thinking of “crime behavior centralism”. In order to deal with the problem that young minors do not bear criminal responsibility because they have not reached the age of criminal responsibility, first of all, we should adhere to the special protection of minors, not only to protect minor victims, but also to provide equal protection for minor victims to avoid secondary injuries. Secondly, a relatively certain age system of criminal responsibility can be established, which can draw on the “malicious age supplement rule” of the Anglo-American law system. The Supreme Procuratorate can approve whether to initiate a lawsuit on a case-by-case basis, and the People’s Court can judge whether a criminal who has not reached the age of criminal responsibility has the capacity for criminal responsibility.
