消极责任主义的理论型塑与实践省思

Theoretical Modeling and Practice Thinking of Negative Responsibility Theory

成果信息
DC信息
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：

李永升

归属院系：

法学院

作者：

冯文杰 ; 李永升

摘要：

雅科布斯与罗克辛所持的功能责任论都有所不当,前者主要存在循环论证、人权侵犯及破坏法治国根基等问题;后者主要存在人权侵犯及人的工具化等问题。应将应罚性与需罚性结合起来认定犯罪,可将狭义的责任(应罚性)与预防必要性(有无)结合为广义的责任阶层。幅的理论存在重刑主义与人权侵犯等问题,量刑须坚持消极的责任主义,以点的理论处理责任刑与预防刑的关系。应实质性地把握特殊个案中的影响责任刑和预防刑的情节,不能将减轻处罚情节定性为从轻处罚情节、以从宽处理作为不构成犯罪的特殊个案的裁判结果、将无特殊预防必要性的行为人判处免予刑罚处罚或适用缓刑。

语种：

中文

出版日期：

2019-07-15

学科：

刑法学

收录：

北大核心期刊; CSSCI

提交日期：

2019-10-12

引用参考：

冯文杰;李永升. 消极责任主义的理论型塑与实践省思[J]. 南通大学学报(社会科学版),2019(04):59-66.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 消极责任主义的理论型塑与实践省思
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 冯文杰;李永升
  • dc.contributor.author
  • FENG Wen-jie;LI Yong-sheng;Law School, Southeast University;Law School, Southwest University of Political Science and Law
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 东南大学法学院;西南政法大学法学院;
  • dc.publisher
  • 南通大学学报(社会科学版)
  • dc.publisher
  • Journal of Nantong University(Social Sciences Edition)
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2019
  • dc.identifier.issue
  • 04
  • dc.identifier.volume
  • v.35;No.166
  • dc.identifier.page
  • 59-66
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2019-07-15
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 功能责任论;消极的责任主义;点的理论;幅的理论
  • dc.subject
  • functional liability theory;negative responsibility theory;point theory;the scale theory
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 雅科布斯与罗克辛所持的功能责任论都有所不当,前者主要存在循环论证、人权侵犯及破坏法治国根基等问题;后者主要存在人权侵犯及人的工具化等问题。应将应罚性与需罚性结合起来认定犯罪,可将狭义的责任(应罚性)与预防必要性(有无)结合为广义的责任阶层。幅的理论存在重刑主义与人权侵犯等问题,量刑须坚持消极的责任主义,以点的理论处理责任刑与预防刑的关系。应实质性地把握特殊个案中的影响责任刑和预防刑的情节,不能将减轻处罚情节定性为从轻处罚情节、以从宽处理作为不构成犯罪的特殊个案的裁判结果、将无特殊预防必要性的行为人判处免予刑罚处罚或适用缓刑。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • The functional responsibility theory held by Jacobs and Roxin is not appropriate. The former mainly has problems such as circular argumentation, human rights violations and undermining the roots of the rule of law; the latter mainly is criticized for human rights violations and human tooling. The combination of punishment and need for punishment should be considered in identifying a crime. The narrow sense of responsibility(the penalty) and the necessity of prevention(with or without) should be combined into a broad sense of responsibility. The theory of the scale has problems such as severe punishment and human rights violations. It is necessary to adhere to negative responsibility in sentencing and use the theory of points to deal with the relationship between responsibility and prevention. The circumstances affecting the liability penalty and the prevention penalty in special cases should be grasped and considered. The mitigating circumstances cannot be taken as a light punishment, the lenient treatment as a result of a special case should not be taken as not constituting a crime, and shall not exercise exemption or probation to those who are not qualified for special defense.
  • dc.description.sponsorship
  • 国家社会科学基金重大项目“我国刑法修正的理论模型与制度实践研究”(16ZDA060); 教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目“刑法出罪机制问题研究”(15YJA820015)
  • dc.description.sponsorshipsource
  • 国家社会科学基金
  • dc.identifier.CN
  • 32-1754/C
  • dc.identifier.issn
  • 1673-2359
  • dc.identifier.if
  • 0.503
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D914
回到顶部