|
受害人特殊体质于刑法因果关系判定的研究
|
Abstract:
特殊体质者损害结果的责任一直存在争议,判定责任承担的前置条件是因果关系的认定。各因果关系理论在解决这一问题上均存在一定不足。如果将归因与归责的相区分,将事实判断与规范归责层序化,笼罩在因果关系上的迷雾将散去。客观归责理论对归责上升到规范评价的范畴,符合责任认定的根本精神。这种方法论上的启迪对我国刑法因果关系理论向前迈进并逐渐融入追求刑法精确化、精细化、精致化的潮流中具有重要作用。
The responsibility of the person with special constitution for the damage result has always been controversial. The prerequisite for determining the responsibility is the identification of causality. Each theory of causality has some shortcomings in solving this problem. If attributions are distinguished from attributions, and fact judgments are sequenced from normative attributions, the fog over causation will be cleared. The objective imputation theory rises to the category of standard evaluation, which accords with the fundamental spirit of responsibility identification. Enlightenment on this methodology has an important effect on our theory of causality of criminal law moving forward and gradually blending into the trend of pursuing the elaboration, refinement and refinement of criminal law.
[1] | 赵娟. 致特异体质者死亡案件的因果关系分析[J]. 法制与社会, 2015(14): 79-80. |
[2] | 哈特, 托尼·奥诺尔. 法律中的因果关系[M]. 第二版. 张绍谦, 孙战国, 译. 北京: 中国政法大学出版, 2005: 401-449. |
[3] | 马克昌, 主编. 外国刑法学总论[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2009: 113. |
[4] | 张明楷. 外国刑法纲要[M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2007: 118. |
[5] | (日)西田典之. 日本刑法总论[M]. 刘明, 王昭武, 译. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2007: 66. |
[6] | 潘英旋. 浅议客观归责理论[J]. 法制与经济(下旬), 2014(3): 43-44+46. |
[7] | 周光权. 客观归责理论的方法论意义兼与刘艳红教授商榷[J]. 中外法学, 2012, 24(2): 225-249. |