【作者】 马勇；

【导师】 周长军；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 刑法学， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 犯罪论体系是刑法理论中的核心问题之一。在我国,关于犯罪论体系的讨论已经持续了相当长的一段时间,而且这种争论仍在进行。这种现象首先说明了犯罪论体系在刑法学研究中的重要性,虽然在国内外一些学者也曾经认为体系本身的重要行不能被过分夸大,因而应该对犯罪论体系的问题进行冷处理。但是,对于我国刑法学研究而言,一个相对合理的体系是绝对必要的。我们可以发现,现存的无所不包的四要件体系并不利于刑法学研究的不断深入。大陆法系传统的刑法学理论之所以会形成现在的规模,首先就在于其所采用的理论体系具有相当的开放性,因而在这种体系的框架之下会衍生出诸多不同的理论,形成学派之间的争端。持有不同观点的学者之间进行的讨论与激辩并不是学术研究的弊端,反而有助于学术研究的不断深入。大陆法系的犯罪论体系是一种教义学体系,而这一特点并没有得到我国学者的重视。在教义学的背景下产生了贝林格体系,大陆法系传统的犯罪论体系就是在这个体系的基础上进行改良和创新的。然而,苏俄以及我国传统的犯罪论体系则是在另外一种不同的背景之下进行构建的。二者在理论基础以及价值功能上都有本质上的不同。这种不同其实就是刑法教义学背景使然。英美法系的犯罪论体系也在发生着不小的变革,原因就在于英美法系国家面临着法典化的潮流,法典化其实就意味着体系化、总则化。因此英美法系的犯罪论体系也在逐渐背离传统的二分模式。在英美法学者看来,由于法典化的出现,必然要在各具体犯罪构成之外探索一个普遍化的总则,而这个总则又必须是体系化的并且充满理论色彩。另一方面,法典化又意味着在判例之外又出现了另一个权威即制定法,在此基础上,学者提出了从哲学式思维向法学思维的转变,这与教义学思维完全契合。犯罪论体系植根于刑事司法活动之中。这从大陆法系和英美法系的犯罪论体系的具体运作就可以看出来。两大法系的犯罪论体系都是联系制定法和刑事司法判决的纽带,也正是在这一点上,两大法系的犯罪论体系之运作机制趋向了统一。犯罪论体系是确保刑事司法判决可接受性的重要手段。在犯罪论体系作用发挥的领域问题上,我们可以发现不论是大陆法系还是英美法系,犯罪论体系都是面向司法实践的,是为正当、合理的刑事司法判决服务的。所以,应围绕着刑事司法裁判的合法性和合理性证成来重新构建我国的犯罪论体系。犯罪论体系本身是为了将抽象的刑法规范应用于具体司法实践的“操作系统”,它是一个方法论体系,而不仅仅是一个犯罪的规格。我国的犯罪论体系应包含如下内容：(禁止性)规范适用之合理性论证——刑事违法性判断(不法阶层)以及刑罚适用之合理性论证——刑事责任判断(罪责阶层)。更多还原

【Abstract】 Criminal theory system is one of the core issues of criminal law theory. In China, the discussion on criminal theory system has been going on for a long period of time, and this argument is still going on. This phenomenon illustrates the importance of the study of the criminal theory system, although some scholars point out that the importance of the system can not be exaggerated. However, a relatively rational system is absolutely necessary to the studies in Chinese Criminal Law. We can see that the four elements style of the existing system of all-inclusive is not conducive to the deepening of the Criminal law research. is the formation of the present scale of criminal law theory in Civil law tradition lies in their use of the theoretical system of considerable openness, therefore, under the framework of such a system many different theories would be proposed. Scholars’ holding different views of the discussion and heated debate between the academic researches is not the disadvantage; it contributes to the continuous in-depth academic research. However, the other hand, China’s criminal law research, dues to the defects of four element system, there are nothing new theory in the past several decades proposed based on the framework of this system. We can learn from China’s criminal law textbook that for a long period, the contents of the Criminal Law textbook remarks essentially have not changed and very little new academic insights was proposed. Thus, the existing theory of this super-stable system is not necessarily the best choice.Different legal systems follow their own traditions, which derived from a different crime problems on the system. Faced with different legal systems of criminal theory, we can not directly bring a comparative study. Before comparative studies carried out, we must ensure that the object is comparable; on this basis we can further define the points of comparison in order to expand the corresponding research work. In Chinese criminal law theory, comparative study of Criminal theory system has always been the focus of the study; however, do we accurately select the objects of comparison and fix the comparison point appropriately? In my opinion, our opinions on this issue are still rather vague.In the question of the object of comparison, the Chinese system and the Germany system in criminal theory belong to different theory form. In other words, the two systems are different in the nature and function. Faced with these problems, our scholars are often very confusing, and some scholars even do not consider these issues and directly compare the different systems. in order to construct a relatively rational system, we must consider these questions seriously.The criminal theory system in Civil law system is based on the criminal law doctrine. but this feature has not been recognized by our scholars. By means of comparative study we can find that the civil law system and the system in China is different: the former is closely integrated with the judicial practice, the latter is not. In Germany, the criminal theory system can be a "source of law" and become the basis for the legal referee. This difference is actually because of criminal law dogmatic background. By means of the research of the role of the criminal theory system, we can see that both the civil law system and common law system, the criminal theory system are aimed at the judicial practice, they are service for legitimate and reasonable judgments of criminal justice. So in order to re-build our country’s criminal theory system, our work must based on the demand of criminal justice.更多还原