论我国定罪思维模型的理论困境及解决方法

【作者】 张颖；

【导师】 陈浩然；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 法律（专业学位）， 2012， 硕士

【副题名】以犯罪构成要件理论为视角

【摘要】 定罪,即行为犯罪属性的认定。具体而言,就是指将刑法规范适用于案件事实,以得出罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪结论的过程,其本质是一种思维判断过程。它是刑法适用最重要的环节,也是刑事诉讼最主要的任务。理想的、应然的定罪过程,即根据一般的认识论原理将既定行为事实适用于明确的法律规范,所得出的罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪的结论应该是必然而唯一的,这也是符合罪刑法定的基本原则和法律确定性的基本特征的,同时也是符合法律可预测性基本要求的,是实现法治的重要基础。然而结合当代中国的刑事司法实际,在实然的层面考量定罪问题,对于既定的行为事实适用同一法律后在罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪的认定上往往会得出截然不同的判断结论。如各地法院对同类案件的判决结果不一,又如从事不同职业的法律人(公检法律)对同一行为事实的犯罪基本认定不同,法学理论家对不同案件的定罪争论纷纭,社会公众对于一些案件的认知甚至与司法机关判断出现颇大差异。这是不符合法律确定性和可预测性的基本特征,也是与罪刑法定的基本原则相违背的。那么问题到底出在哪里?又该如何解决?就是本文主要想解决的问题。本文共分为三部分内容：第一部分。首先,列举近期司法实践中影响较大的几起案例,引出既定行为事实适用既定法律后得出不同定罪结论这一实践困惑。其次分析,由于定罪是将行为联系法律并得出结论的过程,由于上述案例均是在行为与法律予以确定的情况下,在结论上发生差异,因此本文作出系“联系行为事实与法律规范的定罪思维模型出现了问题”这一推断。第三,提出由于定罪思维模型和犯罪构成理论有密不可分的关系,因此选择从犯罪构成理论的角度对定罪思维模型进行分析。第二部分。首先,从犯罪构成理论的角度剖析我国的定罪思维模型,提出我国的犯罪构成理论导致结论先导的定罪思维模型,而在这种模型下,由裁判者根据自由裁量权确定的前置性先行结论具有极其重要的意义,对形成定罪结论起了部分的决定作用,这就是导致既定行为形成不同定罪观点的主要原因。其次,联系德日、英美两大犯罪理论,探究他们的定罪思维模型并与我国的模型进行比较和分析,从中找出能够论证上述结论存在的理由,并进一步提出由于我国定罪思维模型对于前置性先行结论缺乏有效的矫正和退出路径,因此必然会导致同一行为出现多种定罪观点且均能成立的实践困惑。第三部分。首先分析了实践中对定罪思维模型予以外部修正的四种方式,即法官依职权综合考虑、通过立法对行为模式清晰细化、司法解释和司法判例提供定罪指导和犯罪构成理论重建,并指出前三者均只是消除了表面出现的同案不同判的问题,但是却都没有针对出现问题的根本原因,理论重构虽然试图从根本上解决问题,但在现阶段不具有实际意义。在此基础上,本文提出了引入相邻关系理论对我国定罪思维模型从内部进行修正的方法,并通过演绎证实这种方法切实有效,可以从方法论上去解决问题,弥补了上述外部修正手段解决问题滞后性和个案性的不足,是能够从根本上解决问题的有效途径。更多还原

【Abstract】 Conviction is the determination of a crime. More specifically, it means the process we apply criminal norms to cases as to define guilty or innocent and to distinguish this crime or other crime. The essence of it is a kind of logical determination. At the same time, it is not only the key link of the application of criminal law, but also the main mission of criminal law. The rule of law fundamentally requires that we should follow the General epistemology to apply the criminal law. Whether guilty or innocent, this crime or other crime, the result we come to should be unique. It accords with the principle of legality as well as the predictability of law. However, considering with the practice of the judicature of China, different conclusions could be drew when applying the criminal norms to similar cases in reality. Courts make different judgments to similar cases, legal professions have different determination of similar cases, legal theorists hold different views to similar cases, even the public hold the view which was far from the judicial organization. It is out of the step with the certainty of the law, the predictable of law and the legality principle as they are the basic feature of the rule of law. It is the problem author seeks to deal with. This article is divided to three parts.In part one, listed several influential cases in the recent judicial practice at first, leading to the confusion that different conclusion were drew from certain acts. Then considering that conviction is the process of applying the norms to the facts and the law is certain, the author made the deduction that there are some problems in the criminal conviction pattern which linking facts and law norms. At last, the author chose to analyze the criminal conviction pattern for the strong ties between the criminal conviction pattern and the crime constitution theory.In part two, the author analyzed the criminal conviction pattern of China from the view of the crime constitution and proposing that it was the crime constitution theory determined the criminal conviction pattern. Thus, the judge’s discretionary power has a strong effect to the original conclusion as to partly affect the conviction and lead to the different conclusion to certain acts. Studying the criminal theory system of the civil law system and the common law system and comparing them to the criminal law of China, we can find the clues support the previous proposing and make a farther conclusion that the present crime conviction pattern is hard to fix such problem. So it will inevitably lead to the confusion that different conclusion could be drew to the similar case.In part three, this article raises four ways to correct the outer of the crime conviction pattern as follow:judge’s integrative thinking, detailing the behavior pattern and reestablishing the crime conviction pattern with judicial interpretation and judicial precedent. Then author pointed out that the first three just eliminated the surface problem. The reestablishing is a hopeful method but still remains unpractical now. Finally, the author introduced the neighboring theory to correct the crime conviction pattern from inner, and proved it to be valid. As it remedies the defects of other theories, the neighboring theory is the best solution.更多还原