因果力比较规则的刑法理论构造
蒋太珂因果力比较规则的刑法理论构造
Theoretical Construction ofthe Causative Potency Comparison Rule inthe Criminal Law
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：蒋太珂
单位：
中文关键词：因果关系;因果力比较;危险现实化;死因
英文关键词：causation; causative potency comparison; risk realization; cause of death
中文摘要：
作为危险现实化评价基准的因果力比较规则，旨在弥补因果流程通常性规则的不足，以妥当评价相互独立的复数物理性危险直接现实化的事例。在内在根据上，因果力比较规则归责效果的实现，以承认构成要件结果的抽象化为前提；将结果归责于单独即可导致构成要件结果的因果力较大的行为，旨在协调自我负责原理与风险确证原理之间的冲突。在外在界限上，将结果归责于不具有共犯关系的复数行为是例外，需要具备特殊规定。在比较标准上，归责层面的结果是体现法益状态恶化的抽象结果，应结合法益状态恶化的程度进行因果力比较。在涉及死亡结果时，应区分死亡结果的根据和死亡结果的表现形式，唯有“死因”造成的损伤程度足以导致死亡结果时，才能肯定行为具有较大因果力。适用因果力比较规则时应避免相应误区；应通过拟制共犯或设置客观处罚条件等立法方式，弥补相应的处罚漏洞。
英文摘要：
As the benchmark of the theory of risk realization, the causative potency comparison rule intends to evaluate examples of direct risk realization caused by mutually independent plural behaviors. With respect to the internal foundation, the realization of the legal effect of this rule is premised on the recognition of the abstraction of the result element in the constitutive requirements. To resolve the conflict between the self-responsibility principle and the risk confirmation principle, both of which are generated by the specific result theory, it is more appropriate to attribute the result to a behavior that can independently lead to the abstract result with greater causative potency. With respect to the external boundary, attributing the result to plural behaviors that do not have a relationship of complicity among them is an exception that requires particular provisions or reasons. With respect to the criteria of comparison, the result of imputation is the abstract result reflecting the deterioration of legal interest status. In a case involving the result of death, the proper method is to differentiate the cause and manifestation of the death. Only if the degree of the injury resulting from the “cause of death” is sufficient to lead to the death can the behavior be identified as having a greater causative potency. In the application of the causative potency comparison rule, efforts should be made to avoid corresponding misconceptions and stop the loopholes in penalties resulting from these misconceptions through such legislative measures as creating fictitious joint crimes and setting objective penalty conditions.
全文阅读： 点击下载
