正当防卫法律规则司法重构的经验研究

正当防卫法律规则司法重构的经验研究

Empirical Research on Judicial Reconstruction of Rules of Selfdefense

    期刊名称：《法学研究》
    期刊年份：
    作者：赵军
    单位：北京师范大学刑事法律科学研究院
    中文关键词：正当防卫；法律规则的司法重构；经验研究
    英文关键词：selfdefense, judicial reconstruction of legal rules, empirical research
    中文摘要：
    回归模型数据及访谈资料显示，“人数对比”“侵害工具”“反击方式”等与防卫相当性、必要性密切关联，有可能有利于认定成立正当防卫的情节，在司法适用中并无显著作用；“能回避而未回避”“提前准备防卫工具”等与正当防卫成立要件无必然联系的情节，对成立正当防卫具有显著阻却作用；“谁先动手”这种事关反击行为合法性的关键情节，对认定结果只有极为有限的影响；真正对认定结果有重大影响的因素，是“损害后果”“被害方谅解”。正当防卫司法裁判规则与立法精神的错位，是一种以限制成立正当防卫为目标的规则重构。警务驱动、控强辩弱的“政法协作型办案机制”为这种重构提供了动因与操作空间，“政法共同体”成员的防卫观、犯罪观为其提供了底层逻辑。
    英文摘要：
    According to the regression model and “thick conversation” data, circumstances that are closely related to the proportionality and necessity of defense, such as “comparison of numbers”, “invasive tools”, and “counterattack measures”, have no significant impact on the establishment of selfdefense in judicial operation, whereas circumstances that have no necessary connection with legal requirements of selfdefense, such as “not escaping from a violation when the situation permits” or “preparing defense tools in advance”, have marked negative impact on the establishment of selfdefense. Besides, key circumstances that decide whether a counterattack is illegal or not, such as “which person strikes the first blow”, have very limited influence on judicial results. In fact, the most significant factors having a tremendous impact on judicial results are “consequences of damage” and “the victim’s forgiveness”. The dislocation between judicial rules and legislative spirits of selfdefense leads to the reconstruction of legal rules that aims at limiting the establishment of selfdefense. The policedriven and prosecutiondominated “traditional politicallegal collaborative casehandling mechanism” provides the motivation and operational space, and the outlooks on defense and crime of “members of political and legal community” provide underlying logic, for such reconstruction. As a “substantive law of life”, selfdefense rules depend on complex and diverse interactions and mutual constructions among legislators, the judiciary and a variety of other social subjects. To solve the dilemma of selfdefense rules, China should not only construct the doctrinarism of criminal law, but also adopt such seemingly circuitous approaches as the “decentralized view on the interaction and mutual construction among diverse subjects”, advancing the reform of the trialcentered litigation system and realizing judicial transparency, so as to effectively implement the legislative spirit in real life.
    全文阅读：  点击下载