注意义务的规范本质与判断标准
陈璇注意义务的规范本质与判断标准
Normative Nature and Standard of Judgment of the Duty of Care
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：陈璇
单位：中国人民大学刑事法律科学研究中心
中文关键词：过失犯;注意义务;标准人;被容许的风险
英文关键词：negligent crime;duty of care;standard person;allowed risk
中文摘要：
注意义务本质上是能力维持规范，其机能在于将行为人遵守行为规范的能力维持在一定的水平之上。因此，注意义务概念以行为人有遵守行为规范之心却无遵守行为规范之力为适用前提。从刑法目的、理论思维以及政策效果等方面综合分析，注意义务“标准人”的设定，只能以行为人本人的能力为基础。通过填充规范可以类型性地推断注意义务，也可以划定被容许的风险的边界，但行为人的能力始终是业务过失犯中判断注意义务违反性的“压舱石”。一方面，司法者需要借助个人能力关联性标准对填充规范加以甄别；另一方面，被容许的风险的成立，除了要求行为须符合填充规范，还要求行为人在实施行为时现实地处于欠缺结果避免能力的状态。
英文摘要：
The criminal law requires citizens not only to avoid violations of norms in the case of realistic compliance, but also to ensure that they have the necessary capabilities to comply with norms. The actor's improper reduction of his or her ability of compliance with norms is the basis and premise for the establishment of a negligent crime. And the criterion used to determine whether an actor has improperly reduced his ability is whether he has violated the duty of care. From the perspective of the nature of the norm, the duty of care is different from code of conduct, the latter is the norm of legal interest protection, whereas the former is the norm of ability maintenance. The function of the duty of care is to keep the actor's ability to comply with the code of conduct above a certain level. An analysis from the points of view of the purpose of criminal law, theoretical thinking and policy effects shows that the monobasic individual standard of the perpetrator should be adopted in the judgment of duty of care. The double-layered duty of care judgment method, which is quite popular in criminal law theory, is not desirable. The laws, regulations, rules and other norms used to fill the blank facts of crime can not only typologically infer the duty of care, but also define the boundary of the allowed risk. However, the specific actor's ability to foresee and avoid is still the "ballast stone" in determining the violation of duty of care in professional negligence crime. On the one hand, only the filling specification related to the maintenance of the capabilities for prediction and avoidance is eligible to be a source of duty of care. On the other hand, the allowed risk can be established only when "the behavior is consistent with the filling specification related to the maintenance of his/her capacity" and "the perpetrator's capacity is actually absent".
全文阅读： 点击下载
