犯罪本质论——一种重新解说的社会危害性理论  

On the Nature of Crime:A Theory of Social Harmfulness Re-explained

作　　者：韩永初[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院,博士研究生1000871

出　　处：《法制与社会发展》2004年第6期81-93,共13页Law and Social Development

摘　　要：近年来 ,我国有学者主张用法益侵害说取代社会危害性说。这种观点是值得商榷的。在德国和日本的刑法理论中 ,法益侵害并不是一个明确统一的概念 ,而是一个争议颇多的概念。法益侵害说只是在名称上取代了权利侵害说 ,但并没有解决权利侵害说所面临的问题。这种取代并不成功。在我国刑法学界 ,用法益侵害说取代社会危害性说的作法是在重复法益侵害说取代权利侵害说的老路。我国传统的主观与客观相统一的社会危害性说的基本方向是正确的 ,但没有解决如何把主观和客观统一起来的问题。其实 ,主观与客观相统一应该统一于行为的客观方面 ,只有表现为客观危害行为的主观心态才能给社会造成危害。这种客观危害既包括犯罪行为给被害人造成的直接危害 ,也包括给社会带来的犯罪预防成本和处置犯罪的诉讼成本。因此 ,在本质上 ,犯罪是以一定方式或样态给被害人造成直接损害的、给社会带来犯罪预防成本的并需要动用刑罚资源加以处置的行为。Recently Chinese scholars propose that the term of trespass of legal interest should replace the term of social harmfulness; the author holds that the proposal should be carefully handled. In the criminal documentations in Germany and Japan, the term of Trespass of legal interest remains unclear and controversial. Such replacement only changes the term by the name, while does not touch the essential problem of trespass of rights. Therefore such replacement is not successful at all. In the Chinese criminal academia, the replacement(Trespass of legal interests for trespass of social harmfulness) just repeats the way of replacement of trespass of rights with trespass of legal interests in other countries. Basically it is right of the trespass of social harmfulness to unite the subjectivity with objectivity of the criminal behaviors. Only the objective dangerous act can cause the social harmfulness. This harmfulness not only includes the direct harm to the victim, but also includes indirect increased costs of criminal prevention and criminal processing, Thus, a crime is in essence a behavior which can cause the direct harm to the victim and also results in increasing more costs in criminal prevention and criminal processing.

关 键 词：犯罪本质 社会危害性 权利侵害 法益侵害 刑事立法权 

分 类 号：D914[政治法律—刑法学]