检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:赵维加[1]
出 处:《河北法学》2011年第10期99-106,共8页Hebei Law Science
摘 要:社会危害性概念本身所具主观色彩属性极易因解读者不同视角与价值观而得出不同结论,由此可能产生的负面效果实为坚持罪刑法定原则人士所担忧。某一类行为社会危害性经立法程序规定为犯罪之后,在司法适用层面重合地表现为刑事违法性,并通过量化等方式最大限度地限制对社会危害性主观价值评价的空间。司法适用层面的犯罪属性为刑事违法性和应受惩罚性,前者凸显法定化了的社会危害性,后者着重体现对具有刑事违法性行为之后行为评价的刑事政策。Conception of social harmfulness with itself subjective characteristic makes easily for readers come to various conclusion based on different visual angles and different value, to which probability of negative effect are really worried by those persisting in principle of legal punishment on crime. When one class of conduct with same social harmfulness is provided as crime through the legislative procedure, social harmfulness will be coincide with criminal illegality on judicial basis. With method of quantification etc, we can uttermost impose restriction on room for evaluate the social harmfulness subjectively. There are two criminal attributes on judicial applicability level, one is criminal illegality which highlights the legally standardize of social harmfulness, and the other one is criminal blameworthy which emphasizes to give expression to criminal policy on evaluate the consequent of criminal conduct.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.145