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:闻志强 WEN Zhi-- qiang(Law School of Guang,Zhou University,Guang Zhou 510006,China)
机构地区:[1]广州大学法学院,广州510006
出 处:《甘肃理论学刊》2018年第4期94-100,共7页Gansu Theory Research
基 金:广州大学引进人才科研启动项目经费(69-18ZX10178);"华东政法大学博士毕业生后续学术发展支持计划"(20171117-02)资助
摘 要:在故意范畴内是否需要行为人具备违法性认识是一个聚讼争议的焦点问题。我国传统刑法理论结合刑法规定的、社会危害性主导的犯罪概念认为在成立故意犯罪时,行为人需要具备社会危害性认识,但不需要具备违法性认识,究其实质是违法性认识不要说。但社会危害性认识的价值判断存在模糊性、随意性和不确定性,有违罪刑法定原则意旨,且无深层的法理支撑,其理论根基与支持理由难以证成违法性认识不要说。置于中国刑法语境下,违法性认识与故意成立的关系问题,实际上是违法性认识与社会危害性认识的关系问题,更确切地说是违法性认识必要说与违法性认识不要说的对立与抉择问题。从我国刑法理论发展的规范化转型出发,并对支持违法性认识不要说的理由进行深入分析和深刻反思,可以发现违法性认识必要说更为合理、规范、妥当,应当予以引入和坚持。Cognition of illegality has been a hot issue in intentional crime and is also a basic question of the theory of criminal law. China's traditional criminal law theory combined with criminal law stipulates that crimes dominated by social harmfulness assume that when the intentional crime is established, the perpetrator needs to have social harmfulness cognition, but does not need to have the illegality cognition. The essence of this view is unnecessary illegality cognition. However, the judgment of the value of social harmfulness is ambiguous, random, and uncertain. It violates the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for crimes, and it has no deep legal support. Its theoretical foundation and supporting reasons can not be proved to unnecessary illegality cognition. In the context of China's penal establishment, the relationship between illegality cognition and intentional establishment is in fact a question of the relationship between illegality cognition and the understanding of social harmfulness cognition, and more precisely, the contrary and choice between necessary illegality cognition and unnecessary illegality cognition. From the perspective of the standardized transformation of the development of China's criminal law theory, and to carry out in- depth analysis and profound reflection on the reasons for not supporting the understanding of illegality, we can find that the theory of necessary illegality cognition is more reasonable, standardized and appropriate, and should be introduced and upheld.
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:216.73.216.63