敲诈悖论的意蕴及价值  

On the Implications and Values of Paradox of Blackmail

作　　者：单晓华[1] Shan Xiao-hua(Law School of Shenyang Normal University,Shenyang Liaoning 110034)

机构地区：[1]沈阳师范大学法学院,辽宁沈阳110034

出　　处：《政法论丛》2020年第4期138-148,共11页Journal of Political Science and Law

基　　金：辽宁省教育厅重点项目“敲诈勒索罪的理论反思与实务检讨”(WZD201901);辽宁省社科规划基金重点项目“刑事司法宽容理性研究”(L15AFX004)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：我国通说从被害人处分自由的瑕疵去说明敲诈勒索罪的可罚性,敲诈悖论揭示了信息敲诈的犯罪化与自由主义者坚持的危害原则之间的深层冲突,该议题并未引起我国学者的重视。借鉴底线理论为胁迫和开价划定界限,只有使他人可期待的处境变差的威胁才能被贴上胁迫的标签。强自由主义逻辑下必然得出信息敲诈出罪化的结论,而道德主义和家长主义所主张的剥削原则能为信息敲诈的可罚性提供辩护。根据剥削原则,信息敲诈的可罚性在于敲诈者利用他人而不当获利。反思信息敲诈犯罪化的正当性时,对自由主义、道德主义和家长主义进行调和是必要且合理的。以曝光媒体、投诉等合法手段为威胁向商家索要财物的案件都不成立敲诈勒索罪。The prevailing theory relies on the concept of involuntariness to justify the punishment of blackmail. The discussions of the paradox of blackmail have uncovered the tension between the universal criminalization of blackmail and the Harm Principle upheld by the liberalists, which have not attracted attention from Chinese scholars. It is necessary to introduce the "baseline" theory to illustrate the boundary between "coercion" and "offer", according to which, only the threats which makes others worse off can be labeled as "coercion". For hard liberalism, the decriminalization of informational blackmail seems the only logical solution to the paradox. Meanwhile, the exploitation principle upheld by paternalism and moralism justifies the criminalization of informational blackmail. A comprising solution seems plausible. In cases where the customers demand excessive compensations from corporations with threats of exposing product quality problems to the media, the threat should be excluded from the range of the offence of blackmail.

关 键 词：敲诈悖论 胁迫 危害原则 剥削原则 

分 类 号：DF625[政治法律—刑法学]