应然视角下过失共同正犯肯定论之提倡  

Advocacy of the Affirmative Theory of Negligent Co-perpetrator from the Perspective of What Should Be

作　　者：罗世龙 LUO Shi-long(Law School,Central China Normal University,Wuhan 430072,China)

机构地区：[1]华中师范大学法学院,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《河北法学》2021年第1期121-134,共14页Hebei Law Science

基　　金：罗世龙主持的2020年国家社科基金后期资助暨优秀博士论文出版项目《正犯实质化研究》(20FYB026)的成果之一。

摘　　要：当前过失共同正犯肯定论者与否定论者提出的很多观点值得进一步商榷。事实上,过失共同正犯成立与否的关键问题在于,共同过失是否足以支撑机能行为支配的成立,或者说是否足以促成"将他人之行为等价于自己之行为"的规范评价形成。共同过失的情形下,从本体论视角而言,行为人对某种行为具有共同的认识,并起到强化相互不注意的作用,即行为人之间存在犯意联络的基础事实;从规范论角度而言,价值评价进一步强化了犯意联络这一客观事实,且促使相互归属效果的形成。由此,在应然视角下应肯定过失共同正犯的成立。此外,共同注意义务共同违反说和过失共同正犯说在结论上并没有实质差别,仅存在说理路径的不同。鉴于共同过失的"共动现象",将其认定为共同犯罪并无不妥。At present,many views put forward by those who agree and oppose the negligent coperpetrator are worthy of further discussion.In fact,the key question of whether the negligent co-perpetrator is established or not is whether joint negligence is sufficient to support the establishment of functional behavior control,or whether it is sufficient to promote the formation of a normative evaluation that equates the behavior of others with one’s own behavior.In the case of joint negligence,the actors,from the perspective of ontology,have a common understanding of a certain behavior which plays a role in strengthening mutual inattention.In other words,there is a basic fact of guilty connection between actors.From a normative perspective,value evaluation further strengthens the objective facts of guilty connection,and promotes the formation of mutual attribution effects.Therefore,from the perspective of what should be,the establishment of the negligent co-perpetrator should be affirmed.In addition,there is no substantive difference in conclusion between the doctrine of joint violation of the duty of common care and the doctrine of the negligent coperpetrators,only the path of reasoning.In view of the"community phenomenon"of joint negligence,it is not wrong to identify it as a joint crime.

关 键 词：过失共同正犯 存在论 规范论 共同注意义务 机能行为支配说 

分 类 号：DF61[政治法律—刑法学]