犯罪本质的工具主义诠释——兼论犯罪化的道德边界  

An Instrumental Account of the Nature of Crimes——Also on the Moral Limits of Criminalization

作　　者：张峰铭 ZHANG Fengming

机构地区：[1]中共中央党校(国家行政学院)政治和法律教研部

出　　处：《中国法律评论》2021年第6期138-152,共15页China Law Review

摘　　要：一般认为,犯罪与侵权的本质区别在于侵权是私人事务,而犯罪具有公共性。对于犯罪行为公共性的内涵,刑法哲学界存在"法秩序侵犯说""公共价值说""替代工具说"三种主流主张。"法秩序侵犯说"不能解释犯罪类型的多样性以及罪刑之间的相当性;"公共价值说"不能解释共同体定义性价值与刑法关注价值之间的不一致性,且无法解释国家惩罚权的来源和排他性。"替代工具说"主张刑事法律制度是个体惩罚权的替代工具,其正当化根据在于国家作为服务型实践权威的本质属性,是一种更优的解释方案。"替代工具说"为犯罪化设定了两重限制:被犯罪化的行为应当是涉他的道德不当行为;国家作为实践权威要满足通常正当化命题的要求。One major reason why the criminal legal system differs from the tort law system is that crimes are public wrongs.As for the implications of the public character of crimes,there are three mainstream positions:“the violation of the legal order account”,“public value account”and“public displacement account”.The First position cannot explain the diversity of the types of crimes and the proportionality between crimes and punishment;the second position cannot explain the exclusivity of the state’s right to punish.The third position can avoid those defects by advocating that the criminal legal system is a displacement for the individual’s right to punish.This position sets two limits on criminalization:the crimes should be other-regarding moral wrongs;the state as the practical authority must meet the requirements of the normal justification thesis.

关 键 词：犯罪 公共不当 法秩序 公共价值 替代工具 实践权威 

分 类 号：D924.1[政治法律—刑法学]