正当防卫证明责任分配规则的体系性分析  

Systematic Analysis of the Rules of Allocating Burden of Proof of Self-defense

作　　者：刘孝敏[1] Liu Xiaomin

机构地区：[1]江西财经大学法学院

出　　处：《环球法律评论》2023年第2期178-192,共15页Global Law Review

摘　　要：正当防卫证明责任的分配不仅是一个刑事程序法问题,而且是一个重要的实体法问题。普通法传统上要求被告人承担正当防卫的证明责任,20世纪以来英国和美国对传统规则的认可是以犯罪定义的“有罪”推定机能为基础的。区分正当化事由和免责事由可以为20世纪后期英美法系国家大部分司法管辖区将正当防卫的说服责任分配给控诉方提供体系上的解释。大陆法系在正当防卫证明责任分配规则上的分歧根源于对构成要件的性质和三阶层之间关系的不同理解,核心在于构成要件是否具有对“有罪”的推定机能。中国四要件犯罪构成与正当防卫的关系之争是当前正当防卫证明责任分配规则摇摆不定的实体法原因。仅仅区分积极要素与消极要素的分层次体系不足以支持确定的证明责任分配规则,只有建立“评价对象-对象评价”的犯罪构造,对犯罪构成四个方面要件的内容和体系性功能进行改造,才能稳定地支持将正当防卫的全部证明责任分配给控诉方。Allocation of the burden of proof of self-defense is not only a criminal procedural law issue but also an important substantive law issue.The recognition by the USA and the UK in the 20th century of the common law rule of putting the burden of proof of self-defense on the defendant was based on the“guilty”presumption function of the definition of a crime.Because a systematic concept containing all the elements related to criminal liability had not been formed in the prevailing criminal theory of the common law system,“defense”was not a value judgment category.A behavior satisfying all elements of the definition of a crime might be presumed“guilty”,and in order to refute the presumption,the defendant needed to prove self-defense.The fact that most jurisdictions in common law countries in the late 20th century put the burden of persuasion of self-defense on the accusing party can be explained by distinguishing justification from excuse.Because justification is a part of the criminal law’s norms of conduct and there is nothing that can establish that the defendant has done anything wrong until the prosecution proves that the defendant has committed an offense without justification,prima facie case of guilt can only be illustrated by both the definition of a crime and the justification,for the which the burden of persuasion must be put on the prosecution.The differences among continental law countries in the rules of allocating the burden of proof of self-defense may be rooted in different understandings of the character of Tatbestand and the relationship between its three strata,the key of which is whether Tatbestand has the function of“guilty”presumption.The burden of proof of self-defense can be allocated reasonably to the prosecution if the value neutrality of Tatbestand can be maintained.Tatbestand’s function of presumption of wrongfulness may explain the defendant’s burden of produce evidence for self-defense.If Tatbestand is further understood as a type of wrongful and liable behavior,a b

关 键 词：正当防卫 证明责任 构成要件 犯罪定义 有罪推定 

分 类 号：D924[政治法律—刑法学]