过失犯预见可能性的定位:既有学说批判与责任阻却事由论提倡  

Positioning of Foresight Possibility:Criticism of Existing Theories and Advocacy of Responsibility Obstruction Reason Theory

作　　者：袁汉兴 李永升[2] Yuan Hanxing;Li Yongsheng

机构地区：[1]成都大学法学院,四川成都610106 [2]西南政法大学法学院,重庆401120

出　　处：《南海法学》2024年第2期37-48,共12页The South China Sea Law Journal

基　　金：国家社科基金重点项目“全球视野下的刑事责任年龄制度研究”(21AFX011)。

摘　　要：应当将预见可能性定位于责任阻却事由。责任阻却事由,又可以称为消极的责任要素。消极的责任要素与积极的责任要素最大的区别在于两者认定模式不同,对于积极的责任要素,司法机关需要积极提出证据证明的责任要素;对于消极的责任要素,则不需要司法机关积极提出证明予以证明的责任要素,但若有证据证明行为人缺乏消极的责任要素,则发生阻却责任的法律效果。将缺乏预见可能性定位于过失犯责任阻却事由,则意味着司法机关在判断过失犯的有责性时,不但要考察行为人是否具有过失,还要考察行为人对于结果的发生是否具有预见可能性。既有学说容易导致司法机关忽视对行为人预见可能性的考察,导致了结果责任倾向的出现,不当扩大了过失犯的处罚范围。The foreseeable possibility should be positioned as a cause of liability obstruction.The reason for obstructing responsibility can also be referred to as a negative element of responsibility.The biggest difference between negative and positive elements of responsibility lies in the different recognition modes.For positive elements of responsibility,judicial authorities need to actively provide evidence to prove them.For negative elements of responsibility,judicial authorities do not need to actively provide evidence to prove them.However,if there is evidence to prove that the actor lacks negative elements of responsibility,the legal effect of obstructing responsibility will occur.Positioning the lack of foreseeability as a hindrance to the liability of negligent offenders means that when judicial authorities judge the culpability of negligent offenders,they not only need to examine whether the actor has negligence,but also whether the actor has the possibility of foreseeing the occurrence of the result.Existing theories can easily lead to judicial authorities neglecting the examination of the possibility of foreseeing the perpetrator,resulting in a tendency towards liability for consequences,and improperly expanding the scope of punishment for negligent offenders.

关 键 词：预见可能性 构成要件要素 归责要素 责任要素 责任阻却事由 

分 类 号：D924.1[政治法律—刑法学]