脑机接口对刑法产生的挑战及其应对  

The Challenge and Response of Brain Computer Interface to Criminal Law

作　　者：盛豪杰 SHENG Haojie(Law School of Jiangsu Normal University,Xuzhou 221116,China)

机构地区：[1]江苏师范大学法学院,徐州221116

出　　处：《西南政法大学学报》2024年第2期138-151,共14页Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law

基　　金：安徽省教育厅2021年度高校研究生科研项目“区块链机制下涉金融衍生物犯罪的刑法治理研究”(YJS20210018)。

摘　　要：根据信息传输方向的不同,脑机接口可以分为三种技术类型,即“脑—机链接”型、“机—脑链接”型和“脑—脑链接”型。脑机接口的产生与发展对刑法适用带来了极大挑战,既包括主体地位与行为内涵的理论适用问题,也包括涉脑机接口致害的责任归属问题。应对脑机接口的刑法挑战,需要从三个方面着手:一是通过自由意志的反向证成与刑事主体的正向肯定,说明脑机智能人不仅属于自然人,而且具备刑事主体资格;二是行为内涵需要重新解读,将“内素”与“外素”作为行为构成要件;三是面对涉脑机接口的危害结果,应当采取“从机器到个人”的认定思路,类型化厘清脑机智能人、控制脑机人、生产销售人,以及脑机机器等致害因素所产生的刑事责任。According to the different directions of information transmission,brain-computer interface BCI can be divided into three types of technology,namely“brain-computer link”,“machine-brain link”and“brain-brain link”.The emergence and development of BCI has brought great challenges to the application of criminal law,including the theoretical application of subject status and behavior connotation,as well as the attribution of responsibility for the harm caused by BCI.To cope with the challenges of braincomputer fusion in criminal law,it is necessary to start from the following three aspects:First,through the reverse evidence of free will and the positive affirmation of criminal subject,brain-smart person not only belongs to the natural person,but also has the qualification of criminal subject;Second,the connotation of behavior needs to be re-interpreted,taking“internal elements”and“external elements”as the constitutive elements of behavior;Third,in the face of the harmful results of brain-computer fusion,the identification idea of“from machines to individuals”should be adopted to categorize and clarify the criminal liability caused by brain-intelligent people,controlling brain-computer people,producing sales people and braincomputer machines.

关 键 词：脑机接口 责任主体 行为要件 归责解构 

分 类 号：DF61[政治法律—刑法学]