正当防卫限度的规范解释与实证考察  

Normative Interpretation and Empirical Investigation of the Defense Limit

作　　者：刘崇亮[1] Liu Chongliang

机构地区：[1]上海政法学院,上海201701

出　　处：《法学杂志》2024年第4期125-140,共16页Law Science Magazine

基　　金：2021年国家社科基金一般项目“再犯罪风险评估视野下中国社区刑罚改革实证研究”(项目编号:21BFX178)的阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：当前对防卫限度的研究通常停留在抽象的法理解释层面,缺乏可操作层面上的具象。二分说与一体说所持的观点与理由都存在问题,但相较于二分说,一体说的判断路径更优,并不会导致防卫限度的认定出现偏差,法益衡量主义并不排斥防卫行为在防卫限度判断中的重要地位。为了检验实践中防卫限度司法认定的实际状况,以行为限度与结果限度的规范要素作为变量设计的指导思路,建立防卫限度的二元Logistic回归模型。检验结果发现,司法实践中对防卫限度的判断并非唯结果论,对行为限度的判断因素并不均衡,对结果限度的判断并非以上一层级相对较重的损害结果比较为依据。应当对重大损害结果进行级差量化的精准判断,重视行为限度在重大损害结果的级差量化中所起的作用,并坚持法益衡量下的价值与事实的一体化判断。The present study on the limit of defense usually stays at the abstract interpretation level for lacking of concrete operation.There are problems in the viewpoints of dichotomy theory and integration theory.Compared with dichotomy theory,integration theory has a better judgment way and does not lead to deviation in the determination of the limit of defense.Legal benefit measurement does not exclude the importance of defense behavior in defense limit judgment.The bivariate logistic regression model of the limit of defense was established by elements of behavior and the limit of result as the guiding idea of variable design,which in order to measure the actual situation in judicial practice.It shows that judgment of the limit of defense in judicial practice is not consequentialist,the judgment factors of behavior are not balanced,and the standard of the limit of result is not based on the comparison of heavier damage in upper level.We should insist on the comprehensive factual judgment in defense limit and standardize the operation in quantifiable damage result in the judicial practice.

关 键 词：防卫限度 规范解释 判断路径 二元回归 实证研究 

分 类 号：D924.1[政治法律—刑法学]