论故意认定的规范化及其限度  

The Normativization of Intent and Its Limits

作　　者：陈尔彦 Chen Eryan

机构地区：[1]德国弗莱堡大学法学院

出　　处：《中外法学》2025年第2期480-499,共20页Peking University Law Journal

摘　　要：将故意视为一种心理事实的事实性故意概念存在诸多缺陷,应当主张故意认定的规范化。当前学界存在的各种故意规范化理论可归结为认识因素规范化、意志因素规范化和以负责原则为基础的故意规范化三种维度。唯有从正面澄清规范故意概念的基本内涵,才能明确故意规范化的限度。立足于故意犯的规范论基础和处罚根据,故意是指行为人认识到行为具有实现构成要件的风险,且这种风险达到了故意风险的程度,却仍决意实施行为。减轻证明困难不是故意规范化的正当理由。故意风险的认定是一种规范判断。意志不是独立的故意构成要素。故意行为规范的正当化根据与罪刑法定原则划定了故意规范化的最大边界。The factual concept of intent,which views intent as a psychological fact,has numerous flaws,necessitating its normativization.Theories on the normativization of intent in academic literature can be categorized into three dimensions:normativization of cognitive elements,normativization of volitional elements,and normativization based on the principle of responsibility.Clarifying the fundamental connotation of normative intent is essential to defining the limits of intent normativization.Based on the normative foundation of intentional offenses and the rationale for punishment,intent refers to the perpetrator's awareness that their conduct entails a risk of realizing the offense elements,with such risk reaching the threshold of intentional risk,yet they still decide to act.Reducing evidentiary difficulties is not a legitimate justification for intent normativization.The determination of intentional risk is a normative judgment.Volition is not an independent element of intent.The justification for behavioral norms of intentional offenses,along with the principle of legality,establishes the boundaries for intent normativization.

关 键 词：故意 事实故意 故意规范化 故意风险 

分 类 号：D924.1[政治法律—刑法学]