【作者】 苏雄华；

【导师】 李永升；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 犯罪过失作为过失犯罪的主观侧面，一直是过失犯罪研究的重心，随着研究的不断深入，人们逐渐发现了犯罪过失的独特内容，但诸多问题尚未妥善解决，需要更深入的研究。本文在厘清犯罪过失概念的基础上，基于其心理结构进行犯罪过失的理论构造，并探讨其在犯罪论中的体系性归属，力求建立科学、完整的犯罪过失理论。全文共分六章。第一章为绪论，共分三节，说明了本文的研究动机、研究目的和研究方法。犯罪过失的存在价值及其被发现的曲折过程激发了本人研究的兴趣，故尝试着走进犯罪过失的迷宫，希求获知犯罪过失独立的内容、结构和地位。欲实现这一研究目的，须有妥当的方法论立场和具体的研究方法。经验主义主张认识的一元论，认为价值源于实存的结构，而非人为的概念转换；理性主义主张认识的二元论，认为只有通过认识主体的理解才能建立起理性的价值体系。但一元论与二元论并非绝然对立的关系，在体系性理论的建构中本应区分评价对象与对象性评价，在价值目标的设定上必须坚持方法的二元论，而在素材来源和实现手段上则应贯彻方法的一元论。就具体的研究方法而言，除了历史的方法、比较的方法、综合的方法、分析的方法和实证的方法外，更应在一种体系性的思考中以问题分析为径路，对理论建构的各个部分进行深入的探讨，以建构既能在逻辑上顺畅自为，又能在实践中有所作为的理论。第二章是犯罪过失的学说史考察，共分四节，分别考察了我国大陆地区、大陆法系地区、英美法系地区和前苏联及俄罗斯的犯罪过失规定和学说理论，为犯罪过失理论的科学建构提供可资借鉴的材料。总体观之，人们大致是在与犯罪故意的区分中逐渐认识到犯罪过失的，在进一步的研究中才将犯罪过失与意外事件区别开来，进而研究犯罪过失的相关内容。就我国大陆地区而言，古代对犯罪过失虽曾有精细的认识，但称谓繁多、彼此缺乏继承性，没有形成统一的概念，也没有上升到理论的高度；近代则主要借鉴大陆法系的过失理论，初步建立了犯罪过失的理论体系；现代的犯罪过失理论则经历了从全面苏化到百家争鸣的历程。就大陆法系而言，德、日刑法典中都没有犯罪过失的概念规定，但两国的犯罪过失理论相对发达，注重对犯罪过失的单独探讨，都先后存在传统过失理论与现代过失理论的激烈论争，德国发展出了容许的危险原则和信赖原则，日本则提出了危惧感说，对监督过失也有着深入的研究；意大利的注释法学派是过失理论的创始人，现代犯罪过失理论侧重客观化的理解，提出了推定过失的概念。在英美法系中，犯罪过失一般是作为主观心态的具体形式，在过失的判断上都主张一般化的客观标准，犯罪过失的内容与其发达的诉讼制度结合在一起，但英国的犯罪过失不包括轻率，美国的犯罪过失则包括轻率与疏忽。前苏联与俄罗斯的犯罪过失具有较强的继受性，注重探讨过失的具体内容和心理结构，将过失分为轻信过失与疏忽过失，从认识因素和意志因素两个方面进行分析，并提出了新的过失类型：无知过失与意志疏忽。第三章是犯罪过失的概念厘清，具体包括三个部分，从有利于发挥概念机能的目的出发，确定了考察犯罪过失的方法，在对相关学说评介的基础上提出了犯罪过失应有的概念。犯罪过失概念是按照概念规则对其本质特征进行的整合和抽象，学界于此已有多种见解。无认识说反映了人们在主观责任萌芽时期对犯罪过失的朴素认识，在区分故意与非故意上具有重要的意义；不注意说则是自然科学主义风潮下对犯罪过失的心理追问，为规范的犯罪过失概念提供了存在论上的实证基础；能预见说从预见能力的角度寻求过失的归责根据，有利于明晰犯罪过失与意外事件之间的界分，但不能合理处理允许的危险和超越承担过失的情形；义务违反说提出了规范的犯罪过失概念，但若将违反的义务单纯理解为对结果预见义务，则在允许危险的场合有扩大过失犯的范围之嫌，若认为包括结果避免义务，又会导致犯罪过失的客观化，且不能与犯罪故意相区分；希望避免说以犯罪故意为模本型构过失，忽视了犯罪过失自身的心理结构，所谓希望避免的意志因素不过是人为的拟制或强行的替代；综合说试图用多种要素定义犯罪过失的概念，但缺乏相关概念法则的整合和抽象，不是合取堆砌，就是扩展泛化。结合犯罪过失的事实特征和评价目的，犯罪过失应当包括三大要素：心理的要素、伦理的要素和规范的要素。因此，犯罪过失是指行为人在行为时能够认识、应当认识但没有正确认识侵害法益的行为的危害性质及其避免措施的状态。第四章是犯罪过失的心理结构，本章共分四节，在确定罪过及其心理过程的基础上分析了犯罪过失的意识状态与意志状态，并从心理的角度对相关主观心态进行了甄别。犯罪过失作为罪过的一种形式，对其进行刑事考察的时点应该是行为时，而非行为前或行为后。知、情、意虽是一个统一的心理过程，但在规范的意义上情感不应成为刑法规制的对象。在犯罪意识的层面，就疏忽大意的过失而言，无论行为前对行为的危害性质是否有认识，行为人在行为中对行为的危害性质及其避免措施都没有认识；过于自信的行为人在行为中虽然已经认识到行为的危害性质，但又轻信能够通过一定的措施避免法益侵害的发生，最终否定了行为的危害性质，实际上是一种附条件的否定性认识；因此，犯罪过失的意识状态表现为对行为的危害性质及其避免措施没有正确认识的状态。犯罪的意志因素以犯罪意识为前提，不仅包括为实现行为的目的而控制行为的心理过程，也包括在认识到行为危害性质的情况下对所侵害的法益的态度。犯罪过失的意志态度是没有形成能够避免法益侵害的意志态度，在疏忽大意的过失中，由于行为人没有认识到行为的危害性质及其避免措施，所以不存在对其希望、放任或反对的意志态度；在过于自信的过失中，由于行为人错误地认为能够避免危害结果的发生，体现了其希望避免法益侵害的意志态度，但这种态度并不能有效地避免对法益的侵害。在过于自信的过失与间接故意的区分中存在意志说、认识说、否定说等诸多观点，但都存在一定的缺陷，只有坚持整体化的区分标志，才能在二者之间划定妥当的界分，即在最终的认识层面上，否定了行为危害性质的是过于自信的过失，对此依然有认识的是间接故意；而这种差别反映在意志态度上，就是避免法益侵害与容认法益侵害的不同。犯罪过失与犯罪故意在认识状态上的彼此对立，决定了相互间不可能出现转化的情形。第五章是犯罪过失的理论构造，包括四个部分，在梳理构造犯罪过失理论的必要前提后，从伦理、规范和心理的维度重新建构了犯罪过失的理论。犯罪过失的心理结构只是为刑事评价提供了事实基础，只有通过价值的评价才能提供对其非难的根据，而价值评价需要具备相应的前提条件。犯罪过失在各种行为理论下的存在空间和价值都不妥当，只有在可控制条件说下才有合理的存在。犯罪成立意义上的刑事归责，是将已经发生的法益侵害归咎于行为人的过程，但作为其归责根据的道义责任论、社会责任论和人格责任论等主张都存在一定的缺陷，无论故意犯，还是过失犯，其应有的主观归责根据都是行为人在行为时能够形成、应当形成但没有形成能够避免法益侵害的意志控制状态。因此，对犯罪过失的归责既要考虑行为人形成这一意志控制的可能性，也要存在规范期待形成这一意志控制的必要性。无论人类的意志事实上是否自由，就刑事归责而言，必须假定人类存在相对的意志自由；在犯罪过失的情形下，还必须假定行为人正确认识行为的危害性质后，一定会形成避免法益侵害的意志控制，否则对其归责就不具有合理性。注意能力是犯罪过失的伦理要素，是注意义务的前提，其内容仅限于认识能力，不包括客观上实施特定避免措施的能力，即排除不应有的缺陷以后，行为人在行为时认识行为的危害性质及其避免措施的能力。在注意能力的判断标准上，客观说、主观说和折衷说都局限于判断对象的争议，注意能力的认定应由判断主体依据自己积累的有关能力的知识和经验进行判断：在行为时的客观环境下，具有特定能力特征的行为人能否认识其行为的危害性质及其避免措施。在注意能力的程度上存在具体预见说和抽象说的对立，彼此都脱离了注意能力存在的价值目的，实则应以行为人能够预见到行为是一种危害行为、且能够预见到可能采取的避免措施为已足。注意义务是犯罪过失的核心要素，指行为时被规范期待发挥自己注意能力、正确认识行为的危害性质及其避免措施的义务，故不应包括主观上的赋予动机义务和客观上的结果避免义务。以内容是否明确划分注意义务的形式根据，包括明示的注意义务和暗含的注意义务。在允许的危险的情形下，行为人的注意义务只包括相应的预防准则内的避免措施，导致法益侵害发生的危险是规范通过预防准则消减以后允许的危险，不能期待行为人再认识其是实质的危险，故行为人对发生的法益侵害不承担过失的责任。信赖原则以允许的危险为基础，在行为参与人之间合理地分配了注意义务，行为人只有在信赖他人不会违背各自的注意义务的前提下，才能得出行为是允许的危险行为的结论，故行为人的注意义务不包括他人违背其注意义务的内容。在监督过失下，规范延长了行为人可控制条件的内容，包括了他人的行为和制度的缺陷，但不需要行为人对法益侵害的发生有具体的预见，只要监督者能够认识到不履行监督义务是一种危害行为，并且能够认识监督义务的内容即可。不注意是犯罪过失的心理要素，指在具有注意义务的前提下，没有认识到行为的危害性质及其避免措施的事实状态，主要表现为没有注意、注意的不良转移、注意的分配不当、注意力不集中等情形。在其他条件相同的情况下，过于自信的过失在认识到行为的危害性质后，存在希望避免法益侵害的意志态度，且客观上也往往采取一定的避免措施；而疏忽大意的过失并无避免法益侵害的态度和措施，故过于自信过失的不注意程度更低，可非难性更小。超越承担过失或无知过失中，无论行为人是否认识到自己不能控制某一行为，都认为自己实施的行为没有实质的危险，但都存在认识行为危害性质的注意能力，故二者是疏忽大意过失的不注意情形。结果假定发生的情形下，行为人违反注意义务的风险没有实现，法益侵害实现的风险是允许范围内的风险，故不存在可归责的不注意。阶段性过失中，并不是客观上存在数个过失的实行行为，而是行为人违反了数个允许的危险的预防准则，错失了更多的避免法益侵害的机会，客观上依然只是一个侵害法益的实行行为。共同过失在规范的解释论上没有存在的可能性，在理论上也没有存在的合理性，在违反共同注意义务的场合，可以将其他行为人的行为视为应该控制的行为条件，延长行为人的注意义务的内容，以监督过失论处；在过失促成其他行为人犯罪的场合，根据过失构成的开放性，应直接以单独的过失犯论处。第六章是犯罪过失在犯罪论中的体系性归属，共分两节，分别讨论了犯罪过失在大陆法系和我国大陆地区犯罪论体系中的具体定位。在大陆法系中，古典犯罪论体系、新古典犯罪论体系将犯罪过失视为责任的要素，有违犯罪论体系的阶层判断；在目的犯罪论体系、新古典及目的性的综合体系中，犯罪过失获得了双重的地位，但其内在要素的划分并不明确；在目的理性的犯罪论体系中，只承认有认识过失的构成要件地位，有违犯罪过失的统一性。犯罪过失在通说的三阶层犯罪论体系中应分层考察，在构成要件阶段应考察最终是否存在正确认识的事实状态；在违法性阶段则应确定是否需要行为人对法益侵害的事实予以预见；在责任阶段则应考察是否具备可期待的注意能力。在我国大陆地区的犯罪论体系中，传统的四要件理论将犯罪过失视为犯罪主观要件的内容，但又强调对预见能力和预见义务的考察，致使认定犯罪过失时在各大要件之间往返奔波，有重复评价之嫌；两阶层的犯罪论体系实是古典犯罪论体系的变体，三阶层的犯罪论体系则与新古典暨目的性的犯罪论体系相差无几，固有的缺陷并没有克服。传统的四要件理论中各构成要件的排列顺序需要修正，应结合客观实践，从便于法律的理解与适用出发，首先根据已经查明的案件事实整体判断其危害性的有无和大致程度，如需要刑罚处罚，再按照犯罪客观要件、犯罪主观要件、犯罪客体要件、犯罪主体要件的顺序考察其符合哪一具体的犯罪构成。在修正后的犯罪论体系中，犯罪过失的心理要素、规范要素和伦理要素应分别纳入犯罪主观要件、犯罪客体要件和犯罪主体要件。更多还原

【Abstract】 As the subjective profile, criminal negligence is the core in the study on negligent crime at all times. The particular contents of criminal negligence are found gradually, but there are lots of matters not to be solved well. This doctoral dissertation which divides into six chapters constructs the theory of criminal negligence and discusses its systematic orientation based on its psychologic concept in order to acquire a scientific and integrated theory of criminal negligence.The first chapter is the prolegomenon to this paper, which divides into three sections and explains the motivation, the intention and the means to study criminal negligence. The difficult course to discover its value and contents inspires me to study it. There should be right methodological standpoint and idiographic means in order to achieve this intention. Empiricism claims monism which is a view that value root in reality rather than artificial concept, but rationalism insists on dualism which considers rational value system only can be set up by the understanding of people. However, both of them are not opposite to each other, dualism should be accepted in setting intention of value, while monism should be taken in choosing material and means. There should be a means of problem-thinking in system besides means of history, compare, synthesis and demonstration, in order to construct logistic and effectual system info.The second chapter which divides into four sections reviews the academic history of criminal negligence in Chinese Mainland, U.S.S.R., Russia and the areas of continent law system and common law system. As a whole, criminal negligence was found in the distinguishing from criminal intent, then was considered different from accident, and so was studied gradually. In Chinese Mainland, uniform concept of criminal negligence did not formed though there was refined cognition about it in antiquity; the rudimental system info of criminal negligence came into being in neoteric times by learning the theory of criminal negligence in continent law system; while, the theory of criminal negligence today developped from Soviet Russia and take on a new look of controversy. In areas of continent law system, there is no provision about criminal negligence in criminal law in Germany and Japan, but the theory of criminal negligence is with tail in the water, discussing it separately and debating drastically between old school and new school. The principle of allowable dangers and the principle of trust formed in Germany, while the doctrine of discomposure and the supervisory negligence appeared in Japan. The annotate school in Italy is the founder of criminal negligence theory, but the morder negligent theory emphasizes particularly on external profile, and brings forward putative negligence. In common law system, criminal negligence is one of the mens rea, and the generic external criterion is put forward with the mature system of litigation. The criminal negligence in U.K. doesn’t include the recklessness, but the one of U.S.A. comprises it. The criminal negligence of U.S.S.R. and Russia is successional, its contents and psychologic structure is focused, being divided into overconfident negligence and inattentive negligence, and evolves new types, namely, ignorant negligence and volitive negligence.The third chapter which divides into three sections confirms the proper concept of criminal negligence based on other doctrines about it. The concept of criminal negligence abstracts the essential characters of it according as the regulations of concept. There are lots of doctrines about it. The doctrine of no-congition reflects the simple episteme about criminal negligence in the bud of subjective responsibility; the inattentive viewpoint focuses on the psychologic contents of it under the tidal current of naturalism, laying a ontological foundation for the value concept; the foreseeable opinion looks for the reprehensive reason from the attention ability, which is in favor of distinguishing the criminal negligence from accident, but it can’t interpret allowable dangers or activity-adoption negligence; the doctrine of offending against duty of care brings forward normative criminal negligence, but the negligent crime will be extent in allowable dangers if the duty of care means the duty to foresee the harm, or the criminal negligence will be objectified if the duty of care includes the measures to avoid the harm; the allegation of wishing avoidance originated from the structure of criminal intent, its volitive content is either artificial draft or compulsive substitute; the doctrine of synthesis tries to define criminal negligence by lots of elements, but it is either a stack or a dilation. According to the factual characters and the evaluated intention of criminal negligence, it should include the elements of psychology, ethic and criterion. Therefore, criminal negligence is the state that the actor doesn’t cognize the harmful qualities of his conduct or the measures to avoid it, though he can and should cognize them when he does it.The fourth chapter which divides into four sections probes into the psychologic structure of criminal negligence after the concept of mens rea and its psychologic contens being definitized. As one of the mens rea, it’s not the ones occurred before or after conduct but the ones occurred in company with conduct that should be reviewed in criminal law. Emotion ought not to be reviewed in criterion, though cognition, emotion and volition are unitive. In the cognition of inattentive negligence, the actor doesn’t cognize the harmful qualities of his conduct or the measures to avoid it, whether he cognized them before or not; however, the overconfident actor cognizes them, but he denies his act is dangerous at last because of his credulity, as is a negative cognition attached some conditions. Thus the cognition of criminal negligence is a state that the actor doesn’t cognize the harmful qualities of his conduct or the measures to avoid it. The criminal cognition is the precondition to the criminal volition, which includes the psychologic state to control his act and the attitude towards the offended interests when he cognizes his harmful act. The volition of criminal negligence is that the actor doesn’t form the effectual attitude to avoid offence, that is to say, there is no attitude in inattentive negligence because the actor doesn’t cognize the harmful act and the means of avoidance; the attitude in overconfident negligence is to avoid the harm because he thinks the harm will not happen by error, but this attitude can’t avoid the harm to interests. There are lots of doctrines in cognition, volition or syncretism to distinguish between overconfident negligence and indirect intent, but anyone of them is deficient. The holistic criterion only can distinguish them validly, namely, it is overconfident negligence if the actor cognizes the harmful act at last, otherwise it is indirect intent, and this difference reflects the unlikeness in criminal volition. There are no transformation between criminal negligence and criminal intent because either of them is opposite to each other.The fifth chapter which divides into four sections reconstructs the theory of criminal negligence from the angles of ethic, law and psychology after clearing up necessary premises. The psychologic structure of criminal negligence is just the factual base for criminal estimation, so there should be some preconditions for reproaching the actor who offends negligenct crime. There is no proper scope or value for criminal negligence in lots of theoretics about act except the controllable doctrine. The criminal condemn determined the crime is pinning the violated interests on the actor, but none of deontological condemn, societal condemn and personality condemn can be regarded as the foundation of responsibility because of their deficiencies. The foundation of subjective responsibility either in negligent crime or intentional crime should be that the actor doesn’t form the volitive state to avoid the dangers of act, though he can and should form it when he does it. So the condemn to criminal negligence should take the possibility and necessary of volition controlling into account. Whether the anthropic volition is free or not, it should be assumed relative free in criminal responsibility, and we must assume that the actor will form the volitive state to avoid the dangers of act if he cognizes the harmful act, otherwise it is irrational to criminate him.The attention ability is the ethical element of criminal negligence and the precondition of the duty of care, whose contents limit to cognition ability, namely, the ability to cognize the dangers of act and its avoidance means after removing his indign vice, not including the ability of taking means to avoid dangers. As for the estimation criterion of attention ability, all the theories of objectivism, subjectivism and eclecticism limit to estimation object. The estimator should estimate whether the actor can cognize the harmful act and its avoidance means under the circumstance when hen acts, according to his knowledge and experience about ability. It is opposite state between concrete cognition and rough cognition in extent of attention ability, but both of them deviate from its value intent, so the sure extent is that the actor can cognize his harmful act and its avoidance means.The duty of care is the core element of criminal negligence, which is the duty that the actor exerts his attention ability to congnize his harmful act and its avoidance means, not including the subjective duty of endowing with motivation and objective duty of taking avoidance means. The duty of care divides into obvious ones and implied ones in the light of its definitude. Under the allowable danger, the duty of care just includes avoidance means according to relevant and preventive rules which reduce the essential danger of the harmful act, so we shouldn’t expect the actor to cognize it again, and we can’t impute the happened damage to the actor under this circumstance. The duty of care is well distributed among participants under the principle of trust based on the allowable danger, so the actor must trust other participants will carry out their duty of care, otherwise he can’t cognize the dangerous act is allowable in law, that is to say, it is not the duty of care for the actor that the other participants will violate their duty of care. The controllable condition is prolonged under supervisory negligence, which includes the act of others and the defective institution, but the actor is not demanded to congnize the concrete harmful results, he is just required to have cognizance of his supervisory duty.Inattention is the psychologic factor of criminal negligence, which means the factual state that the actor doesn’t cognize the harmful act and its avoidance means though he has the duty of care. The main form of inattention is no-attention, improper diversion of attention, inappropriate divide of attention and no-focusing of attention ability. Under the same conditions, there is a volitional attitude to avoid the damage and some avoidance means to have be taken in overconfident negligence after the actor cognizes the harmful act; however, none of them exists in inattentive negligence, so the extend of overconfident negligence is slighter than that of inattentive negligence. Whether the actor cognizes he can’t control the act in negligence exceeded attention ability or ignorant negligence, he considers the act is no factual danger, but he has the attention ability cognizing the harmful act, so both of them just happened in inattentive negligence. Supposing the harmful result will still occur even if the actor performed his duty well, it is not the danger that the actor violated the duty of care but the allowable danger that happened in violating interests, so there is no imputable inattention. There is no several negligenct acts but only one negligent act in staggered negligence, in which the actor violates several precautionary rules of allowable danger, blundering away several chances to avoid the harm. There is no possibility for joint negligence in legal interpretation, neither is there rationality for it in theory. In violating joint duties of care, the duty of care is extended to the acts of others, so the actor should be punished by supervisory negligence; in causing crimes of others negligently, the actor should be punished by individual negligence according to the opening constitution of negligent crime.The sixth chapter which divides into two sections researches the systematic station of criminal negligence in system of criminal theory in Chinese Mainland and continent law system. In continent law system, both of the classic criminal theory and the neoclassicism criminal theory regard the criminal negligence as the factor of responsibility, which disobeys the staggered estimation of criminal theory; in the teleology criminal theory and the criminal theory teleology-neoclassicism synthesis the criminal negligence has double stations, which inner elements are not definite. In common doctrine of three-stratum criminal theory, the criminal negligence should be reviewed by delamination, reviewing whether the actor cognizes the harmful act and its avoidance means at last in the phase of criminal constitution, confirming whether the actor is demanded to cognize them in the phase of illegality, and ascertaining whether the actor has the attention ability in the phase of responsibility. In the criminal theory of Chinese Mainland, the traditional four-element theory treats the criminal negligence as the contents of subjective constitution of crime, but insists on reviewing attention ability and forecast duty, which forms appraising repeatedly in determinating the criminal negligence; the two-stratum criminal theory is actually the variation of the classic criminal theory, ant the three-stratum criminal theory is similar to the criminal theory teleology-neoclassicism synthesis, so the inherent defects still exist there. The tactic order of elements in the traditional four-element theory needs amending, namely, according to the impersonal practice and the aim to apprehend and apply the criminal law, firstly judging whether the whole violated interests need penalty after finding out the fact, then reviewing which rule the act accords with in the order arranged by objective elements, subjective elements, object elements and subject elements. In the amended system of criminal theory, the psychologic element, canonical element and ethical element should be respectively put in subjective elements, object elements and subject elements.更多还原