【作者】 孙建保；

【导师】 刘宪权；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 晚近以来，社会危害性理论成为刑法学领域争议的焦点之一，围绕社会危害性的是是非非，学者们各执己见，褒贬不一。本文站在维护通说的总体立场上，通过对社会危害性缘起及发展历程的概况回顾，阐述了社会危害性的内涵由政治属性向法律属性的嬗变，以论证社会危害性如今已经具有了法学意义上的规范性，成为了本土化的“法言法语”；继而通过阐述社会危害性在刑事立法以及刑事司法中所发挥的功用，进一步论证社会危害性之于我国刑法学的现实意义，表明社会危害性不可轻言废弃；最后针对当前被诟病较多的四要件犯罪构成理论，从社会危害性的角度提出了改造、完善的建议，即在四要件犯罪构成的基础上构筑“罪质——罪量”的阶层式犯罪构成，以取代传统的四要件犯罪构成。本文共分为五章，各章内容分述如下：第一章围绕社会危害性理论的缘起及在我国的移植展开分析，本章共分为两节，第一节论述社会危害性在苏俄的缘起与发展，着重围绕两个方面展开论述，其一，通过1919年《苏俄刑法指导原则》以及1922年、1926年、1960年三部《苏俄刑法典》关于犯罪概念的规定，对社会危害性概念的确立与发展进行了形式上的回溯，并以各次立法的具体内容为据，指出每次立法都征表社会危害性向着科学化、规范化迈进了一步；其二，在形式回溯的基础上，结合苏俄诞生的历史背景，分析社会危害性概念何以能够在苏俄出现，其答案在于苏俄是人类历史上第一个社会主义国家，出于意识形态需要，在法律观上要与奉行形式主义的资产阶级刑法彻底决裂，因而从实质的角度构筑全新的社会主义刑法势所必然。第二节论述社会危害性理论在我国的移植，同样围绕两个方面展开论述，其一，社会危害性理论在我国刑法中的确立与发展，主要围绕1979年、1997年两部刑法展开说明，两部刑法典内均采取了形式与实质相结合的犯罪概念，这是“以俄为师”，效法前苏联的结果，社会危害性理论由此在我国刑法中牢牢扎根，成为我国刑法的“中枢神经”，这种围绕社会危害性展开的论述也是一种形式意义上的回溯；其二，对社会危害性理论在我国刑法中确立的原因进行了分析，认为高度趋同的意识形态是社会危害性理论得以移植到我国来的根本原因，同时，1949年废除旧法统以及1952年至1953年开展的全国性的司法改革运动为这种法律移植创造了条件。第二章围绕社会危害性的内涵演变展开分析，本章共分为四节，第一节论述社会危害性在苏联（俄）的内涵演变，这里首先指出随着苏联阶级观以及社会生活的实际变化，法律的阶级属性逐渐弱化，由此使得社会危害性中的阶级属性也在逐渐弱化，逐渐由早期的政治内涵过渡到法律内涵，继而从苏俄刑法中相继出现的类推、犯罪构成、犯罪分类等五个具体视角进行例证性说明，以佐证社会危害性的内涵在逐渐发生变化，其中的政治内涵逐渐消退，法律内涵则逐步增加，从而逐步由政治内涵向法律内涵演进。第二节论述社会危害性在我国的内涵演变，通过社会危害性是否为犯罪的专有属性、社会危害性是否为犯罪的本质特征、类推存废等三个视角的分析，论证社会危害性中的阶级性色彩逐渐消退，而其中的法律属性则此消彼涨式地逐渐增加，以1997年刑法典的颁布为标志，彻底完成由政治内涵向法律内涵的过渡。第三节主要对社会危害性内涵演变的原因进行分析，指出政治因素的隐退、思想解放运动的引领以及法学学术研究的促进是这种内涵演变的三大原因，其中我国1978年开展的关于真理标准的大讨论这场思想解放运动对我国包括刑法在内的法学观的影响至为深远。第四节着重围绕社会危害性的规范性进行论说，总的结论是社会危害性并非如批评者所言，不具有规范性，事实上，社会危害性完全具有刑法学所要求的规范性，只不过这种规范性有别于法条意义上的微观规范性，而是一种整体化、全局化的宏观规范性，需要通过一个个具体行为的规范性来达到，实际上主要是通过罪刑法定来实现，以刑事违法性加以制约；同时通过对前苏联和我国刑法史的俯瞰，得出一条结论，即社会危害性在前苏联和我国都经历了一个“前规范时代——准规范时代——规范时代”的演进历程，其中的每一时代都有其特征所在，并有着着明显的标志性事件可辨。第三章围绕社会危害性与刑事立法展开分析，本章共分为三节，第一节分析了社会危害性对罪的影响，认为社会危害性不仅决定着罪与非罪的界分，还决定着重罪与轻罪的界分。第二节分析了社会危害性对刑的影响，认为社会危害性不仅决定了刑罚因何存在——将社会危害性所征表的谴责与否定性评价落到实处，还决定了刑罚如何存在——通过罪刑均衡而存在。第三节分析了社会危害性与但书的关系，认为但书设立的初衷在于收缩犯罪圈，控制打击面，因而但书既体现了刑法的谦抑精神，又成为轻微违法行为出罪的法定依据，具有相当明显的积极意义，故而不宜取消，否则一旦取消，非但上述优势不复存在，还将引发诸多消极影响，例如社会危害性有无的判断争议更大、犯罪数量倍增、对其他部门法产生连锁冲击反应等。本节还就但书与犯罪构成之间的关系以及但书的适用范围进行了分析，认为部分学者在这两个问题上存在认识偏差，但书内的社会危害性与犯罪构成所体现出来的社会危害性之间没有交集，二者之间是一种互斥关系，并且从理论上而言，但书应当适用于刑法分则中的所有个罪，而非只是部分罪名。第四章围绕社会危害性与刑事司法展开分析，本章共分为三节，第一节论证社会危害性之于刑事司法的必要性，这种必要性主要源自三个方面，其一，系由犯罪的定量因素所决定，其二，是弥合社会危害性与刑事违法性间罅隙的需要，其三，是刑罚裁量的需要。第二节分析社会危害性在刑事司法中如何发挥功用，大体而言，在定罪环节中，在确认犯罪的定量因素时，注意把握社会危害性的程度；在社会危害性和刑事违法性出现不一致时，以刑事违法性作为主要的判断标准，在出罪的情况下，辅以社会危害性的判断标准，将具有刑事违法性而不具有社会危害性的行为作出罪处理。至于在量刑方面，通过将立法环节确立的刑档、量刑幅度具体化以及犯罪构成要件之外的对量刑能够产生影响的因素加以综合考虑而恰当地裁量刑罚。本章最后一节花费了较多笔墨，着重通过当前刑法学界盛行的形式解释与实质解释之争所带来的启发，对社会危害性介入刑事司法环节的限度进行了分析说明，提出了一条较具新意的观点，即认为对于处于边缘社会危害性的行为而言，法官在进行裁判时，本着利益衡量原则，以其良知与智识进行价值评判，只要没有超出国民的预测可能性，无论结果是有罪还是无罪，都应当被接受，这类边缘社会危害性的案件本身就没有标准答案可言。第五章围绕社会危害性与犯罪构成展开分析，本章共分为三节，第一节对四要件犯罪构成中的犯罪客体进行了分析，认为犯罪客体是在前苏联发展得尚不成熟之际引入我国的，引入我国之后又面临诸多争议，但犯罪客体仍有其无可替代的功能与价值，从微观层面来看，犯罪客体是区分此种社会危害性与彼种社会危害性的关键因素，从宏观层面来看，犯罪客体是刑法分则对犯罪进行分类的基础。因而，一方面否定犯罪客体的观点不能认同，另一方面又有必要对犯罪客体加以改造，不应当让犯罪犯罪客体在犯罪成立与否的判断上居于主导地位。第二节通过对大陆法系三阶层犯罪论中构成要件与违法性之间的违法推定关系及各自功能的分析，认为二者所体现出来的由形式判断过渡到实质判断的位阶关系是合理的，符合人类认知事物的一般规律，在改造我国平面式四要件犯罪构成理论时可予借鉴。第三节提出了“罪质——罪量”犯罪构成模式，这一犯罪构成模式是在原有的四要件犯罪构成模式之上加以改造而得出的，具体的改造方案是：首先，保留原有的四要件，统称为“罪质”要件，但四个要件的内容有所变化，均只涉及社会危害性的基本属性，而不再涉及社会危害性的程度大小，原先反映社会危害性程度大小的内容从四个要件中析离出来，其中犯罪客体要件只定位于区分此种社会危害性与彼种社会危害性上；其次，增设反映社会危害性之量的“罪量”要件，原四个要件中析离出来的反映社会危害性程度大小的要素纳入新设的“罪量”要件内，“罪量”要件所蕴含的内容包括原犯罪客体的内容、情节犯、数额犯、正当化事由等；再次，将“罪质”与“罪量”之间的关系定位为阶层式关系，“罪质”要件反映的是行为社会危害性的属性，而“罪量”要件反映的则是社会危害性之量，“罪质”要件的判断是一种形式判断，关注的是行为是否具有危害社会的属性，而“罪量”要件的判断则是在“罪质”要件基础上的实质化判断，关注的是这种社会危害性的量的大小，由此，“罪质”与“罪量”之间形成一种阶层式关系。这种改造后的犯罪构成能够更加合理地呼应犯罪概念中的定量要求，符合由形式判断到实质判断的逻辑思维进路，同时还可以通过对正当化事由的考察，实现积极判断与消极判断的结合，同时畅通入罪与出罪的渠道。本文总的观点是，社会危害性概念的诞生有其历史必然性，其经过在我国数十年的发展，已经完成了本土化演变，成为刑法领域内的规范用语，对于我国刑法理论的发展有着重要的现实意义，不应当轻言废弃，当前要做的应当是如何根据我国的实际情况去对社会危害性理论加以完善，使之更好地服务于我国的刑事司法实践。更多还原

【Abstract】 In Recent years, the theory about social detriment becomes one of the focuses incriminal law, and scholars give mixed reviews about the right and wrong of socialdetriment. This paper, standing on the common view of point, elaborates the transitionof the meaning of social detriment from political attribute to law attribute by thereview of social detriment’s origin and development, in order to demonstrate thatsocial detriment has possessed normative in legal sense and became local “legallanguage”. Then, by elaborating the function of social detriment in criminallegislation and criminal justice, it further proves the practical significance of socialdetriment, which shows that social detriment can’t be easily abandoned. Finally,aiming at four elements crime constitution theory, which becomes an object of publicdenunciation recently, this paper gives advices on reform and perfection from theperspective of social detriment., that is, building a hierarchical “the quality of socialdetriment-the quantity of social detriment” constitution of crime on four elementscrime constitution and displacing the four elements crime constitution in the past.Thispaper is divided into five chapters, each part follows:The first chapter analyzes the origin and transplantation of the theory aboutsocial detriment in our country, divided into two parts, the first part discusses theorigin and development of social detriment concept in U.S.S.R, focusing on twoaspects: first, by the definition of the concept of crime in The guiding principles of theU.S.S.R criminal law(1919) and U.S.S.R Criminal Code(1922,1926,1960), we formally review the establishment and development of the concept of social detriment,according to the details of each legislation, and point out that each legislation showseach step of social detriment towards scientification and normalization; secondly,basing on the formal review and combining the history of the origin of U.S.S.R, weanalyze how the concept of social detriment can arise in U.S.S.R, the answer is thatU.S.S.R is the first socialist country in human history, in order to break with theformalistic bourgeoisie in the legal view, it’s inevitable to build up a brand-newsocialist criminal law in a essential perspective. The second part discusses thetransplantation of the theory about social detriment in China, divided into two aspects:first, the establishment and development of the theory about social detriment mainlysurround the criminal laws of1979and1997, both of them use the concept of socialdetriment, combining form and essential, which results from learning from U.S.S.R,from then on, the theory of social detriment roots in the criminal law of our countryand becomes the “nerve center”. That is also a formal review of social detriment.Secondly, we analyze the reason of the establishment of social detriment theory, thebasic reason for the transplantation is the highly similar ideology, at the same time,the abandon of the old law in1949and the national Judicial reform movement in1952-1953create the condition for the legal transplantation.The second chapter centres on the evolution of the connotation of socialdetriment, which is divided into four sections. The first section discusses the evolutionof the implication of social detriment in the Soviet union (Russia), in which the firstthing is to point out that the class attribute of law, with the actual changes in theSoviet Union’ class view and its social life, is gradually weakening, so it brings asame consequence to the class attribute of social detriment, making it graduallytransiting from an early political connotation to a legal connotation; and the next thingis to giving illustrative descriptions of those five specific perspectives—Analogies，crime constitute,the classification of the crime.etc—which are appeared subsequentlyin Russian Criminal Law, so as to support that the connotation of social detriment isgradually changing from the political connotation evolving to legal connotation forthe gradual extinction of its political connotation and the gradual increasing of legal connotation. The second section discusses the evolution of the connotation of socialdetriment in china. By the analysis of the three perspectives that whether the socialdetriment is the exclusive property of a crime, whether the social detriment is theessential feature of a crime and the abolition of analogy, we can realize the color ofclass attribute in social harmfulness is fading away, and the legal attribute eliminateup to a gradual increase. Marked by the promulgation of the penal code in1997, thetransition from the political connotation to the legal connotation has completed. Thethird section analysis mainly on the causes of evolution of the connotation of socialdetriment, which are due to the three major reasons: the retreat of political factors, theleading of thought liberation movement and the promotion of academic study of Law,of which the liberation movement, happened in1978around the discussion of thestandard of truth, has a far-reaching impact on our concept of law, including criminallaw. The fourth quarter focuses on the normalization of social detriment.The generalconclusion is that social detriment is not as terrible as the critics said, it does not havenormative. Social detriment has a complete normative by Criminal Law, but it isdifferent from the law in the sense of the micro normative, and it is an integrated andglobal macro normative with a specific behavior standardization to achieve itself,which, actually, is mainly achieved by principle of legality and restricted by thecriminal illegality. At the same time, through the overlooking of the former SovietUnion and the history of criminal law in our country, we can know that socialdetriment in Soviet Union and China has both experienced the evolution process of“Non-normative era—Semi-normative era—Normative era”, and each era has itscharacteristics and obvious landmark events.The third chapter focuses on the relationship between social detriment andcriminal legislation. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first sectionanalyses the influence of social detriment to crime, considering social detriment notonly determines the boundary between crime and non-crime, but also the boundarybetween a felony and misdemeanor.The second section analyzes the influence ofsocial detriment to punishment. It is believed social detriment not only determineswhy the penalty exists--to put the condemnation and negative evaluation manifested by the social detriment into practice, also determines how the penalty exists--withthe balance between crime and punishment. The third section analyses the relationshipbetween social detriment and proviso. The original intention of the establishment ofproviso is to shrink the scope of punishment, so proviso not only embodies the spiritof modesty of criminal law, but also becomes the legal basis for bear with minorinfractions crime. The positive significance of proviso is obvious, therefore, it shouldnot be canceled, otherwise, not only the above mentioned advantage will no longerexist, also lead to many negative effects, such as a greater dispute of the judgment ofsocial detriment, multiplication of the crime number, and chain reaction brought aboutto the other branches of law and so on.In addition, the book also analyzes therelationship between constitution of crime and the proviso and the applicable scope ofproviso, convinced that some scholars have understanding deviation on these twoissues. The book believes that there is no intersection between social detriment withinproviso and the one displayed by the constitution of crime, that is, it is mutexrelationship. Furthermore, theoretically speaking, proviso should apply to all thespecific provisions of the criminal law, rather than just some crimes.The fourth chapter focuses on the relationship between the social detriment andcriminal justice. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first sectionarguments the necessity of social detriment to criminal justice. The necessity ismainly from three aspects, the quantitative elements of crime, the need of digestioncrevices between the social detriment and criminal illegality, the need of Sentencing.The second section analyses how social detriment works in criminal justice. To beexact, in the link of conviction, in the confirmation of quantitative elements of crime,pay attention to the extent of social detriment.When there is inconsistency betweensocial detriment and criminal illegality, criminal illegality works as the main judgment.In the situation of non-crime，the action with criminal illegality and without socialdetriment is treated as non-crime. In the aspect of Sentencing, judged appropriate bymaking punishment files and extent for measurement of punishment which isestablished by legislation and overall analysis of the elements which can influence thesentencing excepting elements of constitution of crime.The last section of this chapter spends much word on analyzing the limit of the social detriment intervening intocriminal justice link emphasized by the inspiration of dispute between formalisticinterpretation and substantial interpretation which are prevalent in the field ofCriminal Law currently and makes a relatively original point which is that for theactions with verge social detriment, whether the judgment is guilty or not, the judge’sverdict should be accepted as long as it is still under the national’s forecast, if thejudge makes judgment by the principle of balance the interests and evaluates by hisconscience and intellectual. There is no standard answer to these cases about vergesocial detriment.The fifth chapter that consists of three sections focuses on the relationshipbetween the social detriment and the constitution of crime. The first section analysesone of the four constitutive requirements of a crime, namely the criminal object. Theconcept of criminal object has been controversial mainly because that it is introducedto the Chinese criminal law system through the law system of U.S.S.R, where theconcept had not been well developed yet at the time. Although being debatable thedefinition itself, it is still widely accepted and considered to has irreplaceablefunctions and value to the current Chinese criminal law system. From microcosmicaspects, criminal object is the factor that distinguishes this crime and that crime; andfrom macro aspects, criminal object enables the specific provisions of criminal law tocategorize crimes. Therefore, the views denying the rationality and the existence ofthe concept of criminal object will not be fully supported. To avoid any improper useof the immature conception, it is supposed that the aspect of criminal object shouldnot be the principal factor to define a crime. The second section firstly illustrates theframe of the three-level criminology being a theoretical foundation of the continentallaw system, and then it analyses the illegal constructive relationship based on theabove two theoretical aspects. The section concludes that the transitioning facts offormal judgments to substantive judgments revealed by the application of the twoconcepts of ‘constitutive requirements’ and ‘illegality’ comply with general cognitiveprinciples of humans, and thus the application of the theoretical issues is justified in asense, what’s more, this could be helpful in revising the theory of four elements of the planar constitution of crime. The third section puts forward the crime constitutionpattern of “the quantity of social detriment-the quality of social detriment” whichbased on the traditional four elements crime constitution pattern. The Specific retrofitscheme is as follows: firstly, retain the original four elements which we collectivelycalled the element of “the quantity of social detriment”, but there are some changesfor the content of the four elements. They are all only involving the basic attributes ofsocial detriment rather than the degree of the social detriment. The original contentwhich reflect the degree of social detriment are separated from the four elements. Thecriminal object elements are only positioning to distinguish the social detriment fromone to the other. Secondly,“the quantity of social detriment” elements shall be addedto reflect the social detriment. The elements which separate from the original elementsreflect the degree of social detriment shall be brought into the new elements.“thequantity of social detriment” elements including the content of the original criminalobject, the circumstance crime，the amount crime，legitimate reasons and so on.Thirdly, the relationship between “the quantity of social detriment” and “the quality ofsocial detriment” shall be positioned as hierarchical relationship.“The quality ofsocial detriment” elements reflect the attributes of the society detriment, but “thequantity of social detriment” elements reflect the degree of the society detriment. Thejudgment for “the quality of social detriment”, which focus on whether behaviors ownthe attribute of social detriment is just a formal judgment, on the contrast, thejudgment for the quantitative crime elements which concentrated on the degree ofsocial detriment is a substantial judgment based on “the quality of social detriment”elements. So, the relationship between “the quantity of social detriment” and “thequality of social detriment” is hierarchical. The modified crime constitution can bemore reasonable to meet the quantitative requirements for the conception of crime, toaccord with the logical thought from the formal judgment to the substantial one. In themeanwhile, it also can realize the combination of positive judgement and negativejudgement, and provide the unimpeded channel for distinguishing crime or non-crimethrough the way of observing justified act. In summary, the emergence of the term of social detriment is a historicalinevitability. As a result of dozens of year’s development in China，The term hascompleted localization evolution and become a regulated one in the field of criminallaw.Moreover, the term has a profound and far-reaching practical significance for thedevelopment of the criminal law theory and should by no means be discarded.Therefore, the current priority is to perfect the theory of social detriment inconformance with the real situation in China so that it will better serve the practice ofthe criminal justice.更多还原