【作者】 王太宁；

【导师】 李洁；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 刑法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 我国的犯罪构成与英美法系的“犯罪要件”和大陆法系的“犯罪论体系”都是指犯罪成立体系。因为本文着重探讨中国的刑法理论，故仍沿用“犯罪构成”旧称。犯罪构成模式是指犯罪构成作为一个系统，其内部所包含的各要素及各要素之间的结合方式。研究犯罪构成模式的意义在于寻求一个能够更好地体现立法意图，实现刑法保护社会和保障人权功能的犯罪构成模式。本文通过对犯罪构成模式的评价标准的探讨，对我国目前“四要件”的犯罪构成模式进行评说，进而提出完善现有犯罪构成模式的建议和初步构想。本文共分三个部分。第一部分提出了评价犯罪构成模式优劣的标准。评价标准的确立是与各位学者对话的前提。确立犯罪构成模式的评价标准时，要考虑以下三个方面：犯罪构成的属性，犯罪构成的功能，犯罪构成的价值。犯罪构成的属性曾经是中国刑法学界争论的热点之一。本文将其分为三种主张：“理论说”、“法律说”、“折衷兼有说”。要解决犯罪构成的属性问题，首要应该明确何谓“法律规定”。因此，文章对罪刑法定主义进行了探讨。罪刑法定主义是保护民主，促进人权，防止刑罚权滥用的重要原则。传统的罪刑法定主义仅包括“形式的侧面”，现在增加了“实质的侧面”。罪刑法定主义要发挥其预定的功能有一个首要的前提，那就是刑事良法的存在。立法与社会发生脱节的时候，可以通过犯罪构成给予补正。因此，虽然犯罪构成的诸要素皆来自于刑法的规定，但是，犯罪构成不是法律，而是一种实践性很强的工具理论。犯罪构成的机能是指犯罪构成作为刑法理论所产生的积极效应和作用。犯罪构成的机能包括两种：1、作为工具的机能，即犯罪构成服务于刑法由此所具有的机能，具体包括解释机能，联系机能，评价机能，指导机能。2、作为理论的机能，具体包括整合机能，体系机能。犯罪构成的价值包括两种：1、目的价值。作为工具理论，犯罪构成的价值决定于它所服务的刑事实体法的价值，即自由、秩序、正义、功利。2、形式价值。指犯罪构成作为理论在形式上应当具备哪些值得肯定的或“好”的品质，即和谐、经济。因此，犯罪构成模式的评价标准应该包括：是否适当解释，是否支持评价，是否和谐，是否经济。而且，这四个标准之间存在主次顺序，不可等量齐观。文章的第二部分论述了我国犯罪构成的现状。首先介绍了我国犯罪构成的特点。其次应用文章第一部分得出的评价标准进行评价。我国犯罪构成的最大特色在于“以社会危害性为中心的统一论”。具体表现为三点：1、外源性。我国的犯罪构成理论是在借鉴前苏联的犯罪构成理论基础上开展起来的，而俄国的学者受德国刑事古典学派的犯罪构成学说影响很深。这造成了我国的犯罪构成与大陆法系犯罪论在构成要素上的某种对应性和法律文化中对法律移植的偏好。2、自然的行为理论。我国刑法学界对行为理论的研究起步较晚，在发展阶段上类似于德国刑法理论中的前古典行为论，并且尚未对行为人在犯罪概念中的可评价地位进行思考，将“行为”仅仅等同于“实行行为”，而这一做法无形地放弃了评价机能。自然的行为理论体现在它仅仅对行为的自然过程进行描述，只强调“发现犯罪的过程”，因此，犯罪构成要件同时也是行为构成要件。通过犯罪构成的排列顺序体现从客观行为到主观归责的、理性的、逻辑的定罪过程的意图，在现阶段四要件的犯罪构成体系内是不可能实现的。3、作为核心概念的犯罪构成的悖论。文章论述了以下三点：（1）犯罪构成与犯罪定义的矛盾。在犯罪定义与犯罪构成之间存在着两个犯罪成立标准的冲突。通过对各种主张进行分析论证可以知道构成要件与犯罪定义的矛盾应该通过犯罪构成的改造来解决。（2）犯罪构成与排除犯罪性行为的矛盾。坚持形式与实质统一的犯罪构成是无法给予排除犯罪性行为以合理地位的。因此，要将实质的社会危害的评价从犯罪构成中彻底分离出来，对犯罪构成仅做形式的理解。（3）犯罪构成与刑事责任的矛盾。刑事责任是我国刑法理论中最为混乱的一个概念。它的具体含义、地位、发展过程、实现方式，理论基础，归责要素等等都存在着很大争议。通过对我国刑法第二章第一节的规定进行逻辑展开，得出犯罪成立应该采取“犯罪─—刑事责任─—刑罚”的紧缩结构。这样，一些犯罪构成要件要素的位置将发生变化，评价的顺序也将发生变化。本文对我国现有的“四要件”的犯罪构成的总体评价是：解释刑法差强人意，理论矛盾重重，相对比较经济便捷，评价机能的缺失。文章的第三部分探讨了重构我国犯罪构成体系的思路。建构实质合理，形式和谐的犯罪构成体系是社会主义法治的内在要求，也是刑法学人的光荣使命。作为刑法基础理论，任何具体问题的解决都离不开对犯罪构成体系的思考。我国学者为改进我国犯罪构成理论做出了不懈努力，从不同角度提出了完善意见，为犯罪构成的研究提供了不同视角，这些观点都具有其合理内核，值得我们深思和借鉴。构建新的犯罪构成理论必须遵循以下思路：事实评价与价值评价的分离，定罪过程与诉讼过程的统一。还要力求实现对行为的评价与对行为人的评价的统一，实现积极评价与消极评价的统一。总之，犯罪构成模式的构建要有利于犯更多还原

【Abstract】 The theory of constitution of crime in China mainland is referred to the theory on judging whether committing a crime or not as the theory of the system of crime in continental law-system and the criminal element in Anglo-American law system do. The mode of constitution of crime is mainly about the elements of constitution of crime and the way in which they are combined together. A “better” mode is expected as we are studying on it.The paper can be divided into three parts: the evaluating criterion of the mode of constitution of crime, comments of our “four-element constitution of crime”, suggestion and initial idea about how to gain the better mode.The first part lays stress on the evaluating criterion of the mode of constitution of crime, which is the basic of the following discussion. The evaluating criterion of the mode of constitution of crime is related to three factors: property of constitution of crime, function of constitution of crime, value of constitution of crime.The property of constitution of crime had been a focus of discussion. Three opinions are enumerated here. The author believes that a good understanding of the doctrine of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime can help to answer this question. Through the explaining of the “essential side” of the doctrine, the author draw a conclusion that since the constitution of crime can prosthesis the deficiency of legislation, we can call it “the theory of the constitution of crime” rather than regard it as law, viz., the constitution of crime is only a tool theory.The function of constitution of crime is referred to the good effect of constitution of crime. These functions can be divided into two kinds: (1) function as a tool. Four functions are included: function of explaining, function of affiliation, function of evaluating and function of direction. (2) function as a theory. Two functions are included: function of conformity and function of arrangement.The values of constitution of crime can be divided into two kinds: (1) the value of purpose. As a tool theory, the value of purpose of constitution of crime is the same as the value of purpose of criminal law, including liberty, order, justice and utility. (2) the value of form. Viz., the “good” quality of the theory of constitution of crime, including harmony and economy.Thus, the evaluating criterion of the mode of constitution of crime should be: whether explain the law suitably or not; whether support the function of evaluation or not; whether harmonious or not; whether economical or not. And we should not equate the four criterions because the first standard is the most important one, and the latter, the less. The second part narrates the status quo of our constitution of crime. The characteristics of it are given first, and then evaluating is made over the criterion mentioned above.The most prominent property of our constitution of crime is the “unification based on social harmfulness”. The characteristics are: (1) Outer source. Our constitution of crime comes from the theory of constitution of crime of former Soviet Union, which is influenced by German classical criminal law scholars deeply. Thus our constitution of crime is in a certain way like the system of crime theory in continental law-system. The outer source also cultivates our taste of law transplant. (2) The naturalism action theory. Our research on action theory does not start until recently, so it is very plain. In the conception of crime, man is ignored. Underestimating the importance of action means giving up the function of evaluation. The natural course that the naturalism action theory embodies only lay stress on “the process of finding the guilt”, therefore the factor of constitution of crime is also the factor of action, which makes meaningless the endeavor of exchanging localities of the factors to make the system more logical and more reasonable. (3) Contradictions between constitution of crime and other conceptions. Three contradictions are indicated. The first contradiction is th更多还原