论文部分内容阅读
溯责禁止理论起因于对因果关系范围之限制,即他人自由答责的故意行为切断了前行为的因果链,过失前行为人因此被禁止溯责。随着二战后归责理论的兴起,该理论变身为对答责性的限制而得以继续发展。尤其是在现代客观归责理论中,社会相当性、信赖原则、被允许的危险、规范保护目的等均为溯责禁止提供了一定的理论支持。迪尔(Diel)提出的作为一般性构成要件界限的溯责禁止和雅各布斯(Jakobs)教授提出的作为一般性答责排除事由的溯责禁止,则指出了该理论发展的最新方向。在共犯论领域,溯责禁止也为正犯与共犯之区分、教唆犯与间接正犯的界限乃至“正犯后正犯”是否有存在意义等提供了富有启发意义的解答。溯责禁止不仅在教义学上与自我答责原则关系密切,而且对越来越倾向于风险刑法的刑事政策提出了质疑。
Probability theory stems from the scope of the causal relationship between restrictions that others deliberately act freely to cut off the causal chain of pre-acts, prejudice is therefore prohibited from being traced. With the rise of the theory of attribution since the Second World War, the theory turned itself into a constraint on accountability and continued to evolve. Especially in modern objective imputation theory, social equivalence, principle of trust, permissible danger, normative protection, etc. provide some theoretical support for the prohibition of tracing responsibility. Diel’s imposition of a prohibition on imprisonment as a general constitutional element and a denial of blame imposed by Professor Jakobs as a general exclusion of cause point to the latest directions in the development of the theory. In the area of a total offense, prohibition of abstention provides inspirational solutions for the distinction between principal offender and accomplice, the boundary between abettor and indirect principal and even the existence of a “guilty conscience”. Prohibition of liability blame is not only closely related to the doctrine of self-responsibility in doctrine, but also questioned the criminal policy that is more and more prone to risk criminal law.