犯罪论体系的维度

Dimensionality of Crime Constitution Theory

犯罪论的事实判断是对外界客观行为的实然认识,价值评价是主体对客观事实的应然判断,两者应当是协调统一的。行为入罪具有客观规律性。犯罪论的事实判断包括客观事实判断与主观事实判断,具有普遍性与特殊性、恒定性与可变性。犯罪论的价值评价包括客观价值评价、主观价值评价和混合价值评价。行为入罪在价值评价上需要遵循目的有效性、手段有效性、司法有效性、效益均衡性和后果均衡性原则。大陆法系国家的犯罪论体系缺乏实质的混合价值评价要素;我国平面的犯罪论体系缺乏形式的混合价值评价要素。重构论不可行的理由是:作为其哲理根据的事实与价值二元论早已崩溃,作为其立论基础的德日阶层犯罪论体系在评判次序上并非先事实后价值。

In crime constitution theory, fact judgment means immediate cognition of objective behaviors while value assessment refers to consequential subjective decision of objective facts, and they should be consistent with each other. Fact judgment is composed of objective and subjective judgments of fact, characterized by mixture of generality with specialty, and persistency with inconsistency. In comparison, value assessment consists of objective, subjective and mixed value assessments. To incriminate an act, the judge normally exerts discretion in an objective pattern, showing that value assessment accords with the principle of efficiency of purpose, measures and justice, and balance of benefits and consequence. As no substantial elements exist in common law countries＇ regime of crime constitution theory, in China, no forms of mixed value assessment can be found either. The reason why the theory of reconstruction is unjustified lies in the collapse of its underlying logic dualism of fact and value, and the fact that in German and Japanese crime constitution theory, while judging the fact and value, no priority is arranged.