期刊文献+

英美刑法中权利限定性原则

The Principle of Conditionality Rights in Anglo—American Criminal Law
下载PDF
导出
摘要 英美刑法传统上不考虑被害人行为对犯罪所产生的影响。越来越多的学者认识到,刑事责任取决于加害—被害的互动过程中责任。当被害人以自己的行为而放弃法律所保护的权利时,那么行为人的刑事责任就应在此限度内相应的予以减轻,这就是英美刑法中的权利限定性原则。被害人权利的减少可以是自愿的也可以是非自愿的。目前该原则主要在被害人同意、正当防卫以及挑衅行为中适用。权利限定性原则既考查了行为人的不法行为,也考虑了被害人的行为,是对犯罪事实中的刑事责任的全面反映。因此,应当在刑法理论中建立一套完整的体系,使其得到广泛的适用,而不仅仅是适用于个案。 The traditional doctrine that that "Don't Blame the Victim"is followed in Anglo--American criminal law.Now, it has been recognized that the criminal liability may be properly evaluated only in the context of the victim-perpetrator interaction. By the principle of conditionality rights, a person may reduce some rights due to his own actions. The reduction of rights can be divided into two type, i.e. ,voluntary and involuntary. The principle can be applied to the circumstances, such as by the victims consent, self-defense and provocation. The conditionality of rights principle provides both the methodology and specific answers to the question of how the victims's conduct may reduce the perpetrator's criminal liability.Not thinking about an uncomfortable issue is not an option, however, if we are to build the principle of conditionality rights into the structure of criminal law.
作者 张瑛
机构地区 山东大学法学院
出处 《广西政法管理干部学院学报》 2013年第4期118-122,共5页 Journal of Guangxi Administrative Cadre Institute of Politics and Law
关键词 权利限定性原则 自愿的权利减少 非自愿 的权利减少 the principle of conditionality of rights voluntary reduction of rights involuntary reduction of rights
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

  • 1[德]汉斯·施耐德.国际范围内的被害人[M].许章润等译,北京:中国人民公安大学出版社1992年版,第23页.
  • 2Joel Feinberg, Voluntary Euthanasia and the Inalienable Right to life, 7 Phil. & Pub. Aft. ,99-100(1978).
  • 3Vera Bergelson, Victims Rights and Perpetrators : An Argument for Comparative Liability in Criminal Law, Rutgers Law School FacultyPaper, No. 19,2005, p.62.
  • 4Stephen Schafer The Victim and His Criminal : A Study in Function Responsibility,Random House, 1968, pp. 42--43.
  • 5DouglasHusak, Comparative Fault inCriminal Law: Conceptual and Normative Perplexities, 8 Buff. Crim. L. Rev. 535(2005).
  • 6e.g., Regina v. Prince ,2L.R-C.C.R 154.

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部