介入因素的判断与因果关系的本质——从考察因果关系理论的流变切入

The Judgement of Intervening Causes and The Essence of Causality——From the Perspective of the Development of the Causality Theory

在处理介入因素问题时,传统的相当因果关系说存在内在矛盾,因果流程的异常性并没有起到独立的作用;危险的现实化说和客观归责理论均着眼于行为对结果发生的作用力大小,异常性仅是一个附属要素。因果关系理论核心关键在于"作用力大小"。刑法学的一切问题在于实现报应的相当性与预防的合理性,因果关系也不例外,在考虑介入因素是否影响归责时应当以此为方向标。相对而言,故意犯的归责更加注重报应的相当性,根据刑罚的轻重对作用力大小提出不同要求,并以此来决定归责与否;过失犯的归责更加侧重预防的合理性,根据防控风险的需要而调节注意义务的分配,进而判断是否归责。此外还需要注意正犯和共犯的区分。

Traditional theory of equivalent causality have inherent contradiction when solving in-tervening causes, and the rule of abnormality doesn’t act as an independent role. The theory of dan-ger realization and the theory of objective imputation both focus on behaviors contribution for the re-sult which is actually the essence of all causality theory, making the rule of abnormality subordinate. The justification for punishment is the legitimacy of retribution and the rationality of the purpose of crime prevention ; accordingly, the judgement of intervening causes should be guided by the justifica-tion for punishment. Intentional offences focus more on the legitimacy of retribution, and the judge-ment of intentional causality can be adjusted with the penalty. In contrast, negligent offences focus more on the purpose of crime prevention, the judgement for negligent causality is based more on the purpose. In addition, the difference between the principal and the accomplice should be noticed.