不纯正不作为犯罪等值性问题新论——从一道司法考试题引发的理论争鸣开始

New Theory on the Equivalent Issues of Impure Omission——Beginning the theoretical dispute from one judicial exam question

女友和母亲同时落水应该先救谁?刑法对此问题的回答实际上是对不纯正不作为犯罪的等值性进行判断。不纯正不作为犯罪与作为犯罪之间的等值性判断需要经过形式和实质两个阶段。在形式判断阶段,刑法理论中的"法律规定的义务""职务上的义务""先前行为引起的义务"等形式上的义务类型是等值性判断的起点而非终点,对符合某种义务类型的不作为仍需根据具体情况做进一步实质的价值评判。如果义务主体对法益侵害因果流程的干预义务具有规范意义上的排他性,则可以肯定不作为与作为的等值性。如果多个义务主体同时存在,则每个义务主体的不作为都会因干预义务的排他性消失而失去与作为犯罪的等值性。

Girlfriend and mother fell into the water together,which should be saved firstly? In criminal law,the answer was listed in the judgment for the crime equivalence of impure omission. The equivalence between the crime of impure omission and that of crime should have two stages: forming and conducting. In judging the forms of criminal law,' legal obligation',' duty obligations' and 'previous obligations arising from acts'these obligations are equivalent to judge the starting rather than ending point,deserve the further substantive judgment on whether certain omissions need to be evaluated substantively. If the obligation of the subject has the exclusive meaning of the intervention in the cause and effect process,the equivalence of omission and action can be affirmed. If multiple subjects exist at the same time,the omission of each obligation subject will lose the equivalence of the crime,as a result of the vanishing exclusion of the obligation of intervention.