法定犯理论的发展

Research on the Justifiability of Criminalizing Malum Prohibitum --From the Perspective of Comparison between Malum in Se and Malum Prohibitum

引入犯罪学的分析框架，对自然犯与法定犯两组样本进行比较研究和实证检验，研究法定犯入刑正当性问题，结果发现，在是否偷窃犯罪、欺骗犯罪、定量构成方面，法定犯与自然犯之间未见显著差异，在是否暴力犯罪、私权犯罪、身份滥用方面，法定犯与自然犯之间的确差异显著。否认或夸大两者的差异，都没有事实依据。据此可以提出，法定犯是自然犯的衍生形式，并由此导出法定犯在立法上的正当性排除和司法上的出罪解释机制。

By introducing an analytical framework of criminology to explore the justifiability of criminal- izing Malum Prohibitum based on a comparative and empirical research into samples of Malum in Se and Malum Prohibitum crimes, it is found that though similar in involvement of theft or deception and quantita- tive composition, Malum in Se and Malum Prohibitum are significantly different in terms of violent crimes, crimes against private rights and abuse of identity. There is no factual basis for denying or exaggerating the distinction between them. Thus, it can be concluded that Malum Prohibitum crimes are derivative forms of Malum in Se crimes. Based on this conclusion, the mechanism excluding the justifiability of criminalizing Malum Prohibitum in legislation and the interpretation mechanism for non-conviction are established.