犯罪论体系的证明责任分配功能辨析

Analysis of the Function of the Crime Theory System of Allocating the Burden of Proof in the System of Crime

认为三阶层犯罪论体系中关于违法性和有责性的推定具有证明责任分配功能的观点不有合理性。从发展脉络上看,三阶层犯罪论体系推定机能的设定并不是出于证明责任分配功能的虑;从整体机能上看,三阶层犯罪论体系与英美法系国家的犯罪论体系存在着巨大差异,使其不能英美法系国家一样兼顾程序法上证明责任的分配功能。依靠犯罪论体系的推定机能来划分证明责既没有必要性也没有合理性。在明确证明责任分配的首要依据是刑事诉讼法的相关内容的前提犯罪论体系与证明责任具有如下关系:在宏观上,犯罪论体系可以划定证明责任所指向的实体法事范围;在微观上,不同性质的构成要件要素会影响证明责任中证明标准的高低,甚至在特殊情况下影响证明责任的分配。

The view that the presumption of illegality and culpability in the three-stratum crime theory system has the function of allocating the burden of proof is unreasonable. From the perspective of developing process, the presumptive function of the three-stratum crime theory system is not set for the purpose of allocating the burden of proof. From the perfective of the holistic functions, the three-stratum crime theory system is very different from the crime theory system in countries with the Anglo-American legal system, so it cannot have the function of the procedural law of allocating the burden of proof at the same time. It is also unnecessary and unreasonable to allocate the burden of proof according to the presumptive function of the crime theory system. It should be clarified as a prerequisite that the primary basis for allocating the burden of proof is the relevant provisions in the criminal procedure law, under which the crime theory system and the burden of proof are related as follows： at the macro level, the crime theory system can delimit the scope of the facts of the substantive law related to the burden of proof; at the micro level,facts of crime constituents with different nature will affect the level of proof in the burden of proof, and even under special circumstances will affect the allocation of burden of proof.