“偶然防卫”性质重述——以美国刑法相关论争为重点的考察与思索

Restatement of the Nature of “Unknowingly Justified Circumstance”——An Investigation Focusing on American Related Controversy and Thinking

＂偶然防卫＂的性质,主要有正当防卫、不能犯、犯罪未遂、犯罪既遂之争。考察美国刑法＂偶然防卫＂定性论争,抽象美、日刑法相关思路的共性,发现,＂偶然防卫＂是否成立正当防卫,不纯粹是防卫意思的问题,且关乎正当防卫客观方面与刑法中＂危害＂的理解。故而,首先,＂偶然防卫＂不成立正当防卫,因其缺乏必要的防卫意识,且客观上缺少防卫与不法侵害的冲突、防御关系。其次,＂偶然防卫＂并非不能犯、犯罪未遂,因其事实上产生了危害,亦无法与不法侵害地关联评价为规范上的无危害。应单独评价＂偶然防卫＂,因其客观不法,且＂偶然防卫＂人主观有责,在产生结果的场合,构成犯罪既遂。如此说来,＂偶然防卫＂无关＂防卫＂概念,仅是一个理想类型。

The nature of ＂unknowingly justified circumstance＂mainly disputing over justification, impossible attempt, attempt, completed.Investigate disputing of nature of ＂ unknowingly justified circumstance ＂in American Criminal law,abstract the common features of related ideal of American and Japanese, we find that whether ＂ unknowingly justified circumstance＂ is a justification does not purely involving defensive meaning,but also relating to the understanding of harm and aspects of objective of justification. Therefore, first of all,＂ unknowingly justified circumstance＂ does not establish a justification, because of the lack of necessary defensive meaning and lack of conflict and defensive relationship between defense and unlawful attack. Second,＂unknowingly justified circumstance＂ is not impossible attempt or attempt, because of its harm in fact,and that harm can not evaluate associating with the unlawful attack.＂Unknowingly justified circumstance＂ should be evaluate separately, for its objective lawlessness, and the actor is to blame, it constitute a completed crime. That said, ＂unknowingly justified circumstance＂ has nothing to do with concept of ＂defense＂,is only an ideal type.