过失犯中预见可能性理论的反思与重构

Rethinking and Reconstructing the Theory of Foreseeability in Negligent Crimes

当前我国通行的以结果的具体预见可能性为中心的过失犯理论,是按故意犯的模式来理解过失犯的产物。过失犯在归责类型上区别于故意犯,二者的归责结构存在重大差异。以故意与故意犯为模板理解过失与过失犯的构造,在体系逻辑上存在缺陷。以预见可能性为重心的归责机制违反以管辖思想为基础的归责原理,它无法有效回应风险社会对刑法归责的功能期待。过失犯的归责结构有必要实现两大转变:从主观归责为重心到客观归责为重心;从结果本位到行为本位。在过失犯的构造中,预见可能性因素应定位于行为归责环节;预见的内容仅限于行为的注意义务违反性及行为所蕴含的不容许风险;在判断能否预见时,需要采取立足于行为时的相对具体化的一般人标准。

The mainstream opinion in the field of negligent crime in China focuses on the foreseeability of a concrete result,and it is the product of under standing negligent crime according to the model of intentional crime.Negligent crime is distinguished fromintentional crime in the type of imputation,and thusthereisagreatdifferenceintheirimputationconstruction.Tounderstandthecontentofnegligence and the construction of negligent crime,in the light of intention and intentional crime,must be faced with a dogmatically systematic flaw.The imputation mechanism,focusing on the factor of foreseeability,runs counter to the principles of imputation on the basis of the thoughts of creating-risk,and it cannot meet the need of functional expectation for imputation in a risk society.The imputation structure of negligent crime needs to achieve a shift in two aspects,including from subjective-centered imputation to objective centered imputation and fromresult-orientation to conduct-orientation.In the systematic construction of negligent crime,the factor of foreseeability should play a role in the stage of conduct imputation;its content is only limited to theviolation of duty and the prohibited risk inherent in a conduct;in determining whether the actor can foresee them,people should adopt the relatively concretizing standard of a reasonable person at the moment of conduct