犯罪故意“要素分析”模式的澄清与适用——兼论陪审员对行为规范属性的平行评价

Clarification and Application of the “Element Analysis” of the Criminal Intent: On Jurors’ Parallel Evaluation of the Attributes of Behavior Norms

适用要素分析模式,解决风险社会刑事立法的行为本位思想与我国传统故意理论的结果本位导向之间的矛盾,不仅具备相较于其他故意理论构型的比较优势,更加契合我国人民陪审员制度改革的话语背景。但目前国内学界围绕要素分析模式的研究存在诸多误读,亟待澄清。应当借鉴要素分析模式的实质内核,将我国刑法总则与分则中的两类故意分别指代为一般故意和特别故意。应当将一般故意解构为对行为的认识与对抽象结果的意志。应当将特别故意解构为对实质要素的正向犯意认定和对于随附情状的负向犯意认定。应当坚持由人民陪审员对实质要素中的规范要素进行评价,坚持对于随附情状进行认识可能性的事后客观判断。

Applying element analysis to solve the contradiction between the behaviors orientated thought of criminal legislation in the so called risk society and the result orientated of traditional intentional theory in China not only has comparative advantages over other intentional theoretical configurations, but also fits the discourse background of the reform of the people’s jury system in China. However, there are many misunderstandings in the research of element analysis in domestic academic circles, which need to be clarified urgently. We should refer to the essence of element analysis and refer to general intent and special intent respectively in the general and sub-provisions of criminal law. The general intent should be interpreted as the understanding of behavior and the will to abstract results. Special intent should be interpreted as positive identification of substantive elements and negative identification of incidental circumstances. We should insist that the people’s jurors evaluate the normative elements in the essential elements and make objective judgment after the fact about the possibility of understanding the attached circumstances.