不作为因果关系判断中的自由意志与规范假设

Free Will and Normative Presumption in the Determination of Causality in Omission Offense

通说认为,不作为因果关系的判断同样适用条件公式,但条件公式的适用实际以行为与结果间合法则性关联的查明为前提。在介入自由意志决定的场合,由于做出该决定的主体并不受到其他主体合法则性的支配,因而无法确定行为人履行作为义务就会避免损害结果的发生。对于条件公式遭遇的这一困境,无论是刑事政策进路还是概率提升进路的风险升高理论都无法予以消解。应当承认心理因果关系作为新的非法则性的因果关系类型,将自由意志介入下的不作为因果关系的判断纳入到不作为心理因果关系的思考范畴当中。对不作为心理因果关系的判断,应当采用规范论的思维,将其区分为第三人介入和被害人介入两种情形。对于前者,应当假设负有义务的第三人会合乎规范地行事,在此基础上来判断行为人的不作为与损害结果之间是否存在条件关系。对于后者,应当考察行为人怠于提供正确信息的不作为是否剥夺了被害人基于自由意志做出自我救助决定的机会。

The prevailing opinion holds that the but-for formula is also applicable to the determination of causality in omission offense,however,the its application is actually based on the identification of the rule-complied relation between the behavior and the result.In the situation where a decision of free will is involved as an intervening event,because the decision-making subject is not subject to the rule-complied domination by other subjects,it is impossible to determine that the harmful consequence will be avoided if the actor performs the obligation to carry out the positive act.Regarding the predicament encountered by the but-for formula,the theory of increased risk based on either the criminal policy approach or the probability increase approach is not able to provide solution.It is necessary to recognize psychological causality as a new type of causality beyond rule compliance,and include the determination of causality in omission offence under the intervention of free will into the thinking scope of psychological causality in omission offence.Regarding the determination of psychological causality in omission offence,it is necessary to adopt normative-theory thinking to divide it into two situations:intervention by a third party and intervention by the victim.For the former,it is necessary to assume that the obligated third party will act in compliance with norms,and on this basis,determine whether there is a but-for relationship between the perpetrator’s omission and the harmful result.For the latter,it is necessary to examine whether the perpetrator’s omission in providing correct information deprives the victim of the opportunity to make a self-help decision based on free will.