罪刑均衡证成中比例原则对法益保护原则之补充

The Supplement of the Principle of Proportionality to the Principle of Legal Interest Protection in justification of the Balance between Crime and Punishment

“社会防卫论”的出现使“罪刑均衡论”受到极大的冲击,将此置于罗尔斯所述正义的两大原则下考察,不难发现二者关注的矛盾的存在范畴并不相同。在当代中国的综合主义刑法理论视角下,罪责刑相适应原则应运而生。表面上看,该原则使刑罚个别化与罪刑均衡得到充分协调;而事实上却忽略了罪刑均衡本身对于刑罚个别化的包容。罪责刑相适应的最终归宿依旧是罪刑相适应,割裂刑事责任的概念易造成理论上的混乱。在罪刑均衡的视阈下,法益保护原则为比例原则提供了目的正当性这一前提,后者则作为方法论为前者提供了有效的衡量路径。同时,成本收益分析法弥补了比例原则设计中对于成本的忽视,使其与法益保护原则协同完成的罪刑均衡证成之结论更为准确。

The emergence of the“social defence theory”has produced a huge impact on the theory of“balance between crime and and punishment”.Viewed from the perspective of Rawl’s two principles of justice,it seems clear that there exists a difference between the categories of contradictions posed by the two theories.The comprehensive doctrine of criminal law as practiced in China now has given rise to the principle of parity of crime,responsibility and punishment.At a surface level,this principle well coordinates individualized punishment and achieves a balance between crime and punishment,but in fact it ignores the tolerance of the balance between crime and punishment for individualized punishment.The ultimate purpose of meting out punishment according to crime and responsibility is still to realize the parity of crime and punishment.Splitting the concept of criminal responsibility is likely to cause theoretical confusion.From the perspective of balance between crime and punishment,the principle of legal interest protection provides the premise of legitimacy of purpose for the principle of proportion.The latter principle methodologically provides an effective evaluation standard for the protection of legal interest.At the same time,the cost benefit analysis method compensates for the neglect of cost in the design of the principle of proportionality,making the conclusion of the balance of crime and punishment achieved in coordination with the principle of legal interest protection more accurate.