犯罪论体系的评价标准

The Criteria of Crime Theory Systems

犯罪论体系之争尽管表面上趋于缓和,但实际上并未取得学理共识。犯罪论体系的评价标准对于学术论争的有效进行具有关键意义。论争双方均承认犯罪论体系的评价标准应从逻辑性、实用性两个方面展开,但对逻辑性、实用性的理解则各有侧重。本文主张犯罪论体系的逻辑性对于实用性应当具有排他的支配关系。通过典型案例和典型学术争论的辨析,可以清晰地展现三阶层体系的位阶关系在实践中能够被遵守,而四要件理论的要件顺序在实践中未必被遵守。这一标准并非区分犯罪论体系正确与错误的标准,但却能够鉴别何者更优。并非不符合该标准的四要件理论无法在具体案件处理上得出与三阶层体系同样的结论,而是其逻辑性的不同解释无法确保实践中按照同样逻辑对之加以运用,因而无法像三阶层体系那样在正确地运用时总能按照同样的思维路径展开分析而得出同样结论。正确地适用阶层体系进行案件分析更有利于实现法的安定性,更方便做到相似案件相似处理。只有充分认识二者的差异,才能在科学的基础上探寻两种犯罪论体系的融合之道。

Although the debate between the three-tiered crime theory system,which comes from Germany and Japan,and the four-element crime theory system,which originated in the former Soviet Union,may seem to be easing on the surface,there has actually been no academic consensus.The criteria for the evaluation of crime theory systems are of crucial importance for the effective conduction of this academic debate.Both sides of the debate acknowledge that the evaluation criteria for crime theory systems should be based on two aspects:logicality and practicality,but their understandings of logicality and practicality vary or have different emphases,causing both of them to fall into a dialogue dilemma where effective communication is not possible.This article attempts to go beyond this limitation,highlighting logicality and practicality as the core criteria for evaluating criminal theory systems,while extending the study to the relationship between logicality and practicality and arguing that the logicality of a criminal theory system should have an exclusive dominant relationship with its practicality.This article first clarifies the limited consensus,fundamental differences,and the nature of and reasons for the differences between the two parties to the debate regarding the evaluation criteria for crime theory systems.It not only explores the legal basis for the comparability of the two crime theory systems but also highlights the core position of logicality and practicality as the evaluation criteria of crime theory systems,pointing out that we can break the deadlock and opposition only by proposing consensus evaluation criteria that are acceptable to both parties to the debate.Next,this article proposes that the core criteria for evaluating a criminal theory system should be expanded to include an exclusive relationship between its logic and its practicality.Based on this standard,this article examines the three-tiered system and the four-elements theory separately and finds that the former meets this standard,while the latter does not.It is not that the four-element theory,which does not meet this standard,cannot reach the same conclusion as the three-tiered system in specific case handling,but that its different interpretations of logic cannot ensure that it is applied in practice according to the same logic,and therefore cannot always follow the same thinking path to analyze and draw the same conclusion when correctly applied like the three-tiered system.Finally,this article applies the expanded evaluation criteria of crime theory systems to specific cases and typical academic debates with widespread influence,specifically analyzing and demonstrating how the four-element theory and the three-tiered system differ in case handling and how using the three-tiered system to analyze cases can lead to more certainty in case handling results.Correct application of the hierarchical system for case analysis is more conducive to achieving legal stability and makes it easier to handle similar cases similarly.Only by fully understanding the differences between the two criminal theory systems can we explore their integration on a scientific basis.