被害人自杀之介入对刑法因果关系认定的影响——基于168份裁判文书的分析

The Influence of the Intervention of Victim Suicide on the Determination of Criminal Causality——A Case Study of 168 Judgment Documents

针对介入被害人自杀行为的案件,我国司法实务采取了不同的因果关系认定标准,包括偶然/必然因果关系说、间接/直接原因说、条件说、重要说及相当因果关系说等。但是,上述理论学说都存在难以修正的缺陷,不仅未能提供明确具体的判断标准,而且未能类型化地把握介入因素的性质,还使裁判者承载着一次性完成归因与归责的思想重担。相较而言,客观归属理论消除了上述因果关系理论的弊端,较为合理。客观归属理论对介入被害人自杀行为的案件进行了三个步骤的考量,即以条件说为基础,以危险增加作为危险创设的判断标准,以规范保护目的作为危险实现的认定尺度。同时,在危险实现中,该理论认为应首先判断行为人的行为是否蕴含致人死亡的危险。若蕴含,则由行为人承担责任;若不蕴含,则要引入被害人自我答责理论。若符合被害人自我答责的成立要件,则由被害人自我答责;若不符合,则要依据具体情况判断责任归属。具体而言,若被害人不具有自我决定能力,则由负有监护义务的第三人承担责任;若被害人不具有结果避免可能性,则仍由行为人承担刑事责任。

For cases involving victims' suicide, different criteria of determining causality have been adopted in judicial practice, including accidental/inevitable causation theory, indirect/direct cause theory, conditional theory, importance theory, and adequate causality theory. However, the criteria above have uncorrectable defects. They not only fail to provide clear and specific criteria for determining causality, but also fail to categorize the nature of intervening factors. In addition, they put burdens on judges' shoulders to complete ascription and attribution at one time. In contrast, the objective imputation theory eliminates the disadvantages of the above theories and is thus more reasonable. The objective imputation theory takes three steps to consider cases involving victim suicides, that is, with conditional theory as basis, with risk increase as the judgment criterion of risk creation, and with the purpose of normative protection as the accreditation criterion of risk realization. Meanwhile, in risk realization, the theory holds that it is necessary to judge whether the doer's behavior contains the risk of causing death. If so, the doer shall bear the responsibility;if not, the victim self-responsibility theory should be introduced. If it meets establishment requirements of the victim's self-responsibility, the victim shall bear the self-responsibility;if not, it is necessary to judge the attribution of responsibility according to specific situations. In this regard, if the victim does not have the ability of self-determination, the third party with the duty of guardianship shall bear the responsibility;if the victim does not have the possibility to avoid outcome, the doer shall still bear criminal responsibility.