最低刑龄制度应对未成年人犯罪的困境与出路——由“邯郸13岁男孩被害案”引发的思考

The minimum age of criminal responsibility:Dilemmas and solutions in addressing juvenile delinquency

2024年3月10日河北省邯郸市发生一起3名未满14周岁的未成年人故意杀人案件,引发了社会各界的广泛关注和强烈反响。舆论焦点从传统的“未龄不责”,逐渐转向了“低龄轻责”和“未龄免死”等问题。对舆论意见体现出的在最低刑龄制度应对未成年人犯罪时存在的价值冲突,需要在理论层面进行深入探讨,也需要考虑我国特有的历史文化传统。在理论层面,首先,刑事责任年龄的设定是一种对身份的法律拟制,必然引发同一性和差异性的矛盾;其次,公众对于“未龄轻责”和“未龄免死”的不满,很大程度上源于报应心理。然而,报应主义与未成年人特殊保护原则之间存在着天然的矛盾。此外,网络舆论导向的修法可能会引发刑法谦抑性危机。如何通过制度设计来维持刑罚量配置的均衡,以保证刑法的谦抑性,即是刑事责任年龄制度所面临的难题。在我国历史上,“恤幼”思想源远流长,影响着我国古代的立法,即使在重刑时代,其也优先于报应主义的思想。在制度设计上,从汉代开始,我国古代传统法中对刑事责任年龄的规定就体现出了相对弹性的模式,这种立法模式能够在一定程度上弥补法律拟制的缺陷。此外,自唐代起开始适用的“列举罪名+划定法定刑”罪行分级模式具有体系化和精确化的优势,也能够为最低刑龄制度的完善方向提供参考。从实践层面看,构建最低刑龄制度的路径可以从以下几个方面展开:第一,需要从过于刚性的“唯年龄论”转变为更加相对弹性的立法模式,以弥补法律拟制所导致的立法空缺。第二,现在立法中存在对相似案件处罚不均衡的情况,对此,应当缩小因年龄差异而导致的处罚差距,尽可能确保罪罚均衡。同时,还应当坚定对未成年人特殊保护的立场,放宽对未成年人减刑的限制,进一步完善专门矫治教育制度,与刑法形成良好的衔接。第三,采用系统化的罪行分级方式,以法定最高刑为罪行分级的界限标准,建立更为严密的法网,防止处罚范围的过度扩张。

On March 10,2024,a case of intentional homicide involving three minors under the age of 14 occurred in Handan City,which sparked widespread public concern and strong reactions.The focus of public discontent shifted from“no penalty for minors”to“lenient penalty for minors”and“no death penalty for minors”.Public opinion has revealed the value conflicts inherent in the minimum age of criminal responsibility when addressing youth delinquency,demanding profound scholarly examination and an account of China’s distinctive historical and cultural heritage.Theoretically,the establishment of a criminal responsibility age is a legal fiction that necessarily results in the contradiction between identity and difference.Public dissatisfaction with“lenient penalty for minors”and“no death penalty for minors”largely stems from the yearning for retribution.However,retributive justice is fundamentally at odds with the principle of special protection for minors.Furthermore,the inclination of public sentiment towards amending the law may violate the modesty principle of criminal law.The system’s challenge is to maintain a balanced allocation of punishment quantity to guarantee the modesty principle of criminal law.Throughout Chinese history,the ethos of“caring for the young”has deep historical roots and has influenced ancient Chinese legislation.In terms of institutional design,since the Han Dynasty,the Chinese legal tradition has displayed a relatively flexible approach to determining the criminal responsibility age,which,to some extent,mitigates the shortcomings of legal fiction.Moreover,since the Tang Dynasty,China has adopted the mode of“listing crimes+defining statutory penalties”,which has the advantages of systematization and precision and can provide insights for future improvements to China’s minimum criminal age system.In terms of practice,the construction of the minimum criminal age system can be advanced along the following pathways:First,it is imperative to shift from an overly rigid“age-only”criterion to a more flexible legislative model.Second,current legislation exhibits unequal punishment for similar cases,the punishment disparity due to age differences should be minimized as much as practicable to ensure proportionality.Simultaneously,it is vital to firmly establish the stance of special protection for minors,relax constraints on juvenile probation,and further refine the specialized correctional education system to align seamlessly with criminal law.Third,a systematic approach to crime classification should be embraced,using the maximum statutory sentence as a criterion for such classification.This would create a more robust legal framework and guard against an unwarranted broadening of the scope of punishment.