The debate between the theory of anti-value acts （Handlungsunwert） and the theory of anti-value consequences （Erfolgsunwert） is of great significance. The main defects of the former are that it focuses on crime as...The debate between the theory of anti-value acts （Handlungsunwert） and the theory of anti-value consequences （Erfolgsunwert） is of great significance. The main defects of the former are that it focuses on crime as a violation of norms, which runs counter to criminal law＇s aim of protecting legal interests; it highlights criminal law＇s function in regulating behavior, thus deviating from the essential principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime; and it gives wide acceptance to subjective elements of illegality, leading to a holistic determination of crime, thus confusing illegality with responsibility. It also blurs the distinction between attempted and unrealized offenses, and is not conducive to the application of the theory of the subordination of accomplices. Its focus on subjective legitimized elements not only fails to restrict the application of punishments, but actually expands their scope, and its adoption of rule utilitarianism leads to undue interference in citizens＇ conduct. The theory of anti-value consequences prevents undue interference and adopts the principle of liberalism, while at the same time taking as the target of its prohibitions those situations that contravene the aims of criminal law. This not only overcomes the shortcomings of the theory of anti-value conduct but also achieves general and special prevention while realizing retributive justice.展开更多
文摘The debate between the theory of anti-value acts （Handlungsunwert） and the theory of anti-value consequences （Erfolgsunwert） is of great significance. The main defects of the former are that it focuses on crime as a violation of norms, which runs counter to criminal law＇s aim of protecting legal interests; it highlights criminal law＇s function in regulating behavior, thus deviating from the essential principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime; and it gives wide acceptance to subjective elements of illegality, leading to a holistic determination of crime, thus confusing illegality with responsibility. It also blurs the distinction between attempted and unrealized offenses, and is not conducive to the application of the theory of the subordination of accomplices. Its focus on subjective legitimized elements not only fails to restrict the application of punishments, but actually expands their scope, and its adoption of rule utilitarianism leads to undue interference in citizens＇ conduct. The theory of anti-value consequences prevents undue interference and adopts the principle of liberalism, while at the same time taking as the target of its prohibitions those situations that contravene the aims of criminal law. This not only overcomes the shortcomings of the theory of anti-value conduct but also achieves general and special prevention while realizing retributive justice.
